Support NeoGAF

[Truthtellers]

Exclusives, so Nintendo.

 

[Gaelyon]

MS pivot its strategy recently because their previous bet totally failed, not because they have a vanguard vision from the beginning.
Nintendo, although they pivoted slightly after WII U failure, are still following the successful strategy of strong brand great exclusives, they just merged their portable and home consoles.
The truth is, both can succeed, MS as a 3rd party publisher and Nintendo as ever.

 

[Bernardougf]

Lol this cant be a serious question and i dont even like nintendo anymore

 

[Emedan]

Hmm one is madly successful in the gaming business and the other one isnt

 

[RetroGamingUK]

Multiply the poll results by 1 million and you're not far off the total sales of their 9th gen consoles.

 

[Hector Hall]

Obviously, Nintendo.

Their play book is the traditional play book of the industry.

If you adhere to it, you keep your ecosystem and value.

Thing is, you have to be able to sell hardware. It doesn't matter if it's by price/quality or exclusive content, you have to be able to sell lots of hardware.

Problem is when you aren't able, and start to do strange things like release on PC, attract users with a subscription model that substitutes game sales etc

 

[Banjo64]

One of these companies represents health within the industry.

 

[Woopah]

Both are moving in the right direction for their specific strengths and weaknesses. Nintendo can be successful as a platform holder, but MS can also be successful by following the Segs route.

 

[memoryman3]

Both are moving in the right direction for their specific strengths and weaknesses. Nintendo can be successful as a platform holder, but MS can also be successful by following the Segs route.

Eh. Nintendo are a bigger publisher by games volume than Microsoft. Ideally gamers would want THEM to do a SEGA and release their games everywhere, and Microsoft to be the platform holder. But Nintendo knows you'll pay $500 for their gimped hardware and game cards so why not?

 

[Woopah]

Eh. Nintendo are a bigger publisher by games volume than Microsoft. Ideally gamers would want THEM to do a SEGA and release their games everywhere, and Microsoft to be the platform holder. But Nintendo knows you'll pay $500 for their gimped hardware and game cards so why not?

To clarify, I'm talking from a business perspective rather than a fan perspective.

It's likely that a Switch-like device from Microsoft would be more powerful than what Nintendo put out, but it would also be more expensive. And it wouldn't have GKCs because it would be digital only.

 

[Mattyp]

Also revenue is pointless without profit

Stop stop, we know how genius you are at accounting already.

 

[Days like these...]

hopefully they both die

Yes but hopefully not before Sony dies and Sega makes a glorious comeback.

 

[Days like these...]

Double post sorry

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Xbox gives you the option to buy the games on Game Pass for a discount, unlike NSO.

Game Pass is substantially more expensive than NSO, and the games are much older on NSO and harder to find, unlike Xbox games.

 

[Eevee86]

The one that doesn't seem to have one foot out of the industry.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Xbox is no longer making consoles .

 

[Dr Bass]

Nintendo laser focuses on making fun games.

Xbox thinks fun games won't change their situation.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

XBOX:

NINTENDO:

OP:

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

Xbox's vision for the future is healthier for gamers, but of course Nintendo has the characters...so I'm leaning towards them?

Microsoft is approach is not healthier, they tried to remove the competition by flexing their money, but being incompetent as they are, they failed. Miserably.

 

[Dr. Samuel Hayden]

The one that's actually selling?