Support NeoGAF

[StealthGoblin]

They did win the generation in the US/UK which were the primary markets they were putting effort into (along with Japan where they did quite poorly). Sony just built up unit sales in many of the smaller markets + Japan and the totals gave them an overall win, they never touched the 360 in the US or the UK. MS never tried to be as global with 360 as Sony was with the PS3. It makes it hard to compare the two systems in a lot of ways because the software market was also more segregated by region at the time.

If you only try in two places but lose overall, I think that's a bigger loss. It also set the PS4 up for worldwide success because Sony only really had to improve in two markets to become dominant worldwide. Why Microsoft passed up on that COD marketing and Destiny deal is beyond me.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Sony is a very difficult business to go against…

Remember when bill said this?

Playstation portal.... They call you.

 

[Liamario]

What did Sony have to do to compete against Nintendo.

 

[IFireflyl]

It's hard to combat loyalism to corporations(lmao), just look at Epic's attempts.

...What attempts?

 

[JMarcell]

Sony is a very difficult business to go against…

Remember when bill said this?

Says the man that wants people to drink poop water

 

[Dice]

It's true. It's like Apple fans. It takes years to nurture that kind of fandom. Props to them. Imagine trying to sell an android phone to an apple fan.

Apple didn't have to nurture anything for me. I was on Android for 6 years then got an iphone and it was like someone took the rocks out of my shoes. Friends on android now say they have gotten better but I tried their phone and it was immediately back to the super unintuitive crap I always knew with them.

That said, I think Xbox is the much better designed hardware and operating system, but I hear from devs it's the other way around for them. It has always from the beginning been the story with Sony that they are better to devs and I think that has been the real key for them. Being 100x better than Microsoft at marketing just piled onto it.

What did Sony have to do to compete against Nintendo.

Use CDs instead of cartridges and not censor so hard. That was it, really. Way more content could be fit into the games, massive profit difference for the devs, and gamers could get the games for 1/3 the price after not too long. It was win/win/win.

 

[proandrad]

M$ mad they can't buy themselves into another monopoly.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Apple didn't have to nurture anything for me. I was on Android for 6 years then got an iphone and it was like someone took the rocks out of my shoes. Friends on android now say they have gotten better but I tried their phone and it was immediately back to the super unintuitive crap I always knew with them.

That said, I think Xbox is the much better designed hardware and operating system, but I hear from devs it's the other way around for them. It has always from the beginning been the story with Sony that they are better to devs and I think that has been the real key for them. Being 100x better than Microsoft at marketing just piled onto it.


Use CDs instead of cartridges and not censor so hard. That was it, really. Way more content could be fit into the games, massive profit difference for the devs, and gamers could get the games for 1/3 the price after not too long. It was win/win/win.

Or they had to massively invest in their relationship with SquareSoft, but lots of exclusivities, buy Psygnosis, revolutionise video game marketing etc.

Sony had to pump a lot of money into PlayStation to get a foothold.

 

[Dice]

Or they had to massively invest in their relationship with SquareSoft, but lots of exclusivities, buy Psygnosis, revolutionise video game marketing etc.

Sony had to pump a lot of money into PlayStation to get a foothold.

Fair, although I think the Square thing happened quite naturally because they both got equally burned by Nintendo bailing on their CD console, which is why Playstation exists. I also think those deals were only possible because of the advantages they had by going with CDs and the development advantages over Sega Saturn. They were really highly advantaged in what their offered alternative was, unlike Microsoft which can basically only offer pairity in hardware/devkit and a smaller, less enthusiastic base as the targeted goal. So even if MS wants to put in like Sony did back then, it's kind of doomed to be much less effective in securing deals. I think that's why they've rather gone for outright acquisitions.

I want to visit the alternate universe where Nintendo followed through on making a CD console with Sony. How different would things be?

 

[Lucie Goosey]

It seems pretty clear to me that Sony is better at managing their studios, at making games, and at fostering creativity than Microsoft.

That's a hard thing to beat when the experience playing games is what matters most at the end of the day, and seems to be the hardest thing to get right.

Microsoft should be open to learning from Sony.

Whether that's the skill set required, the right people needed, or changing how they relate to their developers.

Going to war and destroying what is clearly working somewhere else will likely lead them to destroying those needed qualities at home.

 

[Azelover]

He did do an excellent job. Everyone since has been piss poor and made such huge mistakes I often wonder how MS fucked it up so bad as far as studios and developing games. They had it perfect with the 360 then threw it all away with corporate heads making choices that prove they have no idea what gaming is about.

Yep, exactly. He was there for the best part. The launch of Xbox Live, Halo 2, the 360 and everything that entailed it. Of course he wasn't right a hundred percent of the time, but he always came back bigger and stronger. I really admire the guy.

 

[Gavon West]

It seems pretty clear to me that Sony is better at managing their studios, at making games, and at fostering creativity than Microsoft.

That's a hard thing to beat when the experience playing games is what matters most at the end of the day, and seems to be the hardest thing to get right.

Microsoft should be open to learning from Sony.

Whether that's the skill set required, the right people needed, or changing how they relate to their developers.

Going to war and destroying what is clearly working somewhere else will likely lead them to destroying those needed qualities at home.

Hard disagree. Xbox tried to do the "Sony thing" for years. It just never worked. They couldn't beat Sony at their own game with their own playbook.

Xbox has been loosing ground to Sony due to Sony's dominance in the industry. They could never get the same deals Sony could get. Xbox couldn't afford to keep losing out on 3rd party deals and grow "organically" at the same time.

While Xbox fostered relationships to grow studios "organically" Sony wouldn't simply stop with the 3rd party deals while they did. Microsoft did what they literally HAD to do: use their strengths to their advantage. Doesn't matter if Sony can mimic the same moves or not, or, how fanboys of competing platforms would respond. Purchasing devs and publishers is the next best thing to ensure they wouldn't lose anymore.

At the end of the day, it's working. They're actually competing. This is simply just good for the industry as a whole. Gamers win.

 

[DavidGzz]

...What attempts?

Free games and now they are going to let devs/publishers make 100% on their games for exclusivity. I'd say Epic is trying pretty hard to combat that Steam loyalty.

 

[Chronicle]

Correction: 'billions'

 

[Kurimao]

Bend Studio (acquired by sony in 2000)
Bluepoint Games (acquired by sony in 2021)
Bungie (acquired by sony in in 2022)
Haven Studios (acquired by sony in 2023)
Housemarque (acquired by sony in 2021)
Insomniac Games (acquired by sony in 2019)
Media Molecule (acquired by sony in 2010)
Naughty Dog (acquired by sony in 2001)
Savage Game Studios (acquired by sony in 2022)
Sucker Punch Productions (acquired by sony in 2011)

Clearly it's only microsoft who buys studios... Some of you are living in a bub

Clearly he's head.

 

[Starbuck2907]

Microsoft had to pay devs to develop for OG Xbox. This is well known and has been known for years. EA wouldn't port Madden to Xbox until they paid $ and let EA run their own servers outside of the Xbox Live network.

 

[cartman414]

Fair, although I think the Square thing happened quite naturally because they both got equally burned by Nintendo bailing on their CD console, which is why Playstation exists. I also think those deals were only possible because of the advantages they had by going with CDs and the development advantages over Sega Saturn. They were really highly advantaged in what their offered alternative was, unlike Microsoft which can basically only offer pairity in hardware/devkit and a smaller, less enthusiastic base as the targeted goal. So even if MS wants to put in like Sony did back then, it's kind of doomed to be much less effective in securing deals. I think that's why they've rather gone for outright acquisitions.

I want to visit the alternate universe where Nintendo followed through on making a CD console with Sony. How different would things be?

When it came to Sony, Nintendo retaliated because the CD-ROM contract would give Sony all profits. To an extent, it was self-defense from getting burned by Sony themselves.

In other words, Nintendo would at best be a second party to Sony in said alternate universe. Sony would also have a profitable format of their own in the Super CD.

 

[IFireflyl]

Free games and now they are going to let devs/publishers make 100% on their games for exclusivity. I'd say Epic is trying pretty hard to combat that Steam loyalty.

That's not attempting to compete. That's attempting to buy consumers. Epic hasn't competed with Steam at any point. An example of Epic attempting to compete would be expanding functionality of their store and client so that people can't say, "Well Steam can do X." There is nothing that Epic has, feature-wise, that Steam doesn't also have. And none of the features Epic has are better than any of the features that Steam has.

 

[Sanepar]

Free games and now they are going to let devs/publishers make 100% on their games for exclusivity. I'd say Epic is trying pretty hard to combat that Steam loyalty.

You guys don't understand what compete is. This is trying to enforce consumers to move to Epic store.

 

[Evil Calvin]

Still the case now, obviously.

Gotta write those cheques MS.

Yep. And most Japanese publishers and developers will pick the Japanese console over a US based one. It's always been an uphill struggle.