If Microsoft can't hang with Sony next-gen will they pack it in?
- Thread starter moondance
- Start date
i think this is make or break for microsoft in the console business.
they're releasing early and its either going to work out great for them and it could just as easily go horribly wrong.
there is no middle of the road this time for microsoft. this generation they didnt expect to turn a profit, hell i bet you the xbox has exceeded even their expectations but it must do a lot better next time around.
they're releasing early and its either going to work out great for them and it could just as easily go horribly wrong.
there is no middle of the road this time for microsoft. this generation they didnt expect to turn a profit, hell i bet you the xbox has exceeded even their expectations but it must do a lot better next time around.
Duckhuntdog
Member
XNA- It's not only a game development package, it's an exit strategy.
Speevy said:
But will they be giving MS exclusives or PS3 hand me downs? It makes all the difference. And western developers just sticking to Xbox2 would be silly business wise. Both consoles are gonna have a large intalled base, so why would those developers just makes games for one when they can go for both and maximize profit?
Die Squirrel Die
Member
I don't know I still see launching early hurting MS. I don't think it's as easy as saying 'the gap will be too small to tell the difference' and be done with it. That could work against MS still. It'll be a step down for MS to go from the most powerful console to on-par or slightly-less-powerful. And if Michelle Rodriguez is a good sample of an average owner a selling point of the Xbox is that it has the power (well that and the performance of multiplatform games on Xbox relative to PS2 - it ain't just 'cause they have a zealous MS fans). As much as there is a possibility that people won't choose a PS3 over a Xenon, because of the power issue, there's also a possibility that an Xbox owner won't upgrade to the Xenon because it no longer stands out.
Also if the PS2 launch vs. the DC is any indication the perception of being more powerful can override the reality. And it's going to be easier to convince people that you have the better hardware if yours comes out later, even if the truth is a little less clearcut.
Also if the PS2 launch vs. the DC is any indication the perception of being more powerful can override the reality. And it's going to be easier to convince people that you have the better hardware if yours comes out later, even if the truth is a little less clearcut.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"XNA- It's not only a game development package, it's an exit strategy.
Finally, someone posts the truth."
I've often wondered if MS would consider allowing Sony/Nintendo to link up to Xbl if it all falls apart for them.
Both of them need an online service, both seem to be dragging their feet. It's more cash for MS regardless of machine, but at the moment, it's too good of a string in the Xbox's bow to allow this to happen.
Price of the unit is going to be interesting along with games. If third party support is basically the same for both machines and the games are pretty much the same, then it'll come down to first party support + price surely?
Sony have (reportedly) invested way more in PS3 than MS have in Xb2. If Sony don't eat costs this time and MS undercut them, then that will be interesting, but i don't see Sony allowing that to happen.
Finally, someone posts the truth."
I've often wondered if MS would consider allowing Sony/Nintendo to link up to Xbl if it all falls apart for them.
Both of them need an online service, both seem to be dragging their feet. It's more cash for MS regardless of machine, but at the moment, it's too good of a string in the Xbox's bow to allow this to happen.
Price of the unit is going to be interesting along with games. If third party support is basically the same for both machines and the games are pretty much the same, then it'll come down to first party support + price surely?
Sony have (reportedly) invested way more in PS3 than MS have in Xb2. If Sony don't eat costs this time and MS undercut them, then that will be interesting, but i don't see Sony allowing that to happen.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
I think Microsoft will 'take' North America next generation, and it'll be about even, maybe 60:40 in Europe. Japan will remain about the same, with perhaps Nintendo and Microsoft switching positions. However, if they gain footing in Japan it won't be a deciding factor as Japan becomes less and less of the big monolithic structure in gaming. Very important, but 99% of the games in Japan are only significant to less than 1/3rd of the total gaming market.
I don't think the difference between Xbox 2 and PS3 will be so different , with all the bells and wistles being added to the next playstation, I can see it taking 2-3 years before it's power will be utilized to such a degree that you'll see a difference in graphics. I mean , the next nintendo and Xbox 2 will be damn near the same system as far as I can tell, so even if they are worse then PS3 the issue is that games will be made for the lowest demoninator- Revolution and Xbox 2. I think PS3 will be more like comparing Xbox to gamecube in differences.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
GDJustin said:
To adapt it back to the PC world? Please elaborate
Agent Icebeezy said:
XNA is a software development platform, or middleware, if you will. If the Xbox2 isn't a resounding success, and the shareholders say enough is enough and they want out of the home console industry, then MS has something else to market to developers. They can easily adapt XNA to fit Sony and Nintendo platforms, and offer the tools that can create Xbox Live-style online platforms and such.
DopeyFish said:
Sure it is, especially when you consider that they didn't even want to come into the industry as a hardware manufacturer in the first place. If Sony or Nintendo had given them the time of day and utilized Windows as the OS for one of, if not both, the platforms, MS would've been more than happy to just provide developers the tools to make games using the MS standard.
Spike said:
Microsoft did that with the Dreamcast. Xbox was an idea by the DirectX group and some other people. It wasn't a last-pitch effort at staying in the console business.
Xbox is one of the core groups for Microsoft now, it's almost all it's Microsoft Games group and it's their portal to the future. (As is Windows Media Center and Longhorn)
If you haven't noticed, Microsoft is trying to get their hands on every entertainment medium possible, and becoming a dominant force in the games industry would absolutely blow the doors open.
And no, it's not an exit strategy. It's platform consolidation. It's a leverage to strengthen more platforms. The more games, the better as in the end on either side, Microsoft makes more money.
DopeyFish said:
They intially tried to get the Windows OS on all three platforms, with only Sega accepting. If they had gotten integrated into the PS2 and GameCube, there would be no Xbox.
Xbox is a core product, not a core group. If the Xbox failed to exist, MGStudios still would exist and would be creating games on the PC and PS2/Cube, if they had incorporated Windows OS onto their hardware.
If the share holders see massive losses with the Xbox 2, then they'll want out of this endeavour. I don't think they're willing to keep pumping money into what would then amount to a lost cause in their eyes. If this happens, then XNA gets opened up to Sony, Nintendo, and all the other development companies out there by way of third parties. MS reaps the rewards of having a plaform that brings them in money, as well as an easy conduit to ensure that titles developed with XNA get put onto PC. Smart move, really.
DopeyFish said:
Do you think that the losses that the Xbox has incurred haven't affected their dividends?
Shareholders do care. MS presented to them their outlook for the Xbox platform, and at some point they need to have told the shareholders when they expect to see profits from this endeavour. If those profits aren't generated, then they won't be happy. When shareholders aren't happy, shit happens.
Duckhuntdog
Member
Dividends eat into profit. Every wonder why MS has paid dividends till recently?
Phoenix
Member
DopeyFish said:
Correct - 10 years actually being 2 generations of hardware (which is what they are actually talking about in the S10 filing). So that rolls back into the "If they get served this gen is it over".
I don't think that it is, but XNA is a seperate and much more compelling business strategy that they want to pursue, the Xbox and NONE of their hardware initiatives are. Microsoft wants to make software and sell services. Xbox live is a service that they make money on and would make even more on if it were everything and it grows/supports the Windows Server franchise (which needs all the help it can get these days), and rolls into the focus of what .Net really is - a mechanism to collect monies on the 'business process'.
DopeyFish said:
No, they, as every other major global company, presents its shareholders with a 10-year forecast of where the company is headed. They never said that the Xbox plaform would be profitable in 10 years. I'm sure they offered some profitable outlook in year 6 or 7, including the Xbox 2, but not after 10 years. Believe me, if they said it would take 10 years for this to be profitable, the Xbox wouldn't exist.
Customer/Developer outlook changes like the wind, mate. Look at Nintendo and Sony from last gen to this gen.
moondance said:
One would have to be the most hardened Xbot to think Microsoft stands any chance of running "neck & neck" with Sony. Microsoft will do as they have done this generation: position themselves as the Western alternative to Sony's PS3, housing a greater number of games designed by local development houses. With all of that said, if the Xenon bleeds as its predecessor continues to, Microsoft will not join Sony and Nintendo in the generation succeeding the next. With the Xenon likely to come up markedly short on the technological front, relative to its presumed competitors, there is a good chance of Microsoft seeing an early exit.
Chony said:
Now, that's a delusory claim, isn't it? The PS2's sales have been unabatedly remarkable from the minute systems hit shelves worldwide. That the Xbox now sells "almost on par with PS2" is hardly a feat to crow over; the sytem, in its twilight stage, now sells "almost on par with" a system that has broken records and established Sony as the clear and distinct leader of this industry.
I wouldnt just toss that off as a small feat. Please remember that when the next generation starts everyone starts over with a relatively clean slate. If the Xbox2 can continue to sell as well as the PS3 then we have quite a different landscape.XS+ said:
Even in Japan there has been quite an interesting turn in the last few years. The past few Tokyo Game Shows were very lackluster by many accounts. We very well might be on the verge of a shift to the West in game development.
What I'm really shocked to see is everyone making any sort of prediction. It's so early in the game it's impossible to tell what will happen. To say Sony will defiantly be the market leader is silly.
I really don't see how anyone can think that they can keep up with Sony. First of all they have to sell at a pac equivalent to the ps2 at launch. That in itself is a hard task. MS has to make it the "it" item for gifts etc. And MS has only sold at around the same level as Nintendo barely beating them while on the other hand got a real spanking by the ps2. I am quite surprised that Sony is still selling as well as they are considering that they pretty much saturated the market with the ps2. 6 months will only get MS 2-3 million, tops, and if Sony does with the ps3 as they did with the ps2, they will have caught up within the next 6 months.
Of course, there is a chance that MS could come up with the hype and craze that the ps2 did. But that isn't an easy thing to do with the kind of rolling success that the ps has going for it.
Of course, there is a chance that MS could come up with the hype and craze that the ps2 did. But that isn't an easy thing to do with the kind of rolling success that the ps has going for it.
Spider_Jerusalem
Member
Duckhuntdog said:
Yeah, and Visual Studio and the .NET Framework are an exit strategy from the OS markets :lol :lol :lol
XNA is simply another move in a strategy that Microsoft has used since its first days in the industry: push a platform by appealing the developers.
imastalker co.
Banned
there's roughly 16 million xbox's out there. you honestly think Microsoft can sell that many xenons in one year just because there's no competition? you're psychotic.Chony said:
PS3 hype is gonna be quite the thing to go against as far as the casual gamer goes.
Kanbee-san
Member
TheDiave said:
Gotta love them sour sour grapes.
They've already got things like media center extenders. I'm sure Xbox2 will have that built in, but its there separately in case Xbox2 fails.
As for standardising platforms, I don't see it happening while PCs are so fragmented. Maybe with longhorn? MS seem to have a much stricter set of rules for that. But then last time a software company tried that they got ignored (IBM)
CaptainABAB
Member
Phoenix said:
Since when did they ever compete against Flash and Photoshop? I would say that Microsoft never had a product that was in direct competition with those two.
MS Money and Quicken is another story. Or MSN vs. Yahoo.
Look at PocketPC and PDAs - MS just overtook Palm in market share for the first time recently, and this is a market that has been around for what, 6 years or so?
Now in terms of dividends, they do not eat into profits. They do decrease the amount of cash MS has stored (they had to do something with the 60B), but it does not affect their profit-n-loss statements.
CaptainABAB said:
http://www.microsoft.com/products/imaging/products.aspx
And when Internet Explorer first came out, anyone with a working brain would've said - correctly - that it wasn't anywhere near the same level as Netscape Navigator. But hey, here's the lowdown on Microsoft. It's the truth, you can either believe it or not, I don't care:
Microsoft rarely creates, and they often react to market demands and shifts rather than predict them. DOS was bought from a tiny company in Seattle; Windows was the result of Microsoft's work with IBM on OS/2 (Microsoft left mid-project, effectively stabbing IBM in the back); Internet Explorer, at first, was largely based on Spyglass code; WebTV was outright purchased.
Then there's the XBox, which was created for the singular purpose of trying to head off Sony from taking over the living room; the stronger push you see for WMA to become a standard is because of the iPod's meteoric rise; PocketPC/WinCE was developed to stop Palm. Remember their brief attempt at a TiVo like service? I barely do, that's how well it did. And you know what? If Sony *or* Nintendo agreed to use some form of Windows to power a console, you'd see Microsoft drop the XBox in a heartbeat. That kind of deal would be much more lucrative to them. That's why XNA is being pushed, it is an exit strategy. Get XNA tools to run on next-gen consoles, plus the PC, and Microsoft instantly has their fingers in everyone's pie, and that's healthier for them as a company.
Do you see a pattern here? Microsoft pathologically either buys their competition, or tries to crush them outright. They're a very big, very powerful one-hit-wonder desperately trying to stop the inevitable, which is a transformation of how society uses computers in their collective, everyday life. They want to control these new devices, and it's going to be significantly harder for them to convince people that they should this time around. It's an empire built on one poorly worded contract with IBM, and no one is so stupid as to let something like that happen again. There's too much money at stake.
as has been said akascream they're justified to the shareholders in not turning a profit until 2007, that was their initial plan, and the marketshare and mindshare they've gained in the last little while makes the target achievable.
Consoles are powerful computing machines, and as such could very easily cut significantly into the PC market into the future. Heck it's already started with a lot of PC gamers picking up consoles for the first time in this generation (some as side gaming machines, a few finally gaiving up on the punishing upgrade cycles and troubleshooting issues that are much lower on consoles). As Microsoft is a PC company this is a very very significant threat.
Now it's true that if Sony lets PS3 run a version of Windows as the OS then MS will be happy, but Sony has proven to be combatative as they woudn't let the OS onto the PSX or PS2 and I don't think they'll change their attitude in the future (especially considering the radically distinct CELL architecture of the PS3). Plus Sony has always been miffed that the Playstation series remains 'merely videogame machines' and want to leverage their dominance over consoles and move playstations into providing services that PC companies would like to provide. So Microsoft is faced with a huge, cunning, non-cooperative, ambitous company that is controlling significantly powerful computing devices in millions of households worldwide and looking to expand. If you think in those terms then MS should be freaking terrified and rightly so.
Frankly for Microsoft to not counter this threat would be akin to IBM not moving to control the personal computer market back in the late 70's early 80's. IBM didn't think PC's would be an important market so they didn't control the hardware (PC clone companies rose up and have now by 2004 pushed IBM out of the market completely), or the software (MS-DOS). You can be sure that MS is not going to make the same mistake with consoles.
Edit: So to answer the title thread MS is in this for the long run and will not pull out; the stakes in the 'console wars' are extremely high for both Sony and Microsoft and the battles will be vicious.
Consoles are powerful computing machines, and as such could very easily cut significantly into the PC market into the future. Heck it's already started with a lot of PC gamers picking up consoles for the first time in this generation (some as side gaming machines, a few finally gaiving up on the punishing upgrade cycles and troubleshooting issues that are much lower on consoles). As Microsoft is a PC company this is a very very significant threat.
Now it's true that if Sony lets PS3 run a version of Windows as the OS then MS will be happy, but Sony has proven to be combatative as they woudn't let the OS onto the PSX or PS2 and I don't think they'll change their attitude in the future (especially considering the radically distinct CELL architecture of the PS3). Plus Sony has always been miffed that the Playstation series remains 'merely videogame machines' and want to leverage their dominance over consoles and move playstations into providing services that PC companies would like to provide. So Microsoft is faced with a huge, cunning, non-cooperative, ambitous company that is controlling significantly powerful computing devices in millions of households worldwide and looking to expand. If you think in those terms then MS should be freaking terrified and rightly so.
Frankly for Microsoft to not counter this threat would be akin to IBM not moving to control the personal computer market back in the late 70's early 80's. IBM didn't think PC's would be an important market so they didn't control the hardware (PC clone companies rose up and have now by 2004 pushed IBM out of the market completely), or the software (MS-DOS). You can be sure that MS is not going to make the same mistake with consoles.
Edit: So to answer the title thread MS is in this for the long run and will not pull out; the stakes in the 'console wars' are extremely high for both Sony and Microsoft and the battles will be vicious.
Spider_Jerusalem
Member
Someone stores this topic for future use. I predict a really funny "crow" thread next christmas ;-)
Well, if they pushed the reset button, they could certainly start making a profit with thier current userbase, as shown by Nintendo. The question is, can they either 1) make back the billions they've invested and STILL make a profit with thier current userbase; or 2) further expand thier userbase, make back the billions they've invested and STILL make a profit. And you say they need to do this by 2007 and launch a new console in the meantime?
Duckhuntdog
Member
DopeyFish said:
Yeah, ONCE. In how many years of operation?
I'm pretty sure they told shareholders that the business wouldn't be losing money anymore by 2007, not that they'd make enough to offset their investment. (because the second target would be crazy ambitious and unachievable). Shareholders would be pretty satisfied that MS isn't throwing money down a shinkhole anymore and the new console business is generating revenue and contributing positively to the bottom line.akascream said:
But more significantly, this is more important than money for MS, what's at stake is the control of household computing power and I'm making a contention that even if Xboxnext wasn't profitable by 2007 they'd still stick it out because warding off Sony is something that they must do.