Support NeoGAF

[BigDug13]

20 years. Look at how broadband became widely available in 10 years. Like I said, Google, Apple, and Microsoft are looking out long term for how to be in your everyday life in work and play. It's going to be all about devices and online services.

When Comcast and TimeWarner continue to lose customers they'll adjust if they want to survive long term.

20 years is in 4 generations, not 2. There won't be an elimination of physical consoles and physical games for a really long time. Yeah maybe in 20 years, but that's like after Playstation 7.

You can still buy most PC retail games as a physical copy because even PC game companies realize that not everyone has the internet available to download 20GB games via STEAM.

We have to get to a place where digital downloaded game sales reach a point where companies can safely ditch physical without leaving money on the table by alienating consumers. Then we have to reach a point where streaming is so widely available for gaming that locally stored digitally downloaded copies of games are no longer needed without leaving money on the table by alienating consumers. I will be a very old man by the time that happens because honestly, there's going to be money on the table for companies to keep going physical for many, many more years.

This idea that PS Now type services are going to REPLACE standard gaming is way premature, even predicting 2 gens away. Gamers will want to be able to game anywhere like they can now with STEAM. Even going offline for months at a time if they need to like I did for the past 20 years everytime my ship deployed and was still able to game.

 

[SwiftDeath]

20 years. Look at how broadband became widely available in 10 years. Like I said, Google, Apple, and Microsoft are looking out long term for how to be in your everyday life in work and play. It's going to be all about devices and online services.

When Comcast and TimeWarner continue to lose customers they'll adjust if they want to survive long term.

While I don't actually think Google Fiber is going to be the answer going forward considering how google operates I do think a solution of that type is going to win out.

The problem I foresee going forward is the incredible resistance that we see from traditional ISP's only increasing. You use the rollout of broadband as an example of a quick transition but fail to recognize the money traditional ISP's saw in it. It gave them a reason to charge considerably more for their internet offerings then they were previously because it allowed for a much more compelling product to the consumer. Broadband internet offers a much better experience for almost everyone who uses it.

The difficulty with rolling something out like google fiber from a traditional ISP's point of view is what's the upside? The average consumer isn't going to pay double for double the speed/caps. Never going to happen. Traditional ISP's like their margins where they sit currently and you can be damn sure they will do everything they can to halt higher speeds at similar prices.

It's sad but while I agree that fiberlike speeds will be common in most metro areas within 20 years it's going to be after fighting tooth and nail for it against the traditional ISP's. It's not going to be an easy transition like with broadband

 

[Biker19]

On the OT side they're discussing how Netflix's 4k resolution is going to chew through peoples' data caps. Telcoms seem to be willing to fight tooth and nail to prevent services like PS Now from taking off by getting rid of net neutrality and imposing heavy fees on heavy internet users.

So none of what you're saying about physical consoles going away within 2 generations seems to be happening. If suddenly all physical consoles go away, PC gaming suddenly will see an incredible spike in users because people simply don't want to rely on a stable and fast internet connection with lag in order to control their games, nor do they want to reach their data caps by simply playing a game.

Exactly. I might as well go retro or turn towards PC gaming if consoles ever goes DD only.

PC does DD a lot better than on consoles, anyways, & you have a lot of freedom to do whatever you want, unlike on consoles where you're under the mercy of the 1st party publishers. What would be the point of buying a DD only console then?

 

[Salex_]

What I got from Sony domination was a console capable of playing all PS1, PS2, and PS3 games. A $600 blu-ray player when blu-ray players were $1000. The only console with HDMI output. The only console capable of lossless sound and DTS sound in games. The only HD console with wifi capability. They provided 3x the HDD space of their main competitor. They provided the capability to upgrade the HDD to whatever size you wanted within the physical dimension limitations.

What I got cost Sony $850 BOM to build and they only charged $600 for it.

Yes, their PR was arrogant and they glossed over omissions like rumble by claiming it was a "last gen feature" and told people to get a second job to afford the system. (If I built something for $850 and tried to sell it for $600 and everyone told me it was still too expensive, I'd probably get upset too)

But the console itself outside of the blunder that was Cell, was a beast of value. And I didn't even buy the PS3 to game. I bought it ONLY for blu-ray and it was an incredible value. 360 was my gaming console of choice last gen.

Excellent post. I think a lot of people forget about everything you said when they use the ps2>ps3 transition as a reason for why near sales parity is needed.

 

[Biker19]

Excellent post. I think a lot of people forget about everything you said when they use the ps2>ps3 transition as a reason for why near sales parity is needed.

I can bring up that post that Y2Kev wrote about sales parity.

Link.

 

[Sydle]

While I don't actually think Google Fiber is going to be the answer going forward considering how google operates I do think a solution of that type is going to win out.

The problem I foresee going forward is the incredible resistance that we see from traditional ISP's only increasing. You use the rollout of broadband as an example of a quick transition but fail to recognize the money traditional ISP's saw in it. It gave them a reason to charge considerably more for their internet offerings then they were previously because it allowed for a much more compelling product to the consumer. Broadband internet offers a much better experience for almost everyone who uses it.

The difficulty with rolling something out like google fiber from a traditional ISP's point of view is what's the upside? The average consumer isn't going to pay double for double the speed/caps. Never going to happen. Traditional ISP's like their margins where they sit currently and you can be damn sure they will do everything they can to halt higher speeds at similar prices.

It's sad but while I agree that fiberlike speeds will be common in most metro areas within 20 years it's going to be after fighting tooth and nail for it against the traditional ISP's. It's not going to be an easy transition like with broadband

This is Google we're talking about. The technology company that bankrolls nearly everything it does thanks to its enormous revenue from advertising.

They won't come in charging you double the cost of your current ISP service. They'll change the model to be about taking cuts out of content monetization and advertising, or something of that nature. It absolutely won't be just the traditional ISP provider's approach, because Google has a lot more to gain by hooking you into their cloud, services, digital store fronts, and devices.

Try to resist all they want, traditional ISPs will have no choice but to evolve.

 

[SwiftDeath]

This is Google we're talking about. The technology company that bankrolls nearly everything it does thank to its enormous revenue from advertising.

They won't come in charging you double the cost of your current ISP service. They'll change the model to be about taking cuts out of content monetization and advertising. It absolutely won't be the traditional ISP provider's approach, because Google has a lot more to gain by hooking you into their cloud, services, digital store fronts, and devices.

Try to resist all they want, traditional ISPs will have no choice but to evolve.

This is why I said

While I don't actually think Google Fiber is going to be the answer going forward considering how google operates I do think a solution of that type is going to win out.

I don't see Google staying in the ISP business personally. They might but it seems another one of their visions where they dream big ideas but fail to have the business acumen to make a profitable venture.

Their buyout and resell of Motorola is a perfect example of that. With the money they spent to acquire it there is no way in hell they wanted to turn it around so quickly for billions less than they bought it for. It was a mistake due in part to their belief they could run a hardware company.

Google has commented last year that fiber is not just a testbed to them but I wonder how long it will last. I think Amazon as an ISP would make far more sense considering their dominance with server solutions and the needs to deliver such solutions to customers.

We'll see though whether Google can win out or not. It depends on their will to continue with it and their ability to buy/rent enough of the infrastructure to make a significant impact

 

[Sydle]

This is why I said



I don't see Google staying in the ISP business personally. They might but it seems another one of their visions where they dream big ideas but fail to have the business acumen to make a profitable venture.

Their buyout and resell of Motorola is a perfect example of that. With the money they spent to acquire it there is no way in hell they wanted to turn it around so quickly for billions less than they bought it for. It was a mistake due in part to their belief they could run a hardware company.

Google has commented last year that fiber is not just a testbed to them but I wonder how long it will last. I think Amazon as an ISP would make far more sense considering their dominance with server solutions and the needs to deliver such solutions to customers.

We'll see though whether Google can win out or not. It depends on their will to continue with it and their ability to buy/rent enough of the infrastructure to make a significant impact

I agree with you that Google may not be the answer long term, but they're likely to keep at it for just long enough to see if it extends their advertising model for the better, and the infrastructure will be there for someone to buy or rent as you suggest. In that time we'll see other competitors emerge. Whatever the scenario, the outcome of getting faster internet and the ISPs having to evolve is the same. Question of when, not if.

 

[Zaph]

I don't see Google staying in the ISP business personally. They might but it seems another one of their visions where they dream big ideas but fail to have the business acumen to make a profitable venture.

Google has all but stated they've got no interest in the ISP business - they just launched Fiber as a catalyst to encourage growth, advancement and competition in the industry (the faster/more reliable people's connections are, the more valuable they are as customers).

Ironically, it actually backfired slightly. In the recent Comcast Time Warner buyout filings, they actually called out Google Fiber as a competitor to prove the marketplace is healthy. Pretty hilarious.

 

[SwiftDeath]

I agree with you that Google may not be the answer long term, but they're likely to keep at it for just long enough to see if it extends their advertising model for the better, and the infrastructure will be there for someone to buy or rent as you suggest. In that time we'll see other competitors emerge. Whatever the scenario, the outcome of getting faster internet and the ISPs having to evolve is the same. Question of when, not if.

Most certainly this is the case. I would actually like google to be successful in this venture as they seem incredibly consumer-friendly with their pricing solutions just have doubts about their potential long-term. It's good to see Verizon get in the game with Fios even though they suck at rolling it out. Hell at this point I think they are purposely trying not to roll it out with some of the stories of people trying to get it in qualifying areas.

Google has all but stated they've got no interest in the ISP business - they just launched Fiber as a catalyst to encourage growth, advancement and competition in the industry (the faster/more reliable people's connections are, the more valuable they are as customers).

Ironically, it actually backfired slightly. In the recent Comcast Time Warner buyout filings, they actually called out Google Fiber as a competitor to prove the marketplace is healthy. Pretty hilarious.

That would make far more sense to me. That comcast time warner nonsense saddens me albeit it is highly ironic. I so wish the US had better ISP offerings sigh

 

[Melchiah]

The PS2 came out in 2000 for North America (1999 Japan), the XBox came out in 2001, the Dreamcast in 1999 for North America (1998 Japan), the Gamecube in 2001. So by your calculations a year makes everything irrelevant? If that's the case the PS3 shouldn't count last generation.

By the time the Xbox & GC were out the PS2 had +20 million userbase, at that point any technical superiority of the rival platforms was a moot point.

Source: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/PlayStation_2

Actually it does seem to be the case because you went from the XBox brand losing money every year. To losing money from when the XBox started to 2007 plus the R&D of the XBox One. To now just saying they are still in the red. You're all over the map son when what would be easy is a clear graph showing real numbers. But nah, that would be way too easy. You'd rather just keep going in circles hoping nobody notices. All while you totally ignore anything in response about Sony and the money they have lost since the PS3 and how financially unstable the company is as a whole. Just a link showing Japan and how they handle bankruptcies.

Here you are.

Here's how the numbers were gathered:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=100377191&postcount=798

Microsoft lost approximately $3.7 billion on the first Xbox, and $1.15 billion on the RROD fiasco. Add to those all the R&D costs on the 360 and XB1. Then there's this interesting tidbit:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...osses-hidden-by-patent-royalties-says-analyst

Huge Xbox losses hidden by patent royalties, says analyst

Nomura's Rick Sherlund believes gaming business has been losing billions for Microsoft, but Android licensing fees obscure deficits

Microsoft is hiding billions in losses from its Xbox gaming business, according to Nomura analyst Rick Sherlund. In a note to investors yesterday, Sherlund laid out a plan suggesting what steps Microsoft should take to resolve its current CEO vacancy and address some key issues going forward. One of Sherlund's key points in the note is that the Xbox platform, despite being largely viewed as a success, is actually losing huge amounts of money for Microsoft, according to his own estimates.

"If we start with the overall traditional [Entertainment and Devices Division] business that actually loses money before corporate allocations and back out the nearly $2 billion 95 percent gross margin Android phone royalties, we conclude that Xbox platform plus Windows phone and Skype lose about $2.5 billion per year, and we estimate that the Xbox platform may account for roughly $2 billion of this," Sherlund said. "This is contrary to conventional wisdom, we think investors do not realize how extensive the operating costs are for this business and it is concealed by the hugely profitable Android royalties."

 

[twobear]

What I got from Sony domination was a console capable of playing all PS1, PS2, and PS3 games. A $600 blu-ray player when blu-ray players were $1000. The only console with HDMI output. The only console capable of lossless sound and DTS sound in games. The only HD console with wifi capability. They provided 3x the HDD space of their main competitor. They provided the capability to upgrade the HDD to whatever size you wanted within the physical dimension limitations.

What I got cost Sony $850 BOM to build and they only charged $600 for it.

Yes, their PR was arrogant and they glossed over omissions like rumble by claiming it was a "last gen feature" and told people to get a second job to afford the system. (If I built something for $850 and tried to sell it for $600 and everyone told me it was still too expensive, I'd probably get upset too)

But the console itself outside of the blunder that was Cell, was a beast of value. And I didn't even buy the PS3 to game. I bought it ONLY for blu-ray and it was an incredible value. 360 was my gaming console of choice last gen.

And what I got out of last gen was a cheaper console without the Bluray that I didn't want, with a functioning network system and better versions of the vast majority of multiplatforms.

So PS2 was good for that too.

But I think it's a bit of a fallacy to read the entire history of the last fifteen years of consoles as just Sony either flopping or succeeding. 360 was awesome too and was born out of competition just like PS4 was.

 

[Ethranes]

I think microsoft catered to much to the US with all the media stuff for it to do as well as the PS4 outside of the US

 

[Sydle]

By the time the Xbox & GC were out the PS2 had +20 million userbase, at that point any technical superiority of the rival platforms was a moot point.

Source: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/PlayStation_2




Here you are.

Here's how the numbers were gathered:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=100377191&postcount=798

Microsoft lost approximately $3.7 billion on the first Xbox, and $1.15 billion on the RROD fiasco. Add to those all the R&D costs on the 360 and XB1. Then there's this interesting tidbit:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...osses-hidden-by-patent-royalties-says-analyst

I followed all those links and I still don't see how anyone separated Xbox financials from the rest of the division, which has had and continues to have a bunch of other things (including huge costly failures) in it.

 

[Kaworu]

The PS2 came out in 2000 for North America (1999 Japan), the XBox came out in 2001, the Dreamcast in 1999 for North America (1998 Japan), the Gamecube in 2001. So by your calculations a year makes everything irrelevant? If that's the case the PS3 shouldn't count last generation.

PS2 japanese launch date is March 4th 2000.

 

[Biker19]

The only way MS sells off the Xbox division is if they believe that it's not central to their long term strategy anymore. If they feel that their money and time is better spent elsewhere and this market is too much of a distraction for them.

The truth is, as an organization, MS doesn't give a shit about console gaming. The profits they can get from this market, even at the best of times, is a rounding error to them. The only reason they're in this market is to control the living room and everything you do on a TV. That's what drove the development of the XB1, with it's HDMI in and Kinect focus. If they don't achieve the kind of penetration they need to make this endeavor worth their efforts, I can see them selling the division. If the sales of XB1 is substantially less than Xbox 360 (my prediction is half), that will be a big failure for MS. For people arguing that it's about profit and not sales - it's the exact opposite, MS knows that this isn't a profitable venture, they're in it for household penetration and broadening the reach of their ecosystem (Skype, Onedrive, XBL, etc). That only works when you've got a shit ton of consoles sold. They're going to contract HARD this gen and that's going to give investors more ammo to cut off the Xbox brand.

Agree with you on all of these. IMO, Microsoft is just about too little, too late with their focus, as most people are now using their tablets & other devices for the living room nowadays. Live TV isn't all that popular anymore.

Maybe if they would've done that about 6 to 10 years ago with Xbox 360, then their focus for the living room would've been big. And I certainly don't think that Microsoft will easily be able to get 81 million owners (or more) on Xbox One like they did with Xbox 360, especially if they don't have the rest of the world besides NA, as Xbox 360 had at least 34 million owners outside NA (UK/Europe was the biggest with about 26 million owners).

 

[Louis Cyphre]

That's exactly what I've been saying earlier.

Exactly. There seems to be many posters on here that thinks that Microsoft is invincible just because they have a lot of money. I just don't get that thinking, I really don't...

The person said Microsoft should be hungry and trying to do everything they can now because they are falling behind the PS4. Which is a fair point. What you have said multiple times is Microsoft is in a no win position. You don't want Microsoft to be hungry, you want them gone. That's the difference.

Also according to you they have lost money on the XBox division from 2000-2007 and only made small profits since then but are only interested in big profits. Plus when you add up a couple of investors who've suggested they drop the brand equals this is their last attempt at console gaming and you'd be happy as ever when that happens. Your also under the illusion that this is what everyone else is saying too.

I never implied they are invincible because they have stacks of money, I said they have money to absorb those losses which they had done so during 2000-2007. Since then they have made profits. Sony on the other hand needs the PS4 to be successful because most of their divisions are bleeding them dry. So by your argument Sony should drop everything that isn't making them huge profits unless of course your standards change depending on what company we talk about. But that isn't what Sony is doing with TV's and it is highly unlikely Microsoft will drop the XBox either.

By the time the Xbox & GC were out the PS2 had +20 million userbase, at that point any technical superiority of the rival platforms was a moot point.

Why is it moot, because you said so? Your argument is really just based on the PS2 dominated so any argument towards better systems technically are irrelevant. My ins't that convenient.

Here you are.

Here's how the numbers were gathered:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=100377191&postcount=798

Microsoft lost approximately $3.7 billion on the first Xbox, and $1.15 billion on the RROD fiasco. Add to those all the R&D costs on the 360 and XB1. Then there's this interesting tidbit:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...osses-hidden-by-patent-royalties-says-analyst

That's fine, but what about after 2007? That link also indicates what he believes, nothing more. He also believed that Ford's Alan Mulally will be appointed to the position of CEO for Microsoft by December.

They don't exactly need Microsoft. There's plenty of other companies out there.

Such as? Even if there are then can still come regardless of Microsoft sticking around.

 

[Melchiah]

Why is it moot, because you said so? Your argument is really just based on the PS2 dominated so any argument towards better systems technically are irrelevant. My ins't that convenient.

That's fine, but what about after 2007? That link also indicates what he believes, nothing more. He also believed that Ford's Alan Mulally will be appointed to the position of CEO for Microsoft by December.

It was moot, because the generation was already decided at that point. The Xbox and GC only managed to sell as much in their lifetime as the PS2 prior to their launch. That's why. Hardly the same as now, when the two competitors launched neck to neck with a different power and price.

There's the chart which portrays the cumulative income until 2011, although it apparently also includes other products of Microsoft's division.

The known costs:
Xbox - ~3.7b
360 - 1.15b for RROD
XB1 - 100m for the controller R&D, and 1b for future exclusives.
+ 8.64b for the cloud technology, but those costs aren't naturally for the gaming division alone.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

I can bring up that post that Y2Kev wrote about sales parity.

Link.

That post should be perma-threaded imho. It and a few others.

Sony on the other hand needs the PS4 to be successful because most of their divisions are bleeding them dry.

Let's be honest here; the two divisions that were really costing them were PCs and TVs, and they already sold the PC division and (unfortunately) spun off the TV one.

I say "unfortunately" there b/c they really should've sold it off 100%, imho.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

That post should be perma-threaded imho. It and a few others.



Let's be honest here; the two divisions that were really costing them were PCs and TVs, and they already sold the PC division and (unfortunately) spun off the TV one.

I say "unfortunately" there b/c they really should've sold it off 100%, imho.

Y2Kev said consumers decide winners and losers and they do often. Consumers for example have decided Apple and Android are the two main types of phones out there. Losers being Blackberry and Windows. That doesn't mean the market is better off with just Android or just Apple.

Sony is not a charity. They may lean more towards the hardcore gamer than Microsoft and Nintendo but they are no saint. Nobody forced Sony to make a game system that cost $600. Nobody is forcing Sony to charge to play online either. What competition does is keep those existing customers to remain. Consumers will not stay loyal to a brand forever. We are likely seeing previous XBox 360 owners migrate to the PS4. The market is not static and I don't expect Microsoft to just sit back and wait for the PS4 to steamroll over them. Is that not a win win for consumers if this makes Microsoft more hungry for consumers while Sony still has real competitors?

As for Sony keeping TV's even though that division bleeds them money is a prime example of Sony wanting to keep relevant in that market. TV is Sony and Microsoft has made XBox a part of Microsoft. They certainly see it more than just a game platform and since 2007 they managed to be profitable. The X1 could very well turn into another original XBox performance but we have to take things in context. They sold over 3 million units and the system just came out a few months ago. They have also invested 1 billion dollars into game development and have more games being developed now than at any time in the history of the XBox. Does that sound like they plan on going away soon? Some sure act like it.

 

[Biker19]

Also according to you they have lost money on the XBox division from 2000-2007 and only made small profits since then but are only interested in big profits. Plus when you add up a couple of investors who've suggested they drop the brand equals this is their last attempt at console gaming and you'd be happy as ever when that happens. Your also under the illusion that this is what everyone else is saying too.

Illusion, huh? This is real. There have been actual articles about Microsoft's investors wanting to sell the Xbox brand if Xbox One doesn't perform up to their standards. There have been threads made about that subject here, it's no damn illusion.

While there's only a few investors making noise about it now (your words), plenty more will jump on the bandwagon if Xbox One doesn't improve not only in sales, but in profitability as well.

You know what? I just about had enough of this; I think I'm just going to put you on ignore. Don't bother responding back.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Illusion, huh? This is real. There have been actual articles about Microsoft's investors wanting to sell the Xbox brand if Xbox One doesn't perform up to their standards. There have been threads made about that subject here, it's no damn illusion.

While there's only a few investors making noise about it now (your words), plenty more will jump on the bandwagon if Xbox One doesn't improve not only in sales, but in profitability as well.

You know what? I just about had enough of this; I'm putting you on ignore. Don't bother responding back.

Once again you don't know context. I said the illusion is you think everyone is saying what you're saying, not whether some investors want the company to let go of XBox. I know some have been outspoken, we've already gone over that.

 

[BBboy20]

Microsoft have bet big on Titanfall shifting Xbox Ones, and based on the hype around the beta it seems to have garnered a lot of interest.

Yeah, especially those on PC...add the Bluepoint hype on the 360 version, you got a few people who might not be compelled to not get a 500 console for a game that really isn't a next-gen game.

Is this really necessary?

Yes.

Now, we're only 3 months from both launches. I'm sure MS you do, like Sony did, everything that it can to stay competitive through out the generation.

Microsoft isn't Sony. They are not a company who is bleeding dry. They have far too many internal players within the company and they pretty much rely on their OS to stay ahead. Hell, what they do puts them in a different wave length then at Sony's because even now, they still have not gotten all their shit straight (shutting the fuck up would have been a start...but they keep doing that from time to time).

Don't sound bitter.

Not unless your last name is Zampella.

Also, yeah competition is good for consumers. It would be a shame to lose a competitor.

Not unless that competitor was poison.

Clearly it is working. Look at the love for titanfall. Paying for an exclusive game is nothing new. Companies been doing it for years... Just so happens MS has more money to throw around.

Yes, because doing a deal behind a developer's back is legit, right?

To be honest - full disclosure?

As a gamer, I love my 360 and have over a hundred games for it. I own a PS3 and a gaming PC, but the 360 was usually my platform of choice for most of the generation. (PC took over once the age of the console started to show, but that's neither here nor there.) I also absolutely despise everything Microsoft has done "for"/to the PC platform, and as a gamer I would much prefer they carry on pretending they don't know it exists.

As an investor (and Seattle resident besides), I feel the X-Box brand needs to be gone yesterday and they need to - and have always needed to - be placing the money they've frivolously wasted on what's increasingly become an ugly vanity project on advancing PC as a platform.

Your "vision" of X-Box as the gateway to a Windows World is the same broken, stupid-ass vision that's gimped this enterprise for a decade. Microsoft could have been the ones in control of Steam. They could have been the ones out there right now trying to bring a literal Windows PC box into the living room - the "Steam Box" could have been everything they ever wanted from this moronic exercise - and it all would have cost them a miniscule fraction of what the X-Box has, if Valve's operating costs are anything to go by.

At this very moment - cursing their name and shaking their fist all the while - Valve is doing more to advance Windows as a platform and put it into living rooms than Microsoft has done in over ten years and untold billions of dollars of wasted time and effort. That, to me, is absolutely unconscionable as an investor; I can completely understand the wrong-thinking that (in the moment) caused board members to believe the X-Box project originally had merit, but I cannot abide the continued doubling-down long after the fact when there are better roads to be taken that are painfully obvious to anyone who cares to look.

Bros before Bones.

I'm still bitter at MS for making me fear for a shit online-only gen for months.

I honestly never thought in my lifetime I would have worry about a hobby and yet, here I am, feeling the most dread I've ever had that didn't involve my immediate self and those around me. What happened on the 21st of May of last year was pretty much the accumulation of every transgression big business done during last generation. Considering I'm never getting a Bone makes me feel a bit happier since that would mane less money to spend on.

Halo

Halo 4 is the elephant in the room of this conversation because despite it's immense success, it left a sour taste on a lot of gamers (let alone that drop off rate in the MP community). We don't know rather it's still going to be played like it's a 2001 game or that it might be an actual Spartan-2 sim which might invigorate people's interest in both the franchise, the system, and, perhaps, actual next-gen gameplay.

Throw in a week or two free gold inside the game.

One year. No way most people is going to gauge the service in even a month (or 3), Gotta' give them both the time and value of the free offer to gauge rather they want to keep continue the service or not.

20 years is in 4 generations, not 2. There won't be an elimination of physical consoles and physical games for a really long time. Yeah maybe in 20 years, but that's like after Playstation 7.

You can still buy most PC retail games as a physical copy because even PC game companies realize that not everyone has the internet available to download 20GB games via STEAM.

We have to get to a place where digital downloaded game sales reach a point where companies can safely ditch physical without leaving money on the table by alienating consumers. Then we have to reach a point where streaming is so widely available for gaming that locally stored digitally downloaded copies of games are no longer needed without leaving money on the table by alienating consumers. I will be a very old man by the time that happens because honestly, there's going to be money on the table for companies to keep going physical for many, many more years.

This idea that PS Now type services are going to REPLACE standard gaming is way premature, even predicting 2 gens away. Gamers will want to be able to game anywhere like they can now with STEAM. Even going offline for months at a time if they need to like I did for the past 20 years everytime my ship deployed and was still able to game.

Basically, when the internet is perfected.

 

[Argyle]

Yes, their PR was arrogant and they glossed over omissions like rumble by claiming it was a "last gen feature" and told people to get a second job to afford the system. (If I built something for $850 and tried to sell it for $600 and everyone told me it was still too expensive, I'd probably get upset too)

Side note: The reason you didn't get rumble on PS3 at the beginning of the generation is because Microsoft outmaneuvered Sony here...

The gist of it - Immersion sues both Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft settles, but as part of the settlement, infuses cash into Immersion and directs Immersion to take Sony to court, because if Immersion settles with Sony (allowing Sony to use their rumble patents) then Immersion will owe penalties to Microsoft (so Immersion is incentivized to drag it into court as long as possible and keep rumble off the PS3). Basically, lawsuit by proxy.

Whether you think this was a good thing or not I leave as an exercise for the reader, but as a consumer I personally sure as hell didn't feel that I benefited from these shenanigans.

More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_v._Sony

http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+...ct+Breach+Following+Sony+Deal/article7732.htm

 

[RexNovis]

I can only imagine some ppl are sweating harder than an evangelical in a dinosaur museum if Titanfall doesn't sell well on bone.

I expect lots of PR damage and grouping of numbers (PC,bone,360) with no splits to hide the damage.

I think the phrase you were looking for was "sweating more than a whore in church."

While undoubtedly true there is no telling what is going to happen with a new CEO at MS. Not a whole lot is known about him although his plans seems to hinge on leveraging the "cloud" as much as possible for MS going forward. Part of the reason this whole situation is so fascinating and leaves so many questions is because there is so much up in the air with MS right now. It'd be a helluva a case study for an MBA.

 

[NeoROCK]

MS already Lost this console war

Sorry. It's too early to say it? Nope. PS4 hasn't even launched in Japan yet.

 

[SparkTR]

Selling the brand and assets? I don't know, but I do think they were misguided when they jumped so hard into the living room/console space in the first place.

 

[RexNovis]

Come on. The sales of the Xbox One are tracking better than the 360 were and the 360 was the only gen 7 console out for a year. The fact the Xbox One is where it's at is nothing short if astounding considering an abysmal reveal, E3 and marketing last year. Sure they're behind the PS4, is that a result of the price, probably. There is obviously something there to have brought 3+ million sales since launch.

You're forgetting one extremely important factor. Both the 360 and PS4 share something in common:

They dont have this problem:

Consoles aren't usually sitting on pallets in the middle of stores within 3 months from their release while those stores start offering $50 incentives to buy. It's a troubling situation whether or not you want to put some arbitrary boundary of 20 million NA console sales before we discuss it.

THEY ARE EXTREMELY SUPPLY CONSTRAINED. Demand for 360 far outstripped supply for nearly 7 months after release. The demand for PS4 so far has also outstripped supply since release. This is why it is still selling out quickly. The XB1 however has mountains of supply and not enough demand for that supply. You are missing an important element of context with the January numbers. XB1 was readily available and PS4 was supply constrained. The fact that PS4 outsold XB1 by nearly 2:1 despite being supply constrained while its competitor was not is a BIG deal. It means there was a MASSIVE drop off in demand for the XB1.

Specs and Kinext aside, the issue remains the price of the Xbox One.

I dont think anyone can say this with any certainty. Given the performance gap and how widely publicized and known it is I think it's a far bigger deal than some people seem to think it is. You buy a next gen console to get a cutting edge platform (without having to be a pc enthusiast to do so) and a clear case can be made that PS4 is more cutting edge because it is more powerful. At the start of a new generation thats what people want: POWER; Because more raw power means more potential for the life of the platform.

 

[MercuryLS]

You're forgetting one extremely important factor. Both the 360 and PS4 share something in common: THEY ARE EXTREMELY SUPPLY CONSTRAINED. Demand for 360 far outstripped supply for nearly 7 months after release. The demand for PS4 so far has also outstripped supply since release. This is why it is still selling out quickly. The XB1 however has mountains of supply and not enough demand for that supply. You are missing an important element of context with the January numbers. XB1 was readily available and PS4 was supply constrained. The fact that PS4 outsold XB1 by nearly 2:1 despite being supply constrained while its competitor was not is a BIG deal. It means there was a MASSIVE drop off in demand for the XB1.

QFT. Clear as day that there is a massive problem with XB1 demand.

 

[Biker19]

You're forgetting one extremely important factor. Both the 360 and PS4 share something in common: THEY ARE EXTREMELY SUPPLY CONSTRAINED. Demand for 360 far outstripped supply for nearly 7 months after release. The demand for PS4 so far has also outstripped supply since release. This is why it is still selling out quickly. The XB1 however has mountains of supply and not enough demand for that supply. You are missing an important element of context with the January numbers. XB1 was readily available and PS4 was supply constrained. The fact that PS4 outsold XB1 by nearly 2:1 despite being supply constrained while its competitor was not is a BIG deal. It means there was a MASSIVE drop off in demand for the XB1.

QFT. Clear as day that there is a massive problem with XB1 demand.

These. If people wanted Xbox One's, then most of them would've picked one up by now just like with PS4. The fact that not all 3.9 million Xbox One consoles that Microsoft shipped were sold to consumers during two of the biggest, shopping events of the year (Black Friday & Christmas) was already very telling.

 

[ZehDon]

...The gist of it - Immersion sues both Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft settles, but as part of the settlement, infuses cash into Immersion and directs Immersion to take Sony to court, because if Immersion settles with Sony (allowing Sony to use their rumble patents) then Immersion will owe penalties to Microsoft (so Immersion is incentivized to drag it into court as long as possible and keep rumble off the PS3). Basically, lawsuit by proxy...

Whoa, I didn't know this. I was mis-informed and was told that the rumble messed with the late-addition six-axis motion controls, and without time to get them together, was left out. Thanks for sharing.

 

[bebop242]

Side note: The reason you didn't get rumble on PS3 at the beginning of the generation is because Microsoft outmaneuvered Sony here...

The gist of it - Immersion sues both Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft settles, but as part of the settlement, infuses cash into Immersion and directs Immersion to take Sony to court, because if Immersion settles with Sony (allowing Sony to use their rumble patents) then Immersion will owe penalties to Microsoft (so Immersion is incentivized to drag it into court as long as possible and keep rumble off the PS3). Basically, lawsuit by proxy.

Whether you think this was a good thing or not I leave as an exercise for the reader, but as a consumer I personally sure as hell didn't feel that I benefited from these shenanigans.

More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_v._Sony

http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+...ct+Breach+Following+Sony+Deal/article7732.htm

This right here is a perfect example why I would not be sad if Microsoft exited the console business. Competition is essential to a healthy industry, but not the style that Microsoft brings.

 

[Jetlagger]

Side note: The reason you didn't get rumble on PS3 at the beginning of the generation is because Microsoft outmaneuvered Sony here...

The gist of it - Immersion sues both Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft settles, but as part of the settlement, infuses cash into Immersion and directs Immersion to take Sony to court, because if Immersion settles with Sony (allowing Sony to use their rumble patents) then Immersion will owe penalties to Microsoft (so Immersion is incentivized to drag it into court as long as possible and keep rumble off the PS3). Basically, lawsuit by proxy.

Whether you think this was a good thing or not I leave as an exercise for the reader, but as a consumer I personally sure as hell didn't feel that I benefited from these shenanigans.

More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_v._Sony

http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+...ct+Breach+Following+Sony+Deal/article7732.htm

Wow, thanks for pointing this out. Patent trolling taken to its ultimate, shameless, ruthless extreme. Just something else for Sony to learn from. Console war for real.

 

[Melchiah]

Side note: The reason you didn't get rumble on PS3 at the beginning of the generation is because Microsoft outmaneuvered Sony here...

The gist of it - Immersion sues both Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft settles, but as part of the settlement, infuses cash into Immersion and directs Immersion to take Sony to court, because if Immersion settles with Sony (allowing Sony to use their rumble patents) then Immersion will owe penalties to Microsoft (so Immersion is incentivized to drag it into court as long as possible and keep rumble off the PS3). Basically, lawsuit by proxy.

Whether you think this was a good thing or not I leave as an exercise for the reader, but as a consumer I personally sure as hell didn't feel that I benefited from these shenanigans.

More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_v._Sony

http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+...ct+Breach+Following+Sony+Deal/article7732.htm

I remember that all too well. =/ And to think people still believe the exclusion of the rumble feature was only due to Sony's hubris. SMH

This right here is a perfect example why I would not be sad if Microsoft exited the console business. Competition is essential to a healthy industry, but not the style that Microsoft brings.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Zaph]

This right here is a perfect example why I would not be sad if Microsoft exited the console business. Competition is essential to a healthy industry, but not the style that Microsoft brings.

Microsoft has never been in a position where they've had to compete on a remotely even playing field, they've simply never had to learn that skill and it's costing them dearly. The closest they've ever come is the 360.

Windows was/is a monopoly fuelled by well documented anti-trust practices dating all the way back to DR-DOS.

Since then, even with all their resources, they've failed miserably in every single consumer category they've entered - with the billions they earn in commercial and enterprise licensing funding it all.

It's becoming increasingly clear the 360 was a complete fluke, propelled by two things 1) Sony's mistakes (they were late, expensive, etc etc) 2) J Allard's insistence that almost everything Xbox 360 related would be made by external companies, he didn't want any Microsoft fingerprints anywhere on it (even the original UI was designed by an agency I used to intern for). And for his efforts and success, he was made a pariah inside MS.

Until they learn how to compete, and not just force products out that fit neatly into their outdated corporate vision, they will never have another consumer success.

 

[Melchiah]

Microsoft has never been in a position where they've had to compete on a remotely even playing field, they've simply never had to learn that skill and it's costing them dearly. The closest they've ever come is the 360.

Windows was/is a monopoly fuelled by well documented anti-trust practices dating all the way back to DR-DOS.

Since then, even with all their resources, they've failed miserably in every single consumer category they've entered - with the billions they earn in commercial and enterprise licensing funding it all.

It's becoming increasingly clear the 360 was a complete fluke, propelled by two things 1) Sony's mistakes (they were late, expensive, etc etc) 2) J Allard's insistence that almost everything Xbox 360 related would be made by external companies, he didn't want any Microsoft fingerprints anywhere on it (even the original UI was designed by an agency I used to intern for). And for his efforts and success, he was made a pariah inside MS.

Until they learn how to compete, and not just force products out that fit neatly into their outdated corporate vision, they will never have another consumer success.

That's news to me.

 

[Sydle]

Microsoft has never been in a position where they've had to compete on a remotely even playing field, they've simply never had to learn that skill and it's costing them dearly. The closest they've ever come is the 360.

Windows was/is a monopoly fuelled by well documented anti-trust practices dating all the way back to DR-DOS.

Since then, even with all their resources, they've failed miserably in every single consumer category they've entered - with the billions they earn in commercial and enterprise licensing funding it all.

It's becoming increasingly clear the 360 was a complete fluke, propelled by two things 1) Sony's mistakes (they were late, expensive, etc etc) 2) J Allard's insistence that almost everything Xbox 360 related would be made by external companies, he didn't want any Microsoft fingerprints anywhere on it (even the original UI was designed by an agency I used to intern for). And for his efforts and success, he was made a pariah inside MS.

Until they learn how to compete, and not just force products out that fit neatly into their outdated corporate vision, they will never have another consumer success.

Only if you ignore their entire Server & Tools division, where they have been seeing significant growth up against Amazon and VMware. Perhaps that's why Nadella is in charge now.

 

[Zaph]

Only if you ignore their entire Server & Tools division.

Apologies, I thought my entire post made it clear I was talking about their consumer facing products.

Competing at a commercial/enterprise level and a consumer level are two entirely different beasts.

Perhaps that's why Nadella is in charge now.

Absolutely - his selection has to be preparation for MS slowing going the IBM route.

 

[Sydle]

Apologies, I thought my entire post made it clear I was talking about their consumer facing products.

Competing at a commercial/enterprise level and a consumer level are two entirely different beasts.


Absolutely - his selection has to be preparation for MS slowing going the IBM route.

lol, keep the dream alive.

They're not giving up the consumer market and letting Windows fade into obscurity by just giving up the mobile markets. The most they do is spin off Devices and Studios into a subsidiary, but by then he would have had a plan in place (the right people who have gone to consumer market) to give it a chance at being successful. Both you and I will be old men fighting with new technology by the time that has any chance of happening.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

If sales in their target markets continue as they are, They will have to drop price considerably, the fact is they are asking for $500 for a system that has weaker gaming performance than a system that costs $400. No ifs or buts, that is fact. All for a strategy and piece of kit that many don't see a use for or what it's biggest strengths seem to be voice commands, dancing games and fitness.

I personally believe they threw away a lot of goodwill or loyalty with a lot of the core Xbox fans. I started to notice this before One was revealed. They seem to have decision makers there who cannot let go of the dream of the Nintendo Wii hype train which has fucked off long ago.

I'm not trolling here, I consider myself to be a Xbox fan but I can't lie and tell you I think everything's great. For me it isn't, they lost some of the hardcore with specs and Kinect and many casuals on price and lack of desire to speak to the television when they happily use a remote control.

 

[Zaph]

lol, keep the dream alive.

They're not giving up the consumer market and letting Windows fade into obscurity by just giving up the mobile markets. The most they do is spin off Devices and Studios into a subsidiary, but by then he would have had a plan in place (the right people who have gone to consumer market) to give it a chance at being successful. Both you and I will be old men fighting with new technology by the time that has any chance of happening.

I'm not saying they're going to straight bail and leave everything consumer facing in the dust tomorrow, but that Nadella is going to slowly massage Microsoft in a enterprise-first direction.

Of course Windows is staying - the core business is pretty much OEM anyway, off-the-shelf sales are inconsequential. Spinning off D&S makes sense, but the ridiculous consumer aspirations MS has had recently just doesn't. Even if Xbox is a massive success (which it isn't, going back to the OG Xbox, the P/L is still billions in the red) the ceiling for profit there is negligible compared to their other divisions and Sony is a joke company in comparison to MS - why fight over scraps? If they want living room and entertainment so desperately, buy Sony and sell the shit they don't want.

From a consumer perspective it just feels like MS is blindly chasing the Apple dream - a huge, highly profitable hardware division. It's never going to happen.

 

[highrider]

I've been giving this some thought since i got my tax refund. I was a big fan of the og xbox and 360, but microsoft has lost me with the xbox one. A price drop alone wouldn't sway me as it stands. I think they need to do something pretty major. The loss of the multiplatform advantage is a killer imo. They have some great first party games in halo and gears, but the last two releases ( halo 4, judgement ) were the weakest iterations to date. I hear the word mindshare used and between the 180, price, and hardware they have lost quite a bit. My son is in 6th grade and his peer group is knowledgeable about specs and they look at it with disdain, and most of them have a 360. Why would i elect weaker hardware, weaker first party, and media function locked behind a paywall?

One thing you'll hear on game forums is how the casual gamer doesn't know or care about this stuff, but in 2014 that just isn't the experience I've had. Within my own extended family i can talk to enthusiast gamers and more casual gamers, and the excitement just isn't there for xbox one. Nobody seems to care about the media and kinect stuff.

Microsoft needs to show us the value of kinect, because as a pure gaming machine it has no chance against the ps4. I think the lack of any compelling kinect games at launch is unbelievably stupid on a pack in that the system is built around. How are we supposed to buy in to their vision with lacklustre software, or none at all? I've enjoyed the previous consoles by microsoft, but I'm frustrated with their hubris and lack of value to the consumer. Anecdotal, but that's how i form opinions.

 

[Biker19]

This right here is a perfect example why I would not be sad if Microsoft exited the console business. Competition is essential to a healthy industry, but not the style that Microsoft brings.

I totally agree. What Argyle had posted is just one of the reasons why I don't like Microsoft.

And Xbox fans still think that having Microsoft around in the gaming industry is good for competition. Please.

 

[Sydle]

I'm not saying they're going to straight bail and leave everything consumer facing in the dust tomorrow, but that Nadella is going to slowly massage Microsoft in a enterprise-first direction.

Of course Windows is staying - the core business is pretty much OEM anyway, off-the-shelf sales are inconsequential. Spinning off D&S makes sense, but the ridiculous consumer aspirations MS has had recently just doesn't. Even if Xbox is a massive success (which it isn't, going back to the OG Xbox, the P/L is still billions in the red) the ceiling for profit there is negligible compared to their other divisions and Sony is a joke company in comparison to MS - why fight over scraps? If they want living room and entertainment so desperately, buy Sony and sell the shit they don't want.

From a consumer perspective it just feels like MS is blindly chasing the Apple dream - a huge, highly profitable hardware division. It's never going to happen.

I believe that Nadella, with Gates' help on devices, will be more focused on the opportunities to increase the business, which lie in mobile, cloud, and devices. He stated on his first day that his vision is helping people do more in their every day lives in work and play. Gates has long been a proponent of entertainment and device, and he's back on board to help in that effort. I don't see either one of them backing off on the consumer market, I think they'll will just be smarter about going after it in ways that Ballmer never was.

You seem like a pretty level head member. How do you view Xbox as just a living room play? It's been on all Windows devices for a few years now and Microsoft is investing more in their studios to develop across all Windows devices (see Lift London and pretty much any job posting for their existing first party and known second party studios). They've been porting XBLA games to the Windows 8 store for a couple years now. They integrated TV, movies, and music into it. You have a single Microsoft account for your Outlook, OneDrive, Office, Xbox, Skype, etc.

How do you not see they are trying to be an all-on-one ecosystem for work and play? And how do you argue there's a ceiling cap on that when you consider all entertainment will go digital, just like music and film, and just like productivity software? How do you not see the advertising reach potential? The consumer behavior research data to be gained and sold on device and online services behavior? How do you not see the lifetime value of a single consumer that starts their life in an ecosystem? They'd be invested for life.

How do you argue that it's already been taken by Apple when the mobile market is dominated by Google (and I believe Apple's marketshare is slipping)? How about when the mobile and cloud markets are infants with decades in front of them and we've seen ups and downs for all the major players?

I think you're greatly oversimplifying the landscape and that you haven't given a lick of thought to what that landscape will transform into over the course of your lifetime. It's a devices and online services future, and not one of the major players has taken control of every angle of it.

 

[George Claw M.D.]

I don't see Google staying in the ISP business personally. They might but it seems another one of their visions where they dream big ideas but fail to have the business acumen to make a profitable venture.

Their buyout and resell of Motorola is a perfect example of that. With the money they spent to acquire it there is no way in hell they wanted to turn it around so quickly for billions less than they bought it for. It was a mistake due in part to their belief they could run a hardware company.

Google has commented last year that fiber is not just a testbed to them but I wonder how long it will last. I think Amazon as an ISP would make far more sense considering their dominance with server solutions and the needs to deliver such solutions to customers.

We'll see though whether Google can win out or not. It depends on their will to continue with it and their ability to buy/rent enough of the infrastructure to make a significant impact

Google never intended to become a major network provider, nor do they want to. It comes with a lot of baggage like regulations and needing massive customer support, neither of which Google are keen to take on. Telcos/cablecos haven't been upgrading their networks quickly enough to pace increasing bandwidth demands. Google are building in highly specific target areas to force existing providers to upgrade their own networks to compete. The end result is that customers get higher quality broadband at more affordable prices with which to better consume Google's services. And Google only needs to invest a fraction of the cost in upgrading the overall network, since the rest is done on other providers' dimes.

Google has all but stated they've got no interest in the ISP business - they just launched Fiber as a catalyst to encourage growth, advancement and competition in the industry (the faster/more reliable people's connections are, the more valuable they are as customers).

Ironically, it actually backfired slightly. In the recent Comcast Time Warner buyout filings, they actually called out Google Fiber as a competitor to prove the marketplace is healthy. Pretty hilarious.

Bingo

 

[BigDug13]

THEY ARE EXTREMELY SUPPLY CONSTRAINED. Demand for 360 far outstripped supply for nearly 7 months after release. The demand for PS4 so far has also outstripped supply since release. This is why it is still selling out quickly. The XB1 however has mountains of supply and not enough demand for that supply. You are missing an important element of context with the January numbers. XB1 was readily available and PS4 was supply constrained. The fact that PS4 outsold XB1 by nearly 2:1 despite being supply constrained while its competitor was not is a BIG deal. It means there was a MASSIVE drop off in demand for the XB1.

Not sure why you quoted me to tell me I'm wrong when the statement you quoted is me saying exactly what your paragraph says. A console sitting on pallets getting moderate discounts at retailers 2-3 months from launch is a console in trouble.

 

[Tex117]

Sony is not a charity. They may lean more towards the hardcore gamer than Microsoft and Nintendo but they are no saint. Nobody forced Sony to make a game system that cost $600. Nobody is forcing Sony to charge to play online either. What competition does is keep those existing customers to remain. Consumers will not stay loyal to a brand forever. We are likely seeing previous XBox 360 owners migrate to the PS4. The market is not static and I don't expect Microsoft to just sit back and wait for the PS4 to steamroll over them. Is that not a win win for consumers if this makes Microsoft more hungry for consumers while Sony still has real competitors?
.

Nobody is saying that they are. What they are doing is respecting the "hardcore gamer" and delivering a product that is of high value for the money.

In other words, they are working to earn consumers money by providing a solid product instead of trying to squeeze every cent out them for features that really allow them more control over the product.

You are right though, the market is not static. Microsoft, if they focus with the right leadership can be right back in it.

Look no further than last gen. Ps3 everyone thought was DOA. Now, it has outsold Xbox360 and has clawed its way back in the game.

 

[RexNovis]

Not sure why you quoted me to tell me I'm wrong when the statement you quoted is me saying exactly what your paragraph says. A console sitting on pallets getting moderate discounts at retailers 2-3 months from launch is a console in trouble.

I was quoting you as supporting evidence

 

[BrokenIcarus]

What I got from Sony domination was a console capable of playing all PS1, PS2, and PS3 games. A $600 blu-ray player when blu-ray players were $1000. The only console with HDMI output. The only console capable of lossless sound and DTS sound in games. The only HD console with wifi capability. They provided 3x the HDD space of their main competitor. They provided the capability to upgrade the HDD to whatever size you wanted within the physical dimension limitations.

What I got cost Sony $850 BOM to build and they only charged $600 for it.

Yes, their PR was arrogant and they glossed over omissions like rumble by claiming it was a "last gen feature" and told people to get a second job to afford the system. (If I built something for $850 and tried to sell it for $600 and everyone told me it was still too expensive, I'd probably get upset too)

But the console itself outside of the blunder that was Cell, was a beast of value. And I didn't even buy the PS3 to game. I bought it ONLY for blu-ray and it was an incredible value. 360 was my gaming console of choice last gen.

I wish this argument were more prevalent, Sony took huge losses to bring us the PS3, it wasn't an act of bad-will or abuse of their consumer relationship, they deliberately took a huge hit to bring what (they thought) was the furthest advanced technology of it's time.

What most people make it seem however is that Sony made a 400$ box and it sold it for 600$, because they were so dominant during the PS2 era, which simply wasn't the case.

Now obviously things didn't quite pan out Sony had meant to and most of that can be traced to their success leading up to the PS3 launch, but it's important to note that their success with the PS1 and PS2 did not make them arrogant to levels in which they thought they could charge the consumer whatever they wanted, because in reality it was quite the contrary.

I still see some people here (most of them with clear biases) that claim there should be sales parity and they cite the PS3 launch as being a good example as to why sales dominance is bad for consumers (even though a lot of people think PS2 was the best generation of consoles of all time), but I feel it's a really bad example and doesn't strengthen their argument in any way.

 

[Exploratory]

I wish this argument were more prevalent, Sony took huge losses to bring us the PS3, it wasn't an act of bad-will or abuse of their consumer relationship, they deliberately took a huge hit to bring what (they thought) was the furthest advanced technology of it's time.

What most people make it seem however is that Sony made a 400$ box and it sold it for 600$, because they were so dominant during the PS2 era, which simply wasn't the case.

Now obviously things didn't quite pan out Sony had meant to and most of that can be traced to their success leading up to the PS3 launch, but it's important to note that their success with the PS1 and PS2 did not make them arrogant to levels in which they thought they could charge the consumer whatever they wanted, because in reality it was quite the contrary.

I still see some people here (most of them with clear biases) that claim there should be sales parity and they cite the PS3 launch as being a good example as to why sales dominance is bad for consumers (even though a lot of people think PS2 was the best generation of consoles of all time), but I feel it's a really bad example and doesn't strengthen their argument in any way.

Show me a consumer based industry in which a single dominant force is good for consumers.

The PS3s price doesn't justify the lack of games or the absurd pricing. Sony could put out a thousand dollar console worth 3 grand and it'd be frowned upon.

The idea of there being sales parity is dumb because there will always be a dominant console. Console X could sell 100 million but as long as console Y sells half that its fine. But having 1 blow the other out and dominating the landscape is bad. Would we have the PS4 PSN if XBL hadn't blown up 2 gens ago? No. Competition drives innovation and progress in consumer based industries. To ignore that is to stick ones head in the sand.