Support NeoGAF

[Y2Kev]

I don't think I've ever actually seen a set top box.

 

[gerg]

Maybe if some of you people actually bothered to read the arguments and viewpoints at hand instead of striking at bogeymen that don't actually exist we'd have a slightly more productive (and/or interesting) discussion.

Yes, but that would be easy.

 

[Infinite Justice]

I think it's more amazing that so many adults are so fucking bad at reading comprehension that they think that's what Opiate and charlequin are talking about.

But that's me, I'm forever the optimist.

Indeed.

 

[evangd007]

kill it, pull the trigger sony.

They need to keep it alive so the Japanese sales can float the department, damage to the brand be damned.

OFF TOPIC

I really don't know where else to ask, but in a day and age where Nintendo has shown you can be profitable right out the box with consoles and you can built a healthy software market for your own products .. How are SEGA's finances looking these days and has there been any rumblings of them looking at a return to the hardware market?

Would they be more profitable being a cross platform developer or making a money generating console?

Sammy is dead set on keeping Sega profitable, which often means budget cuts and rushing out unfinished products to meet the deadline. I don't think they'd be keen on taking the up front losses to put out new hardware.

Microsoft has a lot to gain from the Xbox brand and just not profits. Microsoft is a 'cool' brand because of the Xbox. I'm certain that the view that people had of Microsoft the software company is much different from Microsoft the entertainment company that exists today. Not to mention that the Xbox is a 'safe' investment for the coming 2-3 years. It gets tricky when they need a next-gen system.

Nobody is saying that MS will shoot the legs out from under the 360. The discussion is primarily about what kind of position and philosophy they will approach the next generation with since last decade's urgency of taking the living room from Sony is replaced by this decade's urgency of taking the portable sector from Apple and Google. What is almost certain at this point is that the "blank check" years of Xbox era and the start of the 360 era are long gone.

 

[onipex]

Money isnt the only thing in life. I can understand why game designers and even execs want to push tech. People fall in love with their creations and want to experience them in their full glory. Even I'm a little bit curious as to how far they can go. Besides some of the old people in this industry realize that they may die soon so they have nothing to lose.

I can understand this but it is not good for the industry. For one thing money is everything when you are running a business. Choices should be made based on what is best for business and not just what you want to do. Pride can put you out of business quick.

While some games benefit from pushing tech doing so also raises development cost and the high cost makes it a lot harder to take creative risk. Plus some devs get so stuck on their dream that they end up making a 100 million dollar game that the market does not want.

Now if you want to be creative you are stuck on a DD service, phone or hand held device.

 

[dakilla13]

Apple TV/Google TV are the reasons MS should absolutely stay in the console business. They need to ramp up the media services they offer on the 360 to exceed Apple/Google's offerings, since Zune Marketplace is really lacking currently. They already have ~40 million of these boxes in homes, pulling out now would just let Apple/Google into the space easily. I would argue that they still need to brand their own hardware, Apple has shown how successful vertical integration can be in the consumer electronics space.

 

[maeh2k]

if they play their cards right (they probably won't) the 360 could own google tv and apple tv.

the 360 is a lot more powerful than the other boxes and with Kinect the user input will be better as well.

They'd need to at least match the competing offers (e.g. 99 cent tv show rentals). In order to compete with google tv an internet browser and applications would be nice, but MS won't do that...

 

[Vic]

The reason why I believe MS and/or Sony might pull out of the console race or why they might "play it safe" this upcoming generation is because how risky & unpredictable the home console market has became. When you have a company like Nintendo who is not only trying their best to disrupt their business ventures, but has actually done it almost impeccably two times in a row and is going for a third, do they really want to blow a load of money in a market which they can't accurately predict how it's going to look like five, ten years from now? What if Nintendo comes up with yet another console which could make their plans outdated the minute it's announced? This kind of scenario needs to be put under consideration.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

No. Console online gaming wouldn't be niche at all. Online gaming in general has traveled light years since 2002. STEAM, WoW, facebook game, etc. Somebody would have stepped up to the opportunity and would have done it "right". I'm not saying that in a parallel universe where the Xbox never existed that PSN and Nintendo Wi-Fi would have online as good as Xbox LIVE or even the current PSN, because they probably wouldn't be. Just that at least one of them would have been at least competent. Online gaming is something far too big to pass up, especially with how integrated online has gotten in games outside the console market. It was inevitable, somebody would have taken the plunge.

I'm not arguing that and I fully agree. I just think that console gaming would currently be at Wii-level otherwise is a bit too big to swallow.

That's the thing - "competent" isn't good enough. At least not so much that people who are just entering this gen of consoles now would look at a gane like CoD online as a killer app. You're talking about a world where the original SOCOM and Sony's "do whatever you want" policy were the driving forces in competent online play. You know how EA online and Metal Gear Online require you to have log-ins independent if the service? Now imagine that for every online game, with only a handful having the great community features, DLC hooks, and voice chat of the top tier games.

CoD and Halo would not have taken off as much as they did if the infrastructure wasn't already there for their massive community features, something that started with the original Ghost Recon/Mech Assault and was more or less cemented by Halo 2. Party systems and required voice communication shape these games. Near-obligate cooperative experiences can be shipped as mainstream products now (RE5, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, Borderlands) rather than catering to a small niche (PSO, RE Outbreak). And as much as people hate to admit it, MS locking out m&kb support had made the community stronger, not weaker.

 

[Draft]

The reason why I believe MS and/or Sony might pull out of the console race or why they might "play it safe" this upcoming generation is because how risky & unpredictable the home console market has became. When you have a company like Nintendo who is not only trying their best to disrupt their business ventures, but has actually done it almost impeccably two times in a row and is going for a third, do they really want to blow a load of money in a market which they can't accurately predict how it's going to look like five, ten years from now? What if Nintendo comes up with yet another console which could make their plans outdated the minute it's announced? This kind of scenario needs to be put under consideration.

What if Nintendo comes up with another one two N64/GCN punch.

 

[jedimike]

Nobody is saying that MS will shoot the legs out from under the 360. The discussion is primarily about what kind of position and philosophy they will approach the next generation with since last decade's urgency of taking the living room from Sony is replaced by this decade's urgency of taking the portable sector from Apple and Google. What is almost certain at this point is that the "blank check" years of Xbox era and the start of the 360 era are long gone.

The point you guys are missing is that it isn't an either/or scenario... MS has the resources to accomplish both and it is the core mission of the company to pursue "3 screens and a cloud."

They will continue to pursue the home entertainment screen with Xbox, media center, and zune. They'll continue to to pursue the mobile screen with Zune, Win Phone 7, and a tablet. They'll obviously continue with the business screen. They'll also use the cloud to move and share resources. That is their mission and they have no intentions of dropping a "screen."

 

[mintylurb]

I think it's more amazing that so many adults are so fucking bad at reading comprehension that they think that's what Opiate and charlequin are talking about.

I don't think some of them are bad at reading comprehension.

But that's me, I'm forever the optimist.

Ohh..I see what you did there.

 

[flyinpiranha]

I'm not arguing that and I fully agree. I just think that console gaming would currently be at Wii-level otherwise is a bit too big to swallow.

No, not really. When PSN launched you couldn't even access the XMB in-game. It was basically just a media hub where you could play your games. Every game had it's OWN separate friends lists for invites (in-game friends - if it even had that) and the universal friends list was useless.

You must really forget what the PS3 online infrastructure was like around launch or something, it was very close to the Wii sans the friends codes. Almost all online was handled in-game ... oh, and there was Home later on too.

 

[SapientWolf]

Exactly. Microsoft got into the console game because they were worried that SONY's grand master plan would actually come into futation. That's why they didn't really give a crap about spending billions on the project, because they thought that it would be more than worth it in the long term. Unfortunately it was their long rival Apple who stumbled upon the success of a convergence device more so than Microsoft could have ever imagined. But what's worse is that people are using their devices less like a media hub and more like a traditional computer. The iPad and Android OS are the most dangerous things in the general market for Microsoft right now. More than the Playstation 3, more than the Wii, more than OS X, more than anything. It would be best for Microsoft to just take their focus off of gaming.

If that happened then Apple would really steal their lunch. People see their computers and phones as entertainment devices now, and it would hurt their marketing potential if everyone perceived MS as a boring company that only makes productivity software.

 

[Spike]

My niece just came to visit and want to know if we can set up her son Wii so we can play on line and chat like she saw us doing on XBL. My in-law who also have the Wii (damm the causual) also ask me the same thing. I am not sure why you would be assuming people that have Wii doesn't want to play multiplayer games.

And the Wii was not design for on-line gaming because Japanese developer do not feel that it's an intergral part of console games.

No, what I mean is, Nintendo didn't design the system with online in mind. In Nintendo's mind, they want to get non-gamers gaming.

 

[Spike]

No, not really. When PSN launched you couldn't even access the XMB in-game. It was basically just a media hub where you could play your games. Every game had it's OWN separate friends lists for invites (in-game friends - if it even had that) and the universal friends list was useless.

You must really forget what the PS3 online infrastructure was like around launch or something, it was very close to the Wii sans the friends codes. Almost all online was handled in-game ... oh, and there was Home later on too.

If MS didn't enter the console space, then you would have still had Live, only it would have been on PC. The console makers would have still taken their ideas from that.

 

[BriareosGAF]

If MS didn't enter the console space, then you would have still had Live, only it would have been on PC. The console makers would have still taken their ideas from that.

Why would you think this? GFWL came out several years after Xbox Live, and has been an abomination from both a development and end-user perspective.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Why would you think this? GFWL came out several years after Xbox Live, and has been an abomination from both a development and end-user perspective.

Because third party software that unifies logins and server browsing across multiple games has been available for PC long before the Xbox existed.
EDIT: and building that kind of functionality into PC gaming would like have been something MS inevitably looked at as a value added feature of windows anyway, possibly more so if they did not have a console business to concentrate on instead.

 

[Spike]

Why would you think this? GFWL came out several years after Xbox Live, and has been an abomination from both a development and end-user perspective.

Microsoft was talking about creating a standard user interface for online gaming on PC even before they entered into the home console market. If they hadn't gone console, it is pretty safe to assume that Live would have been their eventuality on the PC. Would it be the exact same evolution that we saw with their home console's version of Live? Probably not. But, with the advent of Steam as their competition, it would have most likely progressed in a close enough manner that we would be at roughly the same point we are now.

Because third party software that unifies logins and server browsing across multiple games has been available for PC long before the Xbox existed.
EDIT: and building that kind of functionality into PC gaming would like have been something MS inevitably looked at as a value added feature of windows anyway, possibly more so if they did not have a console business to concentrate on instead.

You summed it up better than I could.

 

[BriareosGAF]

Because third party software that unifies logins and server browsing across multiple games has been available for PC long before the Xbox existed.
EDIT: and building that kind of functionality into PC gaming would like have been something MS inevitably looked at as a value added feature of windows anyway, possibly more so if they did not have a console business to concentrate on instead.

I don't think so. The primary political driver for Live was the monetization it offered on Xbox. The PC space suffers precisely because of this.

 

[Momo]

I don't think so. The primary political driver for Live was the monetization it offered on Xbox. The PC space suffers precisely because of this.

Microsoft are probably be more interested in getting their store and live on multiple devices, thats where the real money lies.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I don't think so. The primary political driver for Live was the monetization it offered on Xbox. The PC space suffers precisely because of this.

Corporate income from licensing GFWL on a per product basis would have dwarfed any revenue streams MS might make from attempting to launch Live as a subscription service to anyone who had any choice in the matter. It would have been a GameSpy competitor *at worst*.

GFWL started out as a subscription service on Pc and died on it's arse because people with a choice in the matter are not going to pay money for a product that is no better than what they can obtain for free.

 

[flyinpiranha]

If MS didn't enter the console space, then you would have still had Live, only it would have been on PC. The console makers would have still taken their ideas from that.

But without MS the focus would have been different. MS pushed online console gaming into the mainstream. Whether it would have "eventually" happened is moot because it would have progressed much, much slower.

We're talking about consoles, I don't really care if the PC invented everything, this is a console argument ... and Sony or Nintendo and COMPANY X would NOT have had the inclination to push an online component had MS not done it with as much force and infrastructure behind it.

 

[BriareosGAF]

Microsoft are probably be more interested in getting their store and live on multiple devices, thats where the real money lies.

In a sense I think that's why you'll see more resources put into Live for Windows Mobile 7 than PC, but they're so far behind in the smartphone space now that it's hard to see it going very far.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

this is a console argument

It's actually an entirely futile and pointless argument unless you're Uatu and can view technological development in other hypothetical dimensions.

 

[OscarMalory]

Don't bring Google into this; they are to Apple what Microsoft were to Sony - they want to disrupt the iPhone dominance; they license out Android for free, and I doubt they're seeing significant profit from it.

 

[Boney]

I think it's more amazing that so many adults are so fucking bad at reading comprehension that they think that's what Opiate and charlequin are talking about.

But that's me, I'm forever the optimist.

Always so sutile.

 

[Sydle]

Because third party software that unifies logins and server browsing across multiple games has been available for PC long before the Xbox existed.
EDIT: and building that kind of functionality into PC gaming would like have been something MS inevitably looked at as a value added feature of windows anyway, possibly more so if they did not have a console business to concentrate on instead.

I don't think LIVE would have survived long enough to catch on in an open environment. In other words, it made it because it was the only option on a growing user base that it was successful.

Don't bring Google into this; they are to Apple what Microsoft were to Sony - they want to disrupt the iPhone dominance; they license out Android for free, and I doubt they're seeing significant profit from it.

Like Microsoft, Google can afford to spend their way into a market because they make soooooo much money on their search platform. They'll eventually see profit from their mobile advertising.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Maybe if some of you people actually bothered to read the arguments and viewpoints at hand instead of striking at bogeymen that don't actually exist we'd have a slightly more productive (and/or interesting) discussion.

This times a million. Again I'd love to start a topic like this but just like my "Do you think media devices will soon be big players in the dedicated gaming market?" and "Do you think standardization will happen to the gaming industry?" it'll get like four serious replies with four hundred replies not even reading the damn OP with full of ":lol 's" and purposely reading what they want to read. Gamespot System Wars is better to have a serious intelligent discussion about these things and I'm not joking.

Interesting discussion on MS in the console industry.

People might have forgotten that MS are only in gaming proper becaue of the Dreamcast failure (WinCE OS).

MS have NEVER wanted to be in the gaming HARDWARE industry, they wanted to leverage their core busines (OS & Software) to drive whatever was going to be this omnipotent living-room hub.

I still maintain that if Sony went with an MS OS and Live services, MS would happily quit the hardware side of things - it's as close to the one-console future as you can get; of course MS and Sony's philosophy and culture are so far apart it's never going to happen.
.

Microsoft was still very well getting in the console industry. They more or less used their "partnership" with SEGA as a Trojan horse to get a crash course within the industry. Legend has it that they were planning on purchasing SEGA and during their "talks" with SEGA they managed to garner as much insight of the industry as possible. They then called off the deal as them and SEGA couldn't come to an agreement with the deal and then they marched right off to start their own console. And when SEGA folded they took many of their key members including many who worked on the Dreamcast's online to work on Xbox Live.

Microsoft has a lot to gain from the Xbox brand and just not profits. Microsoft is a 'cool' brand because of the Xbox. I'm certain that the view that people had of Microsoft the software company is much different from Microsoft the entertainment company that exists today. Not to mention that the Xbox is a 'safe' investment for the coming 2-3 years. It gets tricky when they need a next-gen system.

Yes because the Zune and Windows mobile has been so wildly successful because of the Xbox's image success. Hell the Zune was targeted directly to the Xbox market (they even had promotions on it in Gamestop/EB Games).

What makes Apple's halo effect work is that all their products live up to/surpass the expectations due to fantastic and revolutionary design, not just their image.

If that happened then Apple would really steal their lunch. People see their computers and phones as entertainment devices now, and it would hurt their marketing potential if everyone perceived MS as a boring company that only makes productivity software.

Apple is not only already eating their lunch, but also shitting out the food and stuffing it down Microsoft's throat.

No, not really. When PSN launched you couldn't even access the XMB in-game. It was basically just a media hub where you could play your games. Every game had it's OWN separate friends lists for invites (in-game friends - if it even had that) and the universal friends list was useless.

Yes exactly. Significantly better than the Wii.

That's the thing - "competent" isn't good enough. At least not so much that people who are just entering this gen of consoles now would look at a gane like CoD online as a killer app. You're talking about a world where the original SOCOM and Sony's "do whatever you want" policy were the driving forces in competent online play. You know how EA online and Metal Gear Online require you to have log-ins independent if the service? Now imagine that for every online game, with only a handful having the great community features, DLC hooks, and voice chat of the top tier games.

While it's pointless to argue how exactly far it would be, I would agree that it is possible that it wouldn't be "competent" compared to what is "competent" for today. Good point.

I think it's more amazing that so many adults are so fucking bad at reading comprehension that they think that's what Opiate and charlequin are talking about.

But that's me, I'm forever the optimist.

This times a thousand. I can't believe people are bringing on sales or Microsoft's recent yearly profits into the discussion. It's completely irrelevant.

The reason why I believe MS and/or Sony might pull out of the console race or why they might "play it safe" this upcoming generation is because how risky & unpredictable the home console market has became. When you have a company like Nintendo who is not only trying their best to disrupt their business ventures, but has actually done it almost impeccably two times in a row and is going for a third, do they really want to blow a load of money in a market which they can't accurately predict how it's going to look like five, ten years from now? What if Nintendo comes up with yet another console which could make their plans outdated the minute it's announced? This kind of scenario needs to be put under consideration.

Another good point. Nintendo is even more unpredictable than Apple. They're a company that gets very dangerous when they are pushed to a corner.

 

[charlequin]

microsoft would've put themselves in a far better position to achieve this goal by creating the perfect windows 7 based front end for a discreet/discrete tv box and letting hardware nature take its course.

You mean like the exact fucking opposite of Windows Media Center?

The point you guys are missing is that it isn't an either/or scenario... MS has the resources to accomplish both and it is the core mission of the company to pursue "3 screens and a cloud."

You're really letting Ballmer's VC pitch go to your head a little here. The fact that the CEO of a company says at one point in time that they intend to pursue strategic opportunities X, Y, and Z does not mean that they will succeed at any of them or that they won't scale back or abandon some of those fields later on.

 

[flyinpiranha]

Yes exactly. Significantly better than the Wii.

No, not significantly at all. Better? Sure.

 

[antiquegamer]

No, not significantly at all. Better? Sure.

That if you are assuming that Sony even implement gamertag, in game XMB, friendlist etc. I doubt they would have done all these without Xbox Live. We would still be back at PS2 style on-line gaming with each game has their own sign-up and log on. Heck look at MGS4, that's how multiplayer game would have been implemented on PS3, yes PC style just as you mention ( @ Flying Phoenix btw no you piranha).

 

[Boney]

...

Are you guys argueing about hypotheticals?

Strike that, claiming an all knowing position in hypotheticals?

 

[flyinpiranha]

It's actually an entirely futile and pointless argument unless you're Uatu and can view technological development in other hypothetical dimensions.

That's all arguments when talking about 'teh future'.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

...

Are you guys argueing about hypotheticals?

Strike that, claiming an all knowing position in hypotheticals?

you shut up boney they can if they wanna

 

[Monty Mole]

Microsoft was still very well getting in the console industry. They more or less used their "partnership" with SEGA as a Trojan horse to get a crash course within the industry. Legend has it that they were planning on purchasing SEGA and during their "talks" with SEGA they managed to garner as much insight of the industry as possible. They then called off the deal as them and SEGA couldn't come to an agreement with the deal and then they marched right off to start their own console. And when SEGA folded they took many of their key members including many who worked on the Dreamcast's online to work on Xbox Live.

This partnership is overblown a bit. It amounted to MS having a team work with Sega on a Dreamcast optimised Windows CE with DirectX libraries, over the space of a couple of years. I'm not sure what they would have gained from this from an industry perspective as that was the limit of their partnership. It was also a complete disaster. All of about 6 games actually used the library on the Dreamcast and all of them ran like shit in comparison to other games.

Interestingly, they announced in 1998 that they had been working with Sega for two years on the Windows CE/DirectX port, meaning the collaboration actually began in 1996, only a year after Playstation 1 launched.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

This partnership is overblown a bit. It amounted to MS having a team work with Sega on a Dreamcast optimised Windows CE with DirectX libraries, over the space of a couple of years. I'm not sure what they would have gained from this from an industry perspective as that was the limit of their partnership.

Although Lives entire online infrastructure is based on sega.net / Dreamarena.

Which I would suggest speaks to a closer relationship than just the WinCE libs.

 

[Dragmire]

Legend has it that they were planning on purchasing SEGA and during their "talks" with SEGA they managed to garner as much insight of the industry as possible. They then called off the deal as them and SEGA couldn't come to an agreement with the deal and then they marched right off to start their own console.

I don't know. If I wanted to learn how to succeed in the game industry, I wouldn't go to Sega.

 

[Brakara]

So the 360 outsells the entire PlayStation Family (tm) for the second month in a row (and June was close), yet people discuss Microsoft withdrawing from the console business? The mind boggles.

 

[V_Arnold]

So the 360 outsells the entire PlayStation Family (tm) for the second month in a row (and June was close), yet people discuss Microsoft withdrawing from the console business? The mind boggles.

Well, you could read the comments carefully and realize that the banking business, going head to head against Apple, or making diet soda seems all better choices now, so Microsoft should go and bail out A.S.A.P : (

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I don't know. If I wanted to learn how to succeed in the game industry, I wouldn't go to Sega.

Whether you know or not is irrelevant, it's what happened. I think Microsoft was more or less just interested in the SEGA name and IP's more so than going in joint team, but I'm pretty sure that it was the latter is what SEGA wanted.

Here's an excerpt from the book "Opening the Xbox":

'Another plan involved buying Sega, the maker of the Dreamcast console. As far back as 1998, Microsoft had initiated talks to acquire Sega. The companies already had a working relationship since Microsoft provided software for the Dreamcast, but relations had soured in part because game developers didn't use that software. Sega was in third place with its console was still losing a lot of money.

Worldwide, Sega had barely sold 5 million units as of early 2000, giving it a base far smaller than Sony's estimated 73 million units. Moreover, the older Sony machine and the Nintendo 64 continued to outsell the Dreamcast. Sega had launched dozens of games in the United States, but only one of those titles, a football game, sold over a million units. Sega didn't gave the financial wherewithal to stay in the race, and that prompted third-party publishers like Electronic Arts to support the other consoles instead.
By buying Sega or otherwise investing $2 billion in the company, Microsoft could acquire not only the Dreamcast technology but a lot of talent that it didn't have, like Sega's nine game development studios--which had consistantly created hits like Sonic The Hedgehog, key sports titles, and Virtua Fighter. Sega also had a hardware design group that crafted new consoles.

Shoichiro Irimajiri, who was the CEO of Sega Enterprises in Japan, said his company was surprised to learn first from other game developers that Microsoft was planning to enter the console business. He was angry that he hadn't heard it from Microsoft first. His complaints led to meetings to discuss whether Microsoft and Sega could work together on the next-generation console. At first, he wasn't interested in selling out to Microsoft because the Dreamcast appeared to be doing well in the United States. The Microsoft side was equally lukewarm to the idea

"Every time we looked at them, we thought all we wanted was the software," said Chris Phillips, who managed the Sega relationship until he left Microsoft in early 2000. "They weren't willing to sell just their software business. They wanted Microsoft to do a box that could combine the Xbox and the Dreamcast2."

Yet like a bad rerun, Sega kept coming back and getting audiences with Bill Gates. One of Sega's top messengers was Kay Nishi, a former Microsoft employee and the CEO of ASCII in Japan. Nishi had a very close friendship with Bill Gates. Whenever he came to town, he could get meetings on short notice with Gates. He used that influence to get Gates together with Sega's top executives, Isao Okawa and Shoichiro Irimajiri.

In some ways, Sega was appealing. Some Microsoft executives had their doubts about the feasibility of coming up with a truly killer application that would drive people to buy the console over other systems. Ed Fries, who had confidence in his own game group of 700 developers, opposed the Sega deal because he believed Microsoft could create its own hit games.
Irimajiri said Sega wanted Microsoft to make the Xbox compatible with the upcoming Dreamcast 2. Okawa also wanted the Xbox to run games made for the original Dreamcast.

Spoiler

And before you ask, yes, it was also widely known that SEGA wanted (as well as was planning) to make another console after the Dreamcast.

Although Lives entire online infrastructure is based on sega.net / Dreamarena.

Which I would suggest speaks to a closer relationship than just the WinCE libs.

Hell, SEGA wanted the original Xbox was originally suppose to play Dreamcast games until Microsoft said "No" solely due to the fact that SEGA wanted their games to have online still.

SEGA and Microsoft definitely had something going on during the turn of the millennium.

Here's another source for the hell of it.

...

Are you guys argueing about hypotheticals?

Strike that, claiming an all knowing position in hypotheticals?

You're right I am sorta embarrassing myself here.

So the 360 outsells the entire PlayStation Family (tm) for the second month in a row (and June was close), yet people discuss Microsoft withdrawing from the console business? The mind boggles.

Try re-reading the thread. Mainly at Opiate's, Charlequin's, and my posts.

 

[jedimike]

You're really letting Ballmer's VC pitch go to your head a little here. The fact that the CEO of a company says at one point in time that they intend to pursue strategic opportunities X, Y, and Z does not mean that they will succeed at any of them or that they won't scale back or abandon some of those fields later on.

Of course companies will shift efforts and focus to reach the vision, but the point is that Xbox is one of the pillars... it's profitable and is on a good path to meet the company goals. They will continue to strengthen the xbox pillar; not erode it in favor of mobile.

Ballmer doesn't operate in a vacuum. The company goals of "3 screens and a cloud" is created, or at least approved, by the board of directors.

The xbox is working as a convergence device. 90% of my tv viewing is done through the xbox and most of that is not because of gaming. It's mostly because of netflix and media center. The other 10% is on my cable box. Having hulu and espn may allow me to get rid of the cable box. Anecdotal?, sure, but no one can deny that Microsoft is inching their way closer. They will continue forward... not shift, stall, regress, quit, or anything else that was suggested in this thread. Just forward.

 

[Boney]

you shut up boney they can if they wanna

It's all fun and games until somebody loses their eye. It's fun, but saying "online gaming would be like this blah blah blah, you're wrong I won't listen to you" is so silly.

The rest of the discussion was pretty good.

 

[Vinci]

I had to go back to see what Segata and Pureauthor were talking about... Damn, GAF, what have you done to Opiate and charlequin's posts? They were informative and extremely clear with virtually no jargon or diction to cause confusion. What the hell?

 

[Opus Angelorum]

So the 360 outsells the entire PlayStation Family (tm) for the second month in a row (and June was close), yet people discuss Microsoft withdrawing from the console business? The mind boggles.

Some people just cannot muster up any form of praise at all, it's genetic I swear.

 

[Vinci]

Well, you could read the comments carefully and realize that the banking business, going head to head against Apple, or making diet soda seems all better choices now, so Microsoft should go and bail out A.S.A.P : (

No one has claimed that they should bail out ASAP, you dimwit. And if anyone has, you should be ignoring their posts and focusing on less idiotic concepts. To say that MS is no longer going to throw any sum of money at the X-Box division is not the same as saying that they're going to automatically abandon it. It's a discussion of scale: MS will from this point on have to behave like a normal company in a competition.

That's it.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Of course companies will shift efforts and focus to reach the vision, but the point is that Xbox is one of the pillars... it's profitable and is on a good path to meet the company goals.

That's the thing, neither of those are true. ESPECIALLY the latter.

Anecdotal?, sure, but no one can deny that Microsoft is inching their way closer.

Except those who observe the electronics market and see who buys what and for what reason. What you do with your Xbox 360 is completely irrelevant. Using it as a netflix, video streaming, and gaming box matters no more than my older sister who uses her Wii as one. Looking at the people who buy a 360 and what they use it for it's clearly obvious that Microsoft has not in any way imaginable captured the mass market to use it has a media hub. If there's anything that's a convergence device it's smart phones and iDevices.

Microsoft went into the gaming market because they wanted to eventually capture the mainstream market with a device that not only plays video games, but music and movies as well. Yet in recent years it's become more and more increasingly obvious that they bet on the wrong horse. Apple devices are already marching near what Microsoft originally envisioned with Andrioid smart phones not too far behind, while the Xbox's current situation isn't that much more successful to where the Playstation 2 was as a convergence device 8 years ago. And with the iPad they are in dire danger because not only is it that much more of a thread to their "progress" in the convergence market, but also to their primary market (operating system/severs *combined because they go hand in hand*) as well.

Here's a breakdown to how little the Xbox contributes to their overall revenue:

The entertainment division is more or less half of most of their other markets. And that includes many things other than the Xbox (such as the Zune).

No one has claimed that they should bail out ASAP, you dimwit. And if anyone has, you should be ignoring their posts and focusing on less idiotic concepts. To say that MS is no longer going to throw any sum of money at the X-Box division is not the same as saying that they're going to automatically abandon it. It's a discussion of scale: MS will from this point on have to behave like a normal company in a competition.

That's it.

This is neogafdude.gif

But yeah exactly. I was the only one who sorta suggested that and even then so it was slightly. I suggested the possiblity of them starting to phase out of the console war to concentrate on other things far more important.

My original post:

I'm with Charlequin and Opiate completely.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft (and MAYBE even SONY) starts to phase out or even exit the console wars next generation. Unlike Nintendo, gaming isn't their main source of income, gaming isn't their purpose. Microsoft should have focused the billions they sunk into the Xbox project into pushing Windows mobile. Currently they are hardly a force in the mobile OS market and the upcoming tablet wave is extremely crucial for them. Yet it seems that most future tablet manufacturers prefer to take the Android route. While many gamers may enjoy it, the Xbox project has seemed to be a huge money and time sink for Microsoft with no real significant benefit for the company.

I'd make a thread about it, but I was worried that it might get a bit ugly.

^^^Notice the "personally" there showing that it's my thought and only mine?

I just stated that I wouldn't be surprised if the company does release another console but slowly starts to distance themselves from it and concentrate the Xbox as a brand: (I.E. Xbox Market Place, Xbox Live, Game Publishing, etc.).

But yeah I'm definitely not stating that Microsoft has to and most likely will not be present in the next generation, just that they should stop putting so much focus on the project. And I know my posts may make it that way, but hell this is currently the reality for Microsoft. The Xbox project hasn't gone the route they originally envisioned it to, their long rival is eating their lunch, and their two biggest competitors are currently the biggest threat they have to their main source of profit they've had in over the last fifth-teen years. Welcome to reality.


EDIT -

I mean for **** sake people. They both explicitly and clearly state that they don't share that stance with me (one that even I don't see that likely).

Again, I'm not really in agreeance with those that believe Microsoft is likely to leave the industry after this generation, if such people exist. I'm just pointing out that it's possible, and explaining why.

Right. My assertion isn't even that they'll leave, it's that where previously their commitment was absolute (they wouldn't leave no matter what happened), now their commitment is conditional (they won't leave as long as the business shows some form of progress and is self-sustaining) so they'll have to adopt conservative business measures oriented around being consistently profitable, and the distorting effect of Microsoft throwing money down a pit will disappear from the industry.

 

[Jonsoncao]

So the 360 outsells the entire PlayStation Family (tm) for the second month in a row (and June was close), yet people discuss Microsoft withdrawing from the console business? The mind boggles.

well, this is a GAF NPD thread...

 

[whizthekid]

How likely is MS pulling out of the console business?

I mean has anyone actually called for or hinted at that?

They seem pretty bullish on it right now (jus tlook at the effort that went into kinect)

I understand why it might make sense for them to do so, but have the investors or CEO actually considered it?

I must be living in bizarro world.:lol

 

[PhoenixDark]

MS dominates the hd gaming market, they're not going anywhere. Hell they've also been quite competitive with Nintendo over the last few months. This holiday season should be interesting.