Why don't MS make hardware for their other platforms?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Which of the big three is most likely to bow out first?
- Thread starter Mama Robotnik
- Start date
Why don't MS make hardware for their other platforms?
AdventureRacing
Member
This will never happen. What makes you think this is a possiblity?
This is wishful thinking on your part and quite frankly it's absolute garbage. Last gen nintendos HW and SW saw an incredible rise in popularity and now the 3DS is taking off again.
Do microsoft need to do well in Japan? It now only makes up a very small amount of the worldwide market and japanese devs are falling over themselves trying to cater to the western market. If MS dominates the west they dominate gaming fullstop.
Also i don't think sonys position in Japan or the west is guaranteed. The PS3 didn't do that great in Japan and now the vita is off to a slow start. Sony are also struggling in NA.
In the end though all that matters is the financial side of things and right now sony is in the worst position.
Again though i don't think any of them are going under and i wouldn't be surprised if sony really turn things around with the PS4.
Because they don't own other platforms, merely license the OS to it. I don't want people buying sony products exclusively with my OS, because they can change the OS next time and people buy the box not the OS.
You can sell an OS only when the hardware market is fractured. No one dominates PCs, tablets, phones so greatly in hardware that they have market power over software providers. In a Sony dominated console world, Sony would.
jchap
Member
You guys need to Support Sony more and buy your Vitas day one!
No! Hold out for the obvious price cut
That seems like an unlikely move. If you turn it on, and it's MS, and you're using Live, your attachment as a consumer would be to MS, not the manufacture of the box. Lots of people change their PC manufacturer, but they retain Windows, because that's what matters. The boxes are just boxes.
2/10
Nintendo will be the first. MS will be the shareware/casual thing like Android gaming. Sony will get back to the helm with PS4. I am VERY confident about PS4 being the most successful Sony gaming system because the fall Sony had with PS3 was completely Sony's fault and no other and that was purely on the hardware side.
They got their act together. They restructured. They've done INCREDIBLY well with their software side. Their software organization is currently the biggest, best and well oiled they've ever had. The only problem is hardware. But they fixed that. As with their software, they now have an internal open collaboration with hardware design plus they resurrected their award winning and legendary aesthetic hardware design hub in Tokyo. The first result is Vita.
So Sony now has hardware and software checked for PS4. Perfect. The only two things they need to do is fire the old-school CEO's that still inforce archaic legacy decisions like Vita's memory cards. It is a different world now and some old CEO's at Sony seem to still think it is the 90's.
The other thing they SERIOUSLY need to fix is their non-gaming software like OS, non-gaming entertainment like their movie and music streaming, online store, etc. MS and Apple are doing amazing things in those fields. Sony, with their variety and reach, should be in that club as well.
The good news? Sony is heading in the right direction. PS3 was Sony's ever-so-needed wake-up call. And Vita re-assures me they received the message.
They got their act together. They restructured. They've done INCREDIBLY well with their software side. Their software organization is currently the biggest, best and well oiled they've ever had. The only problem is hardware. But they fixed that. As with their software, they now have an internal open collaboration with hardware design plus they resurrected their award winning and legendary aesthetic hardware design hub in Tokyo. The first result is Vita.
So Sony now has hardware and software checked for PS4. Perfect. The only two things they need to do is fire the old-school CEO's that still inforce archaic legacy decisions like Vita's memory cards. It is a different world now and some old CEO's at Sony seem to still think it is the 90's.
The other thing they SERIOUSLY need to fix is their non-gaming software like OS, non-gaming entertainment like their movie and music streaming, online store, etc. MS and Apple are doing amazing things in those fields. Sony, with their variety and reach, should be in that club as well.
The good news? Sony is heading in the right direction. PS3 was Sony's ever-so-needed wake-up call. And Vita re-assures me they received the message.
I dont think any of them are likely to, but if one were it would be Microsoft. I get the impression they would chase a more lucrative market if it looked viable (eg chasing emerging smartphone/tablet type mass consumption markets with a much larger audience than videogames).
In that scenario, I think xbox would remain an active brand, but only with a token effort put into it a la GFWL.
In that scenario, I think xbox would remain an active brand, but only with a token effort put into it a la GFWL.
Some people can't separate "what I want" from "what the mass market ones". The Wii has been my least favourite console by far this gen, but it's sold the most by far and helped Nintendo to generate profits that the others can only dream about. In 2008, Nintendo made more profit in one year than Sony did from the entire PS2 generation (counting the gen as PS2 launch - PS3 launch). They repeated that in 2009. But yeah, they're in real trouble!
AdventureRacing
Member
Considering how well they're doing now and how financially strong they are what could possibly lead you to this position?
Except their first party still isn't that strong at all, particularly in the handheld are where it is garbage. I think some people get blinded because their favourite exclusives are on the PS3 but sonys 1st party isn't nearly as strong as you're making out.
The vita which is already struggling and is almost certainly going to get blown away by the 3DS?
The only thing the vita shows is that sony still don't understand the importance of SW and price.
Are the Kinect games selling well?
Because the PC market is fractured no one owns the PC experience. If Sony dominated hardware and people could really only buy Playstations, then they would follow it.
If the only PC was HP, loyalty would be to HP not windows. It's because of the fact that PC manufacturers are scattered and thus weak that a dominating software maker can control the market.
Ever read Porter's five forces?
les papillons sexuels
Banned
I think it's going to be sony.
Nintendo is making money, so i doubt they'll be the first to disappear, if worst comes to worst they'll turn into a niche toy market.
Microsoft has too much vested into the xbox and live brands, it's pretty much the conerstone of their app market on phones while the xbox console is their only real means of infiltrating the home living room and keeping the likes of apple and google out. Not to mention the 360 is finally starting to produce for them.
Mean while the phone gaming market is growing rapidly and I highly doubt sony's vita is going to put a dent into the mobile phones grasp on portable gaming.
Nintendo is making money, so i doubt they'll be the first to disappear, if worst comes to worst they'll turn into a niche toy market.
Microsoft has too much vested into the xbox and live brands, it's pretty much the conerstone of their app market on phones while the xbox console is their only real means of infiltrating the home living room and keeping the likes of apple and google out. Not to mention the 360 is finally starting to produce for them.
Mean while the phone gaming market is growing rapidly and I highly doubt sony's vita is going to put a dent into the mobile phones grasp on portable gaming.
I honestly don't know.. but based on some of the quality of the games I imagine the sales are out numbering the development costs.
Is this a joke? The Vita, if anything, shows me Sony learned nothing from the PS3.
Dance Central and Kinect Sports 2 don't seem to be lighting the charts on fire. In the UK they were actually outsold by their predecessor for the month of November afaik. I don't think there's been any other major "second wave" title.
I mean, they're probably doing better than the move titles, but that's not saying much.
Professor Fog
Member
The correct answer is Sony.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Sony. PS3 last place, Vita off to a worse start than the 3DS.
I'm going with Sony on this one. It seems that if anything they would be the first to go because of security and hacking attempts. Making customers less trusting with their company compared to the other ones. People are still going on about their losses from that whole episode.
Even though the next generation of gaming consoles are coming out within the next couple years, people are still more into online gaming. I think it's a matter of you get what you pay for.
$0.02
Even though the next generation of gaming consoles are coming out within the next couple years, people are still more into online gaming. I think it's a matter of you get what you pay for.
$0.02
I'm gonna have to go with Sony. Seems like Microsoft is succeeding in their intentions to transition the Xbox from just being a games console into a full blown media hub. Nintendo made insane amounts of money from the ds/Wii and now seem poised to do so when the cost of the components of the 3ds continue to fall. Sony's first party software sells respectably, but it doesn't sell consoles/handhelds like Nintendo software can. They've screwed up the initial pricing of the system, making the year-old Xbox 360 and the Wii look all the more attractive to the consumer.
I can't see how anyone can seriously say Nintendo would be THE FIRST to go. Their business strategy has traditionally about making a profit off everything, small loss on some things at worst, at the very worst they will have more endurance than Microsoft and Sony, even if they soar to higher highs.
That gap is narrowing all the time. The PS3 is well on its way to second place.
As of September, they were only 2 million behind, which isn't much considering what a joke the PS3 launch was, after the 360 had already been on the market for a year. I don't follow sales age, but I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 already had the "lead" by now.
Whether they're actually making any money off it is another question, though.
AgentChris
Member
SCE would be an amazing 3rd party publisher.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
i think the better question is "are the kinect games making money" and I'm probably going to have to say they are.
Metalmurphy
Member
Gran Turismo franchise: Almost 65 Million Units (15 million this gen)
Singstar franchise: Over 20 million units
Uncharted franchise (this gen only): Over 13 million
God of War 3: Close to 4 million
God of War franchise: Over 8 million
Killzone 2 and 3: Over 2 million each
LBP 1: Over 3 million
LBP 2: Over 2 million
Infamous: 2 Million Ifamous 2: Over 1 million
Plus all the others I'm not remembering.
I haven't read it, but I find that claim hard to believe. The manufacturer is such a superficial, and meaningless aspect of a computer. That's not to say people aren't superficial, but if for example HP decided from now on their computers will only ship with Linux, I think their sales would tank.
The console market has shown very little care towards brand loyalty. Nintendo dominated for two generations, then Sony did for two, now Nintendo are back. Those systems don't have anything in common in terms of maker or OS. I think people are wise enough to go where the content they want is, not where the box they've historically owned is.
I don't know of an analogous situation that has a proven track record though, maybe you do?
Boombloxer
Member
Well, the whole point was a convergence device.
The main thing is still that their other divisions dwarf the Entertainment & Services in revenue, so it's harder to justify.
Sony's tricky, their fortunes tied to the PS3 are panning out, the rest of the company is another story, but there's divisions they need to cut before games.
Nintendo only has gaming, so they're going nowhere.
I always laugh when I see this, because it's always wrong. Their first-party stuff has sold well every single generation.
Developer talent and sales aren't their problem. The problem was the price, period. No way they launch a $600 machine again.
A world without Nintendo to me is basically a world without any video games. I could live off my Nintendo backlog probably for the rest of my life.
I can live without Sony and Microsoft, easily.
I cancelled my Vita preorder and games. I don't own an Xbox. I'm a one console gamer going forward. Too many games, too much money. Backlog is too large.
If anyone fails, I hope it's Microsoft. I would like to see them be PC exclusive or 3rd party. They don't offer anything unique to their console except Live. Live + Sony/NIntendo would be legit combination.
Nintendo always has Mario, Metroid, Zelda. Sony has PSP, Playstation brand that appears to e much more popular world wide and easier sell to Japan and Europe users and developers.
I can live without Sony and Microsoft, easily.
I cancelled my Vita preorder and games. I don't own an Xbox. I'm a one console gamer going forward. Too many games, too much money. Backlog is too large.
If anyone fails, I hope it's Microsoft. I would like to see them be PC exclusive or 3rd party. They don't offer anything unique to their console except Live. Live + Sony/NIntendo would be legit combination.
Nintendo always has Mario, Metroid, Zelda. Sony has PSP, Playstation brand that appears to e much more popular world wide and easier sell to Japan and Europe users and developers.
Angry Fork
Member
Goddamn. There is no rage like Nintendo rage. Do you guys want me to list all the negatives with Sony/Microsoft too because I can if it'll make Nintendo's faults easier to accept.
rocked the world with Cel-Shading
A. I don't care if casuals far outstrip us. I don't consider myself a casual and I'm not going to applaud Nintendo for making games I'm not interested in. I'm not the type that thinks Nintendo is a god because they sell the most, the games matter more.
B. Galaxy is linear/boring/dull and nothing compared to SM64. Galaxy 2 was better because of Yoshi, had better music and had more creative levels but I won't give a shit about Mario again until they make an SM64 sequel focused on exploration, finding secrets etc. things like that.
C. Spin-off like a realistic Mario game in terms of visuals and aesthetic style, just to try something new. You'd still have the normal cartoony one but I want to see Mario in a different setting/style. Maybe cel-shading or something who knows.
D. You're the one pretending if you think Wii Sports had the same time/budget to it as a Zelda game.
Nintendo doesn't try enough new things with their core franchises, and their new IPs have been geared towards casuals. I want new IPs with the same intense creativity/dedication/time etc. as a Mario or Zelda game. Sony focused big time on new IPs and exclusives this gen, Nintendo lagged far behind in this regard imo.
And when they do put out one of their core franchise games it takes way too long. Skyward Sword took like what 6 years, why? And without changing much except motion controls? They didn't even have to make it in HD. At this rate it'll take 10 years to put out a Zelda game on Wii U if Wii U is in 720p/1080p. If a game like Skyrim takes 3-4 years to make, Zelda should never take any longer and if it does there's a problem.
People will complain if they change but that's the risk of trying something new. I'm sure many complained when Mario/Zelda went 3D but they were so good everyone shut their mouths.
This made me lol hard. Especially this one:
rocked the world with Cel-Shading
A. I don't care if casuals far outstrip us. I don't consider myself a casual and I'm not going to applaud Nintendo for making games I'm not interested in. I'm not the type that thinks Nintendo is a god because they sell the most, the games matter more.
B. Galaxy is linear/boring/dull and nothing compared to SM64. Galaxy 2 was better because of Yoshi, had better music and had more creative levels but I won't give a shit about Mario again until they make an SM64 sequel focused on exploration, finding secrets etc. things like that.
C. Spin-off like a realistic Mario game in terms of visuals and aesthetic style, just to try something new. You'd still have the normal cartoony one but I want to see Mario in a different setting/style. Maybe cel-shading or something who knows.
D. You're the one pretending if you think Wii Sports had the same time/budget to it as a Zelda game.
Nintendo doesn't try enough new things with their core franchises, and their new IPs have been geared towards casuals. I want new IPs with the same intense creativity/dedication/time etc. as a Mario or Zelda game. Sony focused big time on new IPs and exclusives this gen, Nintendo lagged far behind in this regard imo.
And when they do put out one of their core franchise games it takes way too long. Skyward Sword took like what 6 years, why? And without changing much except motion controls? They didn't even have to make it in HD. At this rate it'll take 10 years to put out a Zelda game on Wii U if Wii U is in 720p/1080p. If a game like Skyrim takes 3-4 years to make, Zelda should never take any longer and if it does there's a problem.
I, however, can easily live without Nintendo. None of their franchises interest me anymore.
They're not going anywhere though and I'm glad about it.
Robot Pants
Member
Surprised so many are saying Sony. I think it'll be Nintendo.
Sony isn't doing well though.
Sony isn't doing well though.
It would be a shame to see Sony bow out given the innovations (misinnovations aside) they've brought to the table. But if any company does, they'd be most likely to based solely on the financials.
But my prediction is that; they all bow out 2 generations from now. Technology is heading away from specialized boxes. 1 and a half generations from now, the cloud will start to really pick up steam - services like OnLive will be backed up with technology like DIDO; providing significant user benefits and publisher flexibility. It would be in essence a system that the user would have to purchase once (or perhaps not at all), and would be updated on the developer/publisher end - so that the very concept of hardware generations becomes a deprecated one.
The impetus of the market will still push them to release one more generation of consoles, but the massive failure of the market to support those devices in consumer SKUs in light of the alternatives will signal the end of the console market.
But my prediction is that; they all bow out 2 generations from now. Technology is heading away from specialized boxes. 1 and a half generations from now, the cloud will start to really pick up steam - services like OnLive will be backed up with technology like DIDO; providing significant user benefits and publisher flexibility. It would be in essence a system that the user would have to purchase once (or perhaps not at all), and would be updated on the developer/publisher end - so that the very concept of hardware generations becomes a deprecated one.
The impetus of the market will still push them to release one more generation of consoles, but the massive failure of the market to support those devices in consumer SKUs in light of the alternatives will signal the end of the console market.
ThanksVision
Member
The day Nintendo "bows out" is the day gaming dies in my book.
Well Nintendo obviously won't be first. They have a huge war chest and stay profitable even when they lose momentum. The 3DS is picking up steam again. It would probably take complete imminent destruction of the company to bow out of the race.
It's between Microsoft and Sony. I believe Microsoft is more profitable at the moment, and their other divisions are doing better than Sony's as well as having more money to throw at them in general, so if I had to pick one I would say Sony.
I don't think you can predict this with much certainty at the moment anyway. Especially before the Vita is even released in all regions.
It's between Microsoft and Sony. I believe Microsoft is more profitable at the moment, and their other divisions are doing better than Sony's as well as having more money to throw at them in general, so if I had to pick one I would say Sony.
I don't think you can predict this with much certainty at the moment anyway. Especially before the Vita is even released in all regions.
SiteSeer
Member
god i hope sony doesn't go under. if anything i would like to see ms go first into the night. reason: to the pure gamer in me paying for online is the single greatest travesty inflicted on gamers of the last decade --a game changer that has lead to online passes, 0 day on-disc paid dlc, and ... horse armor . then you have the suits in corporate demanding ads in the interface on top of that.
while sony may the worst (and embarrassingly incompetent) integrator for their software (including their media arms) and their hardware, they still try to create, how shall i shall, a je ne sais quoi japanese-ness into their products which is very much consumer oriented. if they can only get that integration to work ala apple they'd be golden.
certainly, they have a lot of fat to trim in their hardware divisions, but i think playstation would be the last to get the axe.
while sony may the worst (and embarrassingly incompetent) integrator for their software (including their media arms) and their hardware, they still try to create, how shall i shall, a je ne sais quoi japanese-ness into their products which is very much consumer oriented. if they can only get that integration to work ala apple they'd be golden.
certainly, they have a lot of fat to trim in their hardware divisions, but i think playstation would be the last to get the axe.
AdventureRacing
Member
Adding the entire franchise histroies into your numbers is incredibly misleading. Having said that this is sonys only real big system selling franchise. Having one massive franchise like this isn't enough and basically puts them on par with MS.
What sort of impact did singstar have this gen and how much do you think it will have next gen? Again this is why listing all the sales in the franchise history is so incredibly misleading.
So when the next guitar hero releases im sure we will all expect monster sales because the franchise has sold 10s of millions of copies right?
Besides GT these are sonys only other big franchises IMO. They are still barely bigger than something like fable. They aren't big system selling franchises.
Which is tiny for an FPS game this generation.
Which was achieved through massive bundling. If we are going to go down this route i guess i could list viva pinita and kameo as examples of MS's frst party strength.
Listing a bunch of franchises that struggle to sell 2 million copies is hardly a showing of sonys 1st party strength.
This is also completely ignoring the fact that sonys first party has absolutely no relevance on handhelds whatsoever.
I mean i do think sonys first party is stronger than microsofts but it still isn't anywhere near big enough to significantly affect a console generation like nintendos is.
Meh, back in circles already.
Sony "has the hardcore and the first parties" and yet, Call of Duty is the bestselling PS3 game..by a big margin.
Nintendo "keeps doing the same"; but they sure want Nintendo to make Mario 64-2, a remake of Zelda NES and 2D Metroid games.
Microsoft "doesn't have exclusives", yet Halo, Gears and Fable outsell PS3-exclusives.
One thing that gaming has shown, is that anything can happen. Microsoft could stop making Xbox gaming consoles and start making "Xbox Devices" and implement them on their PC, laptops, TVs, etc. and for that matter "bow out of the console race". Sony could focus on games/software and Nintendo..can continue with their own software/consoles for as long as they want and can.
While Sony is one that could technically bow out first (lacks of profits, brand was damaged by multiple things: hack, $599.99, etc.) they have too much pride to just announce it...first at least. They''ll probably wait till either Nintendo or Microsoft announces/says something about "a restructuring process" before doing so and continue making things; even if they end "like Nintendo" and making hardware to sell their own software for the most part.
Sony "has the hardcore and the first parties" and yet, Call of Duty is the bestselling PS3 game..by a big margin.
Nintendo "keeps doing the same"; but they sure want Nintendo to make Mario 64-2, a remake of Zelda NES and 2D Metroid games.
Microsoft "doesn't have exclusives", yet Halo, Gears and Fable outsell PS3-exclusives.
One thing that gaming has shown, is that anything can happen. Microsoft could stop making Xbox gaming consoles and start making "Xbox Devices" and implement them on their PC, laptops, TVs, etc. and for that matter "bow out of the console race". Sony could focus on games/software and Nintendo..can continue with their own software/consoles for as long as they want and can.
While Sony is one that could technically bow out first (lacks of profits, brand was damaged by multiple things: hack, $599.99, etc.) they have too much pride to just announce it...first at least. They''ll probably wait till either Nintendo or Microsoft announces/says something about "a restructuring process" before doing so and continue making things; even if they end "like Nintendo" and making hardware to sell their own software for the most part.
Are any of those numbers besides GT, Uncharted and God of War supposed to be impressive? Infamous games did over 1 million?! Wow! If a first party game with the backing of Infamous didn't do 1 million people would be fired.
jeremy1456
Junior Member
It's already been said, but you completely disproved your point with this list.
Sony is already dead we're just waiting for the press release. Losing them isn't a big loss IMO since Developers will move back to Nintendo and Microsoft after Sony is gone. Sony did good during the ps1/2 days managing or money hating developers onto their console with exclusives but the industry has changed so much since then. Now Sony doesn't really have any advantages or strengths outside of a handful of exclusives.
entremet
Member
They're guaranteed the PS4 at least.
Pureauthor
Member
A) This is a business thread. Casuals outstripping core is directly relevant to the discussion. What you like as a gamer is not.
B) In which case by trying new things you mean 'Going back to something they've already done before'. I think those words do not mean what you think they mean.
C) The 'Mario' franchise is just as tied into the style and setting of the person as it is to the character. Doing this would just weaken the overall brand image.
Both B) and C) have already been tried before by another company. Final Fantasy's mainline iterations have significant shakeups to the way the story, art, and battle system every new game. It hasn't helped spur sales. If anything it weakens the brand because people aren't even sure if they'll like the latest game in the series or not.
D) You don't actually know how game development works, I take it.
Nintendo not changing things up with their core franchises is just a factually untrue statement. Unless by 'changing things' you are referring entirely to superficial aspects of the game (like your suggestion for 'realistic Mario', whatever that means), in which case that would be a poor financial decision, because it runs the risk of alienating the crowd that does like Mario while not making any guarantee they'll draw in a new crowd that doesn't like Mario as it is.