Support NeoGAF

[faceless007]

I haven't played Uncharted but I can't really see why this:

Well for once I'm not trying to be that big of a jackass. I mean, we're getting so close to photorealism, and Uncharted 2 does a pretty good job at it already, that getting even more close to photorealism is just going to be more and more predictable in terms of visuals. "Yep, that sure looks like something that exists in the real world. More than it ever did, really."

If you have an insane amount of power, do something insane with the design. The possibilities on that end are far more interesting and unpredictable.

is controversial in the slightest. Can anyone really deny that most AAA games these days fall squarely on the "photorealism" side of the photorealism - stylized spectrum? ("Photorealistic" doesn't mean "recreating real geographic locations," I'm pretty sure.) Let me know when an HD game as far-out as Psychonauts or Oddworld comes out.

Only one I can think of that comes close is Bioshock and even that tries to straddle the divide. Oh, and Borderlands I guess.

 

[Boney]

Gosh, what an interesting thread...I never thought of looking at MS' Xbox division in the way that it's being described here. But it makes a lot of sense.

I definately understand the concept, but I would've never have thought of applying it here. Really interesting stuff. I'd argue that they already have spent so much in setting this up, and are in a great position to give it up, but I'm no charlequin here.

 

[antiquegamer]

But isn't one of the reason Xbox entering console space is because they fear that Sony would dominated the living room space with Playstation. There are reason for company to do thing aside from being profitable. I find it's very interesting that people think MS would suddenly exit gaming space consider all the resource they still continue to put into that division. I for one really hope they don't because we would still be back in stone age when it come to on-line console gaming if we have just Sony and Nintendo.

As for their stock, there are other reason why it's not performing, which is more of the reason they need to be diversifying. I have their stocks in my retirement fund and I am for them doing better but I really would hate to see them exiting gaming market.

 

[antonz]

But isn't one of the reason Xbox entering console space is because they fear that Sony would dominated the living room space with Playstation. There are reason for company to do thing aside from being profitable. I find it's very interesting that people think MS would suddenly exit gaming space consider all the resource they still continue to put into that division. I for one really hope they don't because we would still be back in stone age when it come to on-line console gaming if we have just Sony and Nintendo.

As for their stock, there are other reason why it's not performing, which is more of the reason they need to be diversifying. I have their stocks in my retirement fund and I am for them doing better but I really would hate to see them exiting gaming market.

The average stockholder is not a gamer and wouldnt care if they left the gaming market if it meant a jump in stock value. You are right Microsoft got into gaming because they felt it would be a good Trojan Horse to fight Sony dominating the home theater and entertainment space. Problem is they have not done what they have had so-so results and in the end they are costing stockholders potentially millions of dollars.

Stockholders will get tired eventually of not seeing the money

 

[apana]

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.

 

[pgtl_10]

But isn't one of the reason Xbox entering console space is because they fear that Sony would dominated the living room space with Playstation. There are reason for company to do thing aside from being profitable. I find it's very interesting that people think MS would suddenly exit gaming space consider all the resource they still continue to put into that division. I for one really hope they don't because we would still be back in stone age when it come to on-line console gaming if we have just Sony and Nintendo.

As for their stock, there are other reason why it's not performing, which is more of the reason they need to be diversifying. I have their stocks in my retirement fund and I am for them doing better but I really would hate to see them exiting gaming market.

Is MS still losing money in their gaming division? Also MS has been slow in other areas like Zune and mobile phones which has hurt them. I think gaming is starting to be the one bright spot for them.

 

[AlteredBeast]

No summary with all of the numbers listed?

 

[AniHawk]

Is MS still losing money in their gaming division? Also MS has been slow in other areas like Zune and mobile phones which has hurt them. I think gaming is starting to be the one bright spot for them.

I thought MS has been making money for at least a year now, but I could be wrong. The rest of the year should be profitable, at least.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

But isn't one of the reason Xbox entering console space is because they fear that Sony would dominated the living room space with Playstation.

Yes, they did fear that when they launched the Xbox.

Now I would be fairly sure that they are more concerned with companies gaining marketshare in markets that comprise their core business rather than markets they don't have much of a presence in such as 'the living room'.

MS have - at best - a 35% share in the console space right now, and that's with the 360 being pretty successful.

If the Xbox was a tactical maneuvre based on the assumption that consoles would replace PCs as convergence devices in the living room to prevent Sony establishing a market leader position in an emerging market, and that that emergent market didn't pan out to be as big as was previously thought, then it makes sense that they are looking at new emergent markets which overlap with their core business.

Google and Apple are both threats in these markets, and these markets are closer to infringing on their core business than the console market ever has been.

People aren't saying MS are automatically going to pull out of the console business; they are saying that as a company they must be re-analysing what their competitive threats right now actually are. The Playstation brand doesn't seem to be anywhere near as scary to MS as it once was.

There are reason for company to do thing aside from being profitable.

Errr... no, not really.

Business relies on profits. In fact, business relies on increasing profits. 'Making money' is less attractive to investors and stakeholders than 'making more money than last year' is.

It's also less attractive than 'making less money than could be made making something different' which is what some posts have been poitning out.

I for one really hope they don't because we would still be back in stone age when it come to on-line console gaming if we have just Sony and Nintendo.

Right... because the next gen are going to ship with 28.8k modems and require dialup connections? Why would what are now expected features devolve without MS?

 

[pgtl_10]

My dream: Nintendo and MS do a joint venture. MS could lower its costs and starting focusing on other markets and Nintendo could get MS's lucritive franchises and bring their userbase over to Nintendo and with it third party support.

Judging from the comments posted here, it sounds like a good compromise between shareholders and MS's entertainment division.

 

[Spike]

My dream: Nintendo and MS do a joint venture. MS could lower its costs and starting focusing on other markets and Nintendo could get MS's lucritive franchises and bring their userbase over to Nintendo and with it third party support.

Judging from the comments posted here, it sounds like a good compromise between shareholders and MS's entertainment division.

Franchises? :lol Halo is Microsoft's only 'lucrative' franchise.

Wouldn't it make more sense that they work with Sony and bring over Halo to the next Sony system? It is a much closer fit than Nintendo.

 

[antiquegamer]

Yes, they did fear that when they launched the Xbox.

Now I would be fairly sure that they are more concerned with companies gaining marketshare in markets that comprise their core business rather than markets they don't have much of a presence in such as 'the living room'.

MS have - at best - a 35% share in the console space right now, and that's with the 360 being pretty successful.

If the Xbox was a tactical maneuvre based on the assumption that consoles would replace PCs as convergence devices in the living room to prevent Sony establishing a market leader position in an emerging market, and that that emergent market didn't pan out to be as big as was previously thought, then it makes sense that they are looking at new emergent markets which overlap with their core business.

Google and Apple are both threats in these markets, and these markets are closer to infringing on their core business than the console market ever has been.

People aren't saying MS are automatically going to pull out of the console business; they are saying that as a company they must be re-analysing what their competitive threats right now actually are. The Playstation brand doesn't seem to be anywhere near as scary to MS as it once was.



Errr... no, not really.

Business relies on profits. In fact, business relies on increasing profits. 'Making money' is less attractive to investors and stakeholders than 'making more money than last year' is.

It's also less attractive than 'making less money than could be made making something different' which is what some posts have been poitning out.



Right... because the next gen are going to ship with 28.8k modems and require dialup connections? Why would what are now expected features devolve without MS?

You would think we would evolved if it were not for Microsoft pushing the online console gaming? Looking at Nintendo online and even PSN wouldn't have evolve much if it were not for XBL. You are twisting my words, you do know exactly what I meant by stone age, if you don't try go play multiplayer game on the Wii.

As someone who used to own a small business, yes the ultimate goal is to be profitable but there are other reason why bussiness do thing as in the case of MS venture into console space.

I don't disagree with you that the threat to their core business is Google and their cloud computing and free OS for everyone but that doesn't mean they should ignore other potential threat, though in this case they really miscalculate where thing are moving. While google quickly launch Droid in response to iDevice, MS on the other hand was mucking around with Kin and their ailing Window Mobile. The future is mobile handheld smart device and even Nintendo is worry about their portable market.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

stuff

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.

Don't get me wrong. The Xbox brand won't die. I can see Microsoft pushing Xbox Live as well as their software store in their own products and possibly others. I can see them publishing Halo, Gears, Fable, and Forza for years to come. I can see them working on Xbox controllers and many other accessories. But what I can't see them keep doing is making Xbox consoles.

In short I can see them doing what SEGA tried to do after their departure from the console market, but actually doing it and doing it right.

My dream: Nintendo and MS do a joint venture. MS could lower its costs and starting focusing on other markets and Nintendo could get MS's lucritive franchises and bring their userbase over to Nintendo and with it third party support.

Judging from the comments posted here, it sounds like a good compromise between shareholders and MS's entertainment division.

Nintendo and Microsoft?

Apple and Microsoft have more similar philosophies.

You would think we would evolved if it were not for Microsoft pushing the online console gaming? Looking at Nintendo online and even PSN wouldn't have evolve much if it were not for XBL. You are twisting my words, you do know exactly what I meant by stone age, if you don't try go play multiplayer game on the Wii.

The idea that online would hardly have evolved from the Dreamcast if the Xbox brand didn't exist despite the gaming market's concentration on online gaming on a whole (PC, iPhone, etc.) in the recent years is just ludicrous. Yes I admit that it wouldn't be as good as it is now, just like if Nintendo didn't exist to make evolutionary controllers over the years current gaming controllers most likely wouldn't be the same they are today. But trying to say that things would hardly have evolved if company X wasn't placed there is just ridiculous. Especially if it was a force pushed on the industry in general.

Franchises? :lol Halo is Microsoft's only 'lucrative' franchise.

Wouldn't it make more sense that they work with Sony and bring over Halo to the next Sony system? It is a much closer fit than Nintendo.

Halo going multiplatform alone would make Microsoft some nice cash. If played right, they could pull near Modern Warfare numbers. The other big franchises (Forza, Fable, Gears, etc.) could easily keep their blockbuster status. Yes, Microsoft certainly is no Nintendo or even SONY but they do have their share of popular game series.

Again I understand that exclusivity really helps certain game series, but Microsoft could easily turn games like Halo, Gears, Forza, and Fable into huge multiplat sellers. And even if they wanted some to stay exclusive they could do that too.

I know people get really iffy about this after seeing how exiting the hardware market affected SEGA, but they pretty much dropped the ball completely with every franchise they had besides their 2K sports series.

 

[JaxJag]

Franchises? :lol Halo is Microsoft's only 'lucrative' franchise.

Wouldn't it make more sense that they work with Sony and bring over Halo to the next Sony system? It is a much closer fit than Nintendo.

What are Fable and Forza?

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

You would think we would evolved if it were not for Microsoft pushing the online console gaming? Looking at Nintendo online and even PSN wouldn't have evolve much if it were not for XBL. You are twisting my words, you do know exactly what I meant by stone age, if you don't try go play multiplayer game on the Wii.

You didn't say 'if Ms had never entered the console space', but if that's what you in fact meant, then the situation would not be markedly different from now I suspect.
Except there would be nobody justifying online fees because of cross game chat / party play / all my friends have a 360.

As someone who used to own a small business, yes the ultimate goal is to be profitable but there are other reason why bussiness do thing as in the case of MS venture into console space.

No, at best you sacrifice short term profits for bigger long term profits. ie Investment.
All businesses sole purpose is to make money. It's kind of the point.

 

[Spike]

What are Fable and Forza?

If they were going to team up with another company, do you think any other company would care about Fable and Forza?

 

[Chrange]

If they were going to team up with another company, do you think any other company would care about Fable and Forza?

Project Gotham Racing. Midtown Madness. Killer Instinct. Banjo Kazooie. MechWarrior (I think they still have those rights)

Microsoft has a lot of good IP, it's just too bad most of it isn't being used.

 

[JaxJag]

If they were going to team up with another company, do you think any other company would care about Fable and Forza?

Yeah, I could see how a company wouldn't care about multi-million selling gaming franchises.

 

[antiquegamer]

You didn't say 'if Ms had never entered the console space', but if that's what you in fact meant, then the situation would not be markedly different from now I suspect.
Except there would be nobody justifying online fees because of cross game chat / party play / all my friends have a 360.

No, at best you sacrifice short term profits for bigger long term profits. ie Investment.
All businesses sole purpose is to make money. It's kind of the point.

I am sorry if you misunderstood what I meant, but yes, that is what I am saying. I do however disagree with your assertion that console gaming would be where it is now if MS did not initiate XBL project. Please don't get me wrong I am not defending MS XBL policy, pricing or some idiotic thng they do but I have to give them credit for their on-line console gaming.

There was time in my business that I do thing that were not profitable but there was a reason (and yes in the end it ultimately for my total bottom line) but it's not profit only reason to justify all business decisions. Sometimes it's to keep mindshare and customers I have and sometimes it is to stop the expansion of my competitior, sometimes just for goodwill of the community. But what I was reading from your post that MS should exit console market because they are not as profitable as they could be. What could MS do, they certainly got their core market monopolized and yes that is one of their weakness, they are slow to innovate as a company and slow to find the upcoming lucrative ventures which is why their stock are getting beat up. Investors are feeling that Google and Apple have better handling of the trend than MS do.

 

[Spike]

Project Gotham Racing. Midtown Madness. Killer Instinct. Banjo Kazooie. MechWarrior (I think they still have those rights)

Microsoft has a lot of good IP, it's just too bad most of it isn't being used.

Okay, fair enough. But, PGR isn't being made by Bizzare anymore, so that is an unknown quantity. Midtown Madness, you just dug a dagger through my heart just so you know, looks like it isn't coming back any time soon. As far as the Rare stuff, I would love to see it, but this isn't really the Rare of the past. I don't know if they can produce on the same level as they used to. If anything, I want them to make a sequel to Blast Corps.

Yeah, I could see how a company wouldn't care about multi-million selling gaming franchises.

Nintendo wouldn't care about Fable since they have Zelda. Sony wouldn't care for Forza since they have Gran Turismo.

----

Actually, what I would propose instead of Microsoft teaming up with anybody is that they should return to PC development. Get these titles on PC, and then, use the other companies services like PSN and WiiWare to get their titles out there.

 

[antiquegamer]

The idea that online would hardly have evolved from the Dreamcast if the Xbox brand didn't exist despite the gaming market's concentration on online gaming on a whole (PC, iPhone, etc.) in the recent years is just ludicrous. Yes I admit that it wouldn't be as good as it is now, just like if Nintendo didn't exist to make evolutionary controllers over the years current gaming controllers most likely wouldn't be the same they are today. But trying to say that things would hardly have evolved if company X wasn't placed there is just ridiculous. Especially if it was a force pushed on the industry in general.

Apple is adopting "gamertag", every on-line platform from Steam to Battle-net all going to achievements and unify gaming hub. Voice chat would be domain of PC gaming only if it weren't for Live. If you want to see where on-line gaming would be without Microsoft, go do on-line gaming on Wii. That were it would be. PSN multiple update was directly in response to MS Xbox Live features would they have done that if there was no Xbox Live?

Again, please dont take my post as defending all thing Xbox. There are plenty of things I felt they reall muck it up, but there are many area they did help improve console gaming.

 

[dzukela]

PSP – 79,400

kill it, pull the trigger sony.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I am sorry if you misunderstood what I meant, but yes, that is what I am saying. I do however disagree with your assertion that console gaming would be where it is now if MS did not initiate XBL project. Please don't get me wrong I am not defending MS XBL policy, pricing or some idiotic thng they do but I have to give them credit for their on-line console gaming.

It's impossible to say either way tbh; I think there's a strong case that the PSN would still be pretty much as it is (which is pretty similar to the model established by the PC and the DC in the console space) with the possible exception that friendslists would be on a 'per game' basis.

I'd say it's just as likely Nintendo would have gone with the friends code approach anyway.

There was time in my business that I do thing that were not profitable but there was a reason (and yes in the end it ultimately for my total bottom line) but it's not profit only reason to justify all business decisions. Sometimes it's to keep mindshare and customers I have and sometimes it is to stop the expansion of my competitior, sometimes just for goodwill of the community. But what I was reading from your post that MS should exit console market because they are not as profitable as they could be. What could MS do, they certainly got their core market monopolized and yes that is one of their weakness, they are slow to innovate as a company and slow to find the upcoming lucrative ventures which is why their stock are getting beat up. Investors are feeling that Google and Apple have better handling of the trend than MS do.

I wasn't saying MS should; I am saying there's a very good argument why they might.
Dropping their game development studios doesn't speak to their whole-hearted commitment to 'gaming' as an integral part of their business strategy however.

I'd also say that retaining customer loyalty, preventing competitive expansion are both proft related activities. Community goodwill too, but less obviously.

Being entirely profit oriented as a business isn't a dirty word, it's pretty much the cornerstone of capitalism.

 

[LowParry]

I may have missed it, but are there Ys 7 numbers available worldwide?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Apple is adopting "gamertag"

Okay that's just a fancy word for user account name. I don't see how that's unique to the XBox Live brand.

every on-line platform from Steam to Battle-net all going to achievements and unify gaming hub.

Agreed for achievements.

Voice chat would be domain of PC gaming only if it weren't for Live.

No it wouldn't. Even the Dreamcast has voice chat for online games, far before Live.

If you want to see where on-line gaming would be without Microsoft, go do on-line gaming on Wii.

:lol :lol :lol :lol You can't be serious.

PSN multiple update was directly in response to MS Xbox Live features would they have done that if there was no Xbox Live?

What does this have to do with anything?

Again, please dont take my post as defending all thing Xbox. There are plenty of things I felt they reall muck it up, but there are many area they did help improve console gaming.

I'm not denying that the Xbox brand didn't do some nice things for gaming. They pushed online gaming, they pushed small and independent digital downloads, etc. Don't get me wrong many good things have come from that big green X. But to say that online gaming wouldn't surpass the Wii is ridiculous. The Playstation 3 would at least offer up free online with a gamer tag, friends list, proper lobbies, and a headset for voice chat. That alone surpasses the Wii's online. Look at the success of WoW, STEAM, facebook games, etc. These successes weren't there prior to LIVE's launch. Someone (most likely SONY) would have stepped it up if Microsoft wasn't there. Just like someone (most likely SEGA) would have stepped up controller innovations if Nintendo wasn't there.

 

[Spike]

Apple is adopting "gamertag", every on-line platform from Steam to Battle-net all going to achievements and unify gaming hub. Voice chat would be domain of PC gaming only if it weren't for Live. If you want to see where on-line gaming would be without Microsoft, go do on-line gaming on Wii. That were it would be. PSN multiple update was directly in response to MS Xbox Live features would they have done that if there was no Xbox Live?

Again, please dont take my post as defending all thing Xbox. There are plenty of things I felt they reall muck it up, but there are many area they did help improve console gaming.

You are missing the point of the Wii. It wasn't really designed for online gaming. It was designed to get people who aren't gamers playing games. Do you honestly think that these "non-gamers" are going to be interested in playing online when they don't even play games?

Oh, and online does work on Wii. The developer needs to come up with their own solution, but it still works.

 

[Slavik81]

But isn't one of the reason Xbox entering console space is because they fear that Sony would dominated the living room space with Playstation. There are reason for company to do thing aside from being profitable. I find it's very interesting that people think MS would suddenly exit gaming space consider all the resource they still continue to put into that division. I for one really hope they don't because we would still be back in stone age when it come to on-line console gaming if we have just Sony and Nintendo.

I got the impression it was more that they were looking for a consumer electronics device. Any sort would do. They have Windows and Office as huge cash cows, but felt a need to diversify. In essence, they had a hell of a lot of money to throw around and some vague ideas of the sort of new markets they wanted to get into. The entire thing was with the hopes that after the initial price of entry, they'd manage to find a revenue stream in that market and be at least a little less dependent on Office/Windows for their survival.

 

[Momo]

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?

 

[Koren]

No it wouldn't. Even the Dreamcast has voice chat for online games, far before Live.

There was gaming chat on the SNES network system, if I'm not mistaken

 

[Koren]

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?

Sega-Sammy seams have quite decent results (at least, no loss for 2010). Most of the operating income come from pachislot, though, videogames are barely in the black (mostly because of so-so sales overseas).

I don't see sammy allowing anything hardware-wise in the videogame segment. What can they really expect? Even if you sell a hardware without a loss, you still have to sell hardware to turn a profit. I don't expect Sega to have a tremendous support from third-party if they become a fourth hardware maker in the current market (heck, Nintendo has problems with the best-selling hardware...), and Sega 1st-party is probably not compelling enough to sustain hardware on its own. Keep in mind that Sega has only ONE million-seller in Japan on home consoles if I'm not mistaken (VF2 on Saturn, there's also Love and Berry on DS).

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Okay that's just a fancy word for user account name. I don't see how that's unique to the XBox Live brand.



Agreed for achievements.




No it wouldn't. Even the Dreamcast has voice chat for online games, far before Live.





:lol :lol :lol :lol You can't be serious.




What does this have to do with anything?



I'm not denying that the Xbox brand didn't do some nice things for gaming. They pushed online gaming, they pushed small and independent digital downloads, etc. Don't get me wrong many good things have come from that big green X. But to say that online gaming wouldn't surpass the Wii is ridiculous. The Playstation 3 would at least offer up free online with a gamer tag, friends list, proper lobbies, and a headset for voice chat. That alone surpasses the Wii's online. Look at the success of WoW, STEAM, facebook games, etc. These successes weren't there prior to LIVE's launch. Someone (most likely SONY) would have stepped it up if Microsoft wasn't there. Just like someone (most likely SEGA) would have stepped up controller innovations if Nintendo wasn't there.

MS changed online console gaming very simply - they implemented standards, and they said "if your game can't live up to these standards, get the fuck off of our platform."

There's a reason MS made the original Xbox broadband only, there's a reason why they made LIVE awareness universal, there's a reason that every box with an HDD comes with a headset.

That their competitors did not stress these things is the reason you see VF5 PS3 can't be patched for online play, MGS4 went years without trophies, why there's no online play in NSMB or NBA Jam Wii, why cross-game chat will probably remain an exclusive feature this console generation.

If all that was offered as of right now was what Sega offered on the DC, what Sony had with the PS2, and what Nintendo "offered" with the Wii and DS, console online gaming would still be a niche venture.

Kind of like Halo, LIVE shows that doing something first isn't as important as doing it right.

 

[Momo]

Sega-Sammy seams have quite decent results (at least, no loss for 2010). Most of the operating income come from pachislot, though, videogames are barely in the black (mostly because of so-so sales overseas).

I don't see sammy allowing anything hardware-wise in the videogame segment. What can they really expect? Even if you sell a hardware without a loss, you still have to sell hardware to turn a profit. I don't expect Sega to have a tremendous support from third-party if they become a fourth hardware maker in the current market (heck, Nintendo has problems with the best-selling hardware...), and Sega 1st-party is probably not compelling enough to sustain hardware on its own. Keep in mind that Sega has only ONE million-seller in Japan on home consoles if I'm not mistaken (VF2 on Saturn, there's also Love and Berry on DS).

I'd love if Sega would return to the hardware market, they made some crappy portable media player recently but ugh. I miss having the Sega of DC days.

MGS4 went years without trophies

Still nothing.

 

[antiquegamer]

You are missing the point of the Wii. It wasn't really designed for online gaming. It was designed to get people who aren't gamers playing games. Do you honestly think that these "non-gamers" are going to be interested in playing online when they don't even play games?

Oh, and online does work on Wii. The developer needs to come up with their own solution, but it still works.

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.

 

[antiquegamer]

Okay that's just a fancy word for user account name. I don't see how that's unique to the XBox Live brand.

Agreed for achievements.

No it wouldn't. Even the Dreamcast has voice chat for online games, far before Live.

:lol :lol :lol :lol You can't be serious.

What does this have to do with anything?

I'm not denying that the Xbox brand didn't do some nice things for gaming. They pushed online gaming, they pushed small and independent digital downloads, etc. Don't get me wrong many good things have come from that big green X. But to say that online gaming wouldn't surpass the Wii is ridiculous. The Playstation 3 would at least offer up free online with a gamer tag, friends list, proper lobbies, and a headset for voice chat. That alone surpasses the Wii's online. Look at the success of WoW, STEAM, facebook games, etc. These successes weren't there prior to LIVE's launch. Someone (most likely SONY) would have stepped it up if Microsoft wasn't there. Just like someone (most likely SEGA) would have stepped up controller innovations if Nintendo wasn't there.

Gamertag help unify your games otherwise you would just have sign in, I am certain it's quite different. As for you question about PSN, it's related because the evolution of PSN is because of XBL that's all I am saying, which you did bring up later, so I am not sure why you think it was not related. I have to disagree what PSN would be what it is now with gamertag, trophy, voice chat, matchmakind etc without Live.

We can have discussion without resorting to LOLLLOOL as you seems more than capable of forming good argument, so please let not go down that path. I do feel that Xbox has reall move forward on-line console gaming. (Rightly or wrongly is another matter).

 

[redbarchetta]

They are not going to make a leap that big. They never have.

And they had never made a small console leap (as you define it) before the GameCube to the Wii, yet they did it.

In short: Nintendo can't be predicted.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

If all that was offered as of right now was what Sega offered on the DC, what Sony had with the PS2, and what Nintendo "offered" with the Wii and DS, console online gaming would still be a niche venture.

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.

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?

The idea of SEGA returning to the hardware market is insane. First off while they profited this year I don't think they're doing too well financially, at least in their gaming division.

Second off...REALLY? As a publisher the company has practically no relevance in gaming platforms outside of Yakuza, Love and Berry, and few and far inbetween hits. Their games in general tend not to sell all too well. And well hell I can just stop there.

Now I love 90's SEGA. I enjoy 90's SEGA philosophy more than any other console manufactures (including Nintendo). But the SEGA we all once knew is no more. Yes they occasionally put out something great here and there but those are definitely the exceptions.

Not to mention who in the hell would want to launch a gaming platform this day in age? Convergence devices are getting more and more popular and today if a company was serious about getting in the gaming business they would have to spend literally billions just to start, just to have a chance. And those billions would be better off being put elsewhere. Hell I predict that dedicated gaming platforms will go the way of closed source computers (I.E. Macintosh, Commodore, Acorn, etc.) in the not so distant future.

Again I'd LOVE to see what a modern 90's SEGA console would look like in this day in age. The company was ace in both hardware and software. But the company literally imploded on itself and is no more. SEGA has changed as much since the Dreamcast as Apple since the Pippin.

I do feel that Xbox has reall move forward on-line console gaming. (Rightly or wrongly is another matter).

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.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

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.

Opiate and Charlequin are bang on the money that in this push to ensure that MS was in control of the living room, they totally dropped the ball in the Mobile/Tablet space, and the result is iPhone, and even more so Android which could be a HUGE threat to MS core business over the next 5-10 years.

The adoption of Android in the mobile sector over the last year shows really gives Google a platform to target the Windows monopoly IMO, and that is probably what MS investors are more concerned about now.

 

[Psychotext]

I thought MS has been making money for at least a year now, but I could be wrong. The rest of the year should be profitable, at least.

Three financial years now. Quite a decent chunk last year ($679m).

 

[topramen]

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?

 

[[Nintex]]

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.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

I'd love if Sega would return to the hardware market, they made some crappy portable media player recently but ugh. I miss having the Sega of DC days.

There is a 0% chance of this. They'd have to rebuild the hardware division from scratch, all for the sake of entering a fool's game.

 

[gkryhewy]

In this thread, Sony fans think wistfully about securing next gen's second place by default.

 

[FrankT]

I thought MS has been making money for at least a year now, but I could be wrong. The rest of the year should be profitable, at least.

They have been turning a profit in the division for at least 3 years now. This last year really was the best by far ever.

In this thread, Sony fans think wistfully about securing next gen's second place by default.

Same topic, different day heh.

 

[Spiegel]

Yep, Opiate and Charlequin are known Sony fanboys.

 

[FrankT]

Yep, Opiate and Charlequin are known Sony fanboys.

No one really needs to be a Sony fan for this topic it's been around for ages. It's the whole was the Xbox worth it, will the 360 be worth it, will they jump out next gen, right now, or tomorrow. Not even sure who brought it up in the thread, but it's nothing new. Topic has been beaten to death since the original Xbox launched. By the same logic Sony should have lots of better things to throw that 4-5 billion they have lost this gen next gen as well. Just because MS has a sick mount profit generated from the PC side doesn't necessarily mean they they should throw more at it either. There is also nothing inherently new to be added to the topic save the fact that MS has actually really turned the business around 180 degrees with significant profit in the last year.

 

[jcm]

No one really needs to be a Sony fan for this topic it's been around for ages. It's the whole was the Xbox worth it, will the 360 be worth it, will they jump out next gen, right now, or tomorrow. Not even sure who brought it up in the thread, but it's nothing new. Topic has been beaten to death since the original Xbox launched. By the same logic Sony should have lots of better things to throw that 4-5 billion they have lost this gen next gen as well. Just because MS has a sick mount profit generated from the PC side doesn't necessarily mean they they should throw more at it either. There is also nothing inherently new to be added to the topic save the fact that MS has actually really turned the business around 180 degrees with significant profit in the last year.

I don't think anyone outside the Kutaragi family believes that throwing billions of dollars at the PS3 was a wise choice, and I don't believe there's a chance in hell Sony will do that again.

Also, I hate to beat a dead horse, but we have no idea how profitable the xbox or PS3 are. Both Sony and MS deliberately obfuscate the numbers, which isn't exactly a vote of confidence.

 

[GPsych]

No one really needs to be a Sony fan for this topic it's been around for ages. It's the whole was the Xbox worth it, will the 360 be worth it, will they jump out next gen, right now, or tomorrow. Not even sure who brought it up in the thread, but it's nothing new. Topic has been beaten to death since the original Xbox launched. By the same logic Sony should have lots of better things to throw that 4-5 billion they have lost this gen next gen as well. Just because MS has a sick mount profit generated from the PC side doesn't necessarily mean they they should throw more at it either. There is also nothing inherently new to be added to the topic save the fact that MS has actually really turned the business around 180 degrees with significant profit in the last year.

It's absolutely amazing that in an NPD month in which Microsoft did pretty damn well with hardware sales and thoroughly stomped on their competitors, the central discussion is boiling down to "Microsoft should leave the console business." It's honestly kind of bizarre. Then again, irrational belief systems are what make most Internet forums fun!

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

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.

 

[Pureauthor]

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.

 

[ghst]

Opiate and Charlequin are bang on the money that in this push to ensure that MS was in control of the living room, they totally dropped the ball in the Mobile/Tablet space, and the result is iPhone, and even more so Android which could be a HUGE threat to MS core business over the next 5-10 years.

the thing is, even if microsoft do place the living room as some holy grail, the route in has completely changed. clunky, bloated convergence devices centered around "high-end" gaming are an archaic ideal - look at apple tv.

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.