Xbox and Nintendo have two completely opposite approaches to console gaming and its future. Which of the two do you think is right in the long term?

Which company is right about the future of console gaming

  • Xbox

    Votes: 24 10.7%

  • Nintendo

    Votes: 201 89.3%
  • Total voters
    225
LakeOf9

LakeOf9

Member
I find the last few weeks to be a very fascinating study into the state of the console market, as well as its future.

On one hand, we have Xbox. Xbox sales have plummeted, so much that its executives have been decrying the entire console model as a whole. They feel that the console market itself is stagnating and dying, that exclusives are antiquated, that the future is for games to be platform agnostic. The next Xbox is allegedly not even going to be a pure console, it will be a gaming PC with a console-like frontend running on Windows 11.

I don't agree with everything Xbox or Microsoft say, in fact I disagree with most of it. I do want to point out however that they are right about one thing – the console market isn't growing.

That doesn't mean it is dying either, in fact, for the remaining players and platforms, it seems to be moving from strength to strength.

And this brings me to the other hand.

Switch 2 has sold 10 million in four months. This is an outrageous number by any metric, especially given the console launched in the middle of Summer, costs $450 to begin with, and in the period being covered, only got one major new first party release. This is before Pokemon Legends ZA and its bundle came out. This is before the Holiday season, where Nintendo sees its highest sales. As of right now, Nintendo's plan is to sell 19 million units of this system in its first 9 months, which is crazy. And it's all being done with an adherence to the traditional console model in every way – closed platform, proprietary hardware, first party games remaining fully exclusive and being used to drive sales, all of that.

I don't agree with a lot of what Nintendo does too. I think their pricing is awful, for their games, for their accessories, for everything, and I am definitely not a fan of how litigation happy they are. But it is impossible to deny they seem to understand how the console market works – put out new hardware, make compelling games for it, watch people buy it for those compelling games. Nintendo's adherence to this model has give them the single biggest console launch of all time.

The question from me to you is, which of the two companies do you truly think is right about the future of console gaming? Think in the long term, not just now. In the long term, do you think Nintendo's business model is the right one for consoles? Do you think Microsoft has it right, but they are shit with execution, and way ahead of the curve on this?
 
yfvXvwdA2OpOp5Sq.png
HCFBKJIEJrZGpbXr.png


Who Knows Mind Blown GIF by Aurora Consulting - EIDL Consulting
 
Last edited:
I don't know, which is the better model? The one who is selling tens of millions of units with a cash surplus or the one who are spending billions on acquisitions and now exiting the console market for all intents because the have underperformed two gens in a row?
 
Ceallach said:
I don't know, which is the better model? The one who is selling tens of millions of units with a cash surplus or the one who are spending billions on acquisitions and now exiting the console market for all intents because the have underperformed two gens in a row?
Click to expand...
I alluded to this in the OP, but the discussion is a little muddied because of how badly Microsoft is doing.

My question is if a more competent company could have pulled off that business strategy, or if the strategy itself is inherently flawed.
 
Whoever executes best, and right now it's Nintendo.

Microsoft's biggest achilles heel has been in assuming that only ideation needs to happen to achieve success in the gaming market, but execution is a massively important thing too, and Microsoft's gaming history is littered with "potentially winning ideas" that are paired with just shocking execution.
 
Nintendo will easily transition Into its service app. I mean most people Get a Nintendo console for Nintendo games. An app will be those same Nintendo games.

Xbox was wrong to lose exclusives. IDK if they think they can turn around in 10 years a says " JUST KIDDING.. IT WAS ALL FOR COD! now everything is exclusive! " MS always seems to to take a good thing and make all the wrong decisions. Remember ZUNE had a great start, Windows phones where the original smart phones/PDAs.
 
Last edited:
You can't compare them, Microsoft is a mega software company where it never made much sense why they entered the home console hardware business in the first place. Nintendo on the other hand is almost 100 % a console hardware and software company. For Microsoft gaming is just a side show to their bigger business divisions, while for Nintendo its 99 % of their revenue and profit. Nintendo also has a first party driven console model where most of the appeal comes from their own software, while Microsoft is mostly pushing gamepass subscription service, and not their own IP as their main appeal.
 
Last edited:
I think Nintendo will eventually go 3rd party and become a prominent app. There will be a way to access their content away from their hardware. TVs, Netflix deal, PC store, mobile store, something.

They are on the lookout for the blue ocean still. Their allegiance isn't primarily to hardware. They can still make custom controllers that provide whatever hardware innovation they want to push for quirky games and it can connect to anything.
 
Astray said:
Whoever executes best, and right now it's Nintendo.

Microsoft's biggest achilles heel has been in assuming that only ideation needs to happen to achieve success in the gaming market, but execution is a massively important thing too, and Microsoft's gaming history is littered with "potentially winning ideas" that are paired with just shocking execution.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is the point I am touching at, Microsoft obviously sucks at executing on their chosen business strategy and so are doing poorly... but is the business strategy itself bad, or is it just that they are bad at pulling it off?
 
LakeOf9 said:
Yeah, this is the point I am touching at, Microsoft obviously sucks at executing on their chosen business strategy and so are doing poorly... but is the business strategy itself bad, or is it just that they are bad at pulling it off?
Click to expand...
It's both.

It's not a great strategy and they simply have undesirable products even if it was a great strategy.
 
RetroGamingUK said:
One sold 154 million

One sold 34 million

Take a guess
Click to expand...

Switch is still an 8TH gen Console I think.

Should be compared with PS4 (120 mil) and Xbone (60 mil), which is still insane to think of and they aren't done yet.

The point still stands that Nintendo had the long term strategy right for Console gaming and it's future.
 
Who knows in the long run. The next generation are like aliens when it comes to gaming. Roblox, Fortnight, Minecraft on repeat with random Five Nights of Freddy's inspired horror games that look like they were made by the Ugandan film industry. They don't pay games like Pokemon or Halo. That's guys in their 30s.
 
Neither, xbox doesn't need any explanation but nintendo has its own issues that may affect them in the long run. They're in a position very similar to disney's, and we just have to watch what's happening to disney to understand the ways nintendo could face failure.
 
One of them keeps changing strategies every 2 years. The other one knows what they want and what their brand represents.

If you need to keep changing strategies every two seconds chances are you are not good at your job.

Nintendo wins by far.
 
Guilty_AI said:
Neither, xbox doesn't need any explanation but nintendo has its own issues that may affect them in the long run. They're in a position very similar to disney's, and we just have to watch what's happening to disney to understand the ways nintendo could face failure.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying and it's a reasonable point, but I would actually argue that Disney's five years of fuckups more closely mirror the current situation with Microsoft:

They went on an IP acquisition spree that seemed promising initially, but corporate mismanagement, a profound misapprehension of audience tastes, a half-baked streaming strategy that emphasized quantity over quality, and just overall bloat have resulted in the devaluing of not only their acquired properties but also their legacy IPs and their brand more broadly.

Whereas Nintendo's strategy has been the careful cultivation of their existing properties and a gradual expansion of those properties into new mediums (like film and theme parks). They haven't gone on a spending spree or let cultural politics influence their creative direction or otherwise diluted or poisoned their core brands. If anything, the argument might be that they're being too conservative and sticking too rigidly to their established strategies, but, uh, looking at today's numbers, it seems to be paying dividends.
 
Madserb2023 said:
Who knows in the long run. The next generation are like aliens when it comes to gaming. Roblox, Fortnight, Minecraft on repeat with random Five Nights of Freddy's inspired horror games that look like they were made by the Ugandan film industry. They don't pay games like Pokemon or Halo. That's guys in their 30s.
Click to expand...


Freuidan slip and particularly apt.
 
The company terrified of technological advances that would nuke their business model vs the company associated with bringing about technological advances.

I'm going with msft, since Xbox will be absorbed into windows.
 
mckmas8808 said:
How is Nintendo not at 100%?
Click to expand...
Because there is a case to be made that the actual strategy Microsoft has – hardware agnosticism, generalized hardware with abstraction layers – is the right one for the console market, and eventually this is where things will end up, Microsoft just a) sucks at actually executing on the strategy and b) is far too early to the party (not dissimilar to their original pitch for Xbox One, a lot of which is now normalized for all consoles, but at the time it was premature for the market)

I honestly think that's what makes the question interesting – Nintendo is executing flawlessly, but is their strategy sustainable long term? Microsoft is fumbling the ball on every single thing in execution, but is the strategy itself sound?
 
LakeOf9 said:
Because there is a case to be made that the actual strategy Microsoft has – hardware agnosticism, generalized hardware with abstraction layers – is the right one for the console market, and eventually this is where things will end up, Microsoft just a) sucks at actually executing on the strategy and b) is far too early to the party (not dissimilar to their original pitch for Xbox One, a lot of which is now normalized for all consoles, but at the time it was premature for the market)

I honestly think that's what makes the question interesting – Nintendo is executing flawlessly, but is their strategy sustainable long term? Microsoft is fumbling the ball on every single thing in execution, but is the strategy itself sound?
Click to expand...

Nintendo's strategy has been THE strategy for console since 1985. That's 40 YEARS! Why would it all of a sudden not be the winning strategy?
 
Last edited:
blacktout said:
I understand what you're saying and it's a reasonable point, but I would actually argue that Disney's five years of fuckups more closely mirror the current situation with Microsoft:

They went on an IP acquisition spree that seemed promising initially, but corporate mismanagement, a profound misapprehension of audience tastes, a half-baked streaming strategy that emphasized quantity over quality, and just overall bloat have resulted in the devaluing of not only their acquired properties but also their legacy IPs and their brand more broadly.

Whereas Nintendo's strategy has been the careful cultivation of their existing properties and a gradual expansion of those properties into new mediums (like film and theme parks). They haven't gone on a spending spree or let cultural politics influence their creative direction or otherwise diluted or poisoned their core brands. If anything, the argument might be that they're being too conservative and sticking too rigidly to their established strategies, but, uh, looking at today's numbers, it seems to be paying dividends.
Click to expand...
I compare Nintendo with disney because, unlike MS, both nintendo and disney are heavily dependent on their IPs. MS is primarily in the service business (which actually reflects the strategies they adopted throughout the years with xbox), but nintendo exists as they do today because of 3 names: Mario, Zelda, Pokemon. They have other games, sure, but none come close to the revenue these 3 bring them, both in games and other mediums.

Their hardware isn't much to speak of, especially in todays market with phones being the primary handheld gaming device and PC handhelds rising in proeminence. Their services are terrible. They don't have much space in terms of software tech, with everything being in-house and focused on their own console. All that holds them together are those 3 IPs.

What that means is, if nintendo ever botches these somehow or if people simply gradually lose interest in them, they're cooked. And in a corporate enviroment, with the old talent that made these names gradually leaving, being replaced by younger people who are a lot more business and corporative oriented, that not only can happen but will happen. Why do you think they're going down so hard in Palworld? Because they're deathly afraid of someone taking up Pokemon's mindshare, that is literally their lifeline.
 
Last edited:
I think Xbox's approach is more plausible from a long-term business standpoint. They've bungled it every step of the way, but I think the core idea of becoming generic is somewhat inevitable.

However, Nintendo's approach is interesting. As someone who gives a shit about games - not just as a business - I absolutely 100% prefer their approach. Fuck business. I just like games and I want to be happy about them.
 
Danny Dudekisser said:
I think Xbox's approach is more plausible from a long-term business standpoint. They've bungled it every step of the way, but I think the core idea of becoming generic is somewhat inevitable.

However, Nintendo's approach is interesting. As someone who gives a shit about games - not just as a business - I absolutely 100% prefer their approach. Fuck business. I just like games and I want to be happy about them.
Click to expand...

We've never seen this "generic" route work in the console business. So why do you think it's inevitable?
 
Xbox has no vision.
They throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks. Surely catching diehards hopes and dreams only to string em along further.
 
mckmas8808 said:
Nintendo's strategy has been THE strategy for console since 1985. That's 40 YEARS! Why would it all of a sudden not be the winning strategy?
Click to expand...
Because it's been 40 years

The market has changed, the world has changed, consumer expectations have changed, consumer buying habits have changed, etc.

To be clear, I am not necessarily saying I believe that Nintendo's strategy isn't the winning strategy long term, I am saying that discussing the merits of Microsoft's strategy on its own and its long term viability is very much worth it. People are dismissing the strategy out of hand because it comes from Microsoft, who are incompetent bumbling fools. But that's the point I am making, Microsoft poisoned the well on several things initially that did turn out to be validated by market behaviour in the long term – the expectation for always online, the wholesale shift to digital, online fees – so the question is, is it possible the same will also happen here? That hardware agonisticism and "play anywhere" will be the standard for the market in the future initially, and Microsoft is just doing what they always do (like with tablets or smartphones or video calling or all the things mentioned above), which is being early and being shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Two remakes but which one?
2
50
116
Negotiator101 replied
Linux is the future of gaming if Microsoft do not do something
9 10 11 12 13
645
872
Crayon replied
Which consoles do you think had the best first party libraries?
Opinion Platform 
42
959
consoul replied
Do you think Sony is outlining its PS6 plans within the next 6 months?
2
80
926
PeteBull replied
[Famitsu]. We spoke to Phil Spencer about various topics, including the next Xbox console, Kojima's OD, and the future of the Halo series. -translated
2
51
728
mckmas8808 replied
Top Bottom