Sony needs the Xbox One, and so do you. PCGMedia try to explain how tame console marketing is compared to how it was, and that it's because the entire console market is losing relevancy, among other ideas.
It's amazing people are using this stance in their argument now! Last Gen people wanted to see Sony and the PS3 reduced to a smothering pile of plastic! Now roles have reversed, it's they need each other. Oh how convenient!
You have absolutely no idea how true your statement is.
I remember seeing it too, but I wonder how valid the point of needing Xbox One is. Did the PS2 need the real Xbox 1. Competition is good, but it doesn't have to be against the Xbox One. There is another worthy competitor in SteamBox. There is no rule that says the Xbox One has to be competitive. (Or Nintendo or Sony for that matter).
Let me be the first to apologize.: I'm sorry that everyone favors the PS4 so much. But with greatness awaiting we really can't be buggered right now. Bye.
Sony needs Xbox One to make PS4 look good. q;
@nix Ps4 doesn't "need" anything to make it look good, it's great by nature..
"Sony doesn’t want to harm the Xbox One — it needs it, and so do you" Hell the f**k no I don't. Just no. You mean to tell me that "I need" a company who's plans included "always online" with "24-hour check ins"? The company who thought it was ok to prevent me from borrowing/lending my friends my game that I paid money for? That same competitor who decided that kinect is better for gaming and crippled the Xbox One for its sake? Man get real. I spent the entire previous generation without touching an Xbox 360, and I'll spend this entire generation without touching this "One". Why settle for "clouds" when it's sunny and bright on the other side?
Good points are made here about Sony and the PS3 being targeted with doom articles last gen all the time and the PS2 doing very good without the first Xbox as competition. Even some people today still mention Sony's financial status, wanting the whole Playstation brand to crash and burn with everything it ever created. Competition is not always needed if you take what developers and your fans want. It does good when we see two brands duke it out for who gives the better games and services but the PS4 is a great example that if you give what the people want, then they'll be satisfied and buy the product. I'm not saying that's the only way and having something to compete with only benefits a little, but you learn along the way, you observe patterns. And from my understanding, Sony learned from the PS2 and PS3 that if you dish out many exclusives and you reach out for more developers, then everything will be just fine. Which explains the new indie support and the PS3 still getting exclusives till this day. By combining all 3 aspects, feedback, looking at what the competition does about online services, and learning from past mistakes, we now have the PS4, the fastest selling console of any generation.
@Cupid_Viper_3 1 "well said" bubble for you coming right up. You won the thread post award.
There is no official rule per say. But the investors will have a very strong influence. If investors feel that X1 is not selling well, they will head for the hills. So this means that X1 need to stay competitive to keep thier investors.
No one company NEEDS the other. However, the market DOES NEED competition. You can still have competition though with just two companies. You only need a third if the two get complacent. I've always said the gaming market is only big enough for 2 and a half companies -- meaning the half is generally the guy in third feeding on the scraps of what is left but also acts as a check and balance to keep the other two from becoming complacent in their positions because a threat always looms to take the 2nd or 1st spot.
Sony doesn't need Microsoft and nor does MS need Sony. We the consumer though do benefit from their competition. And Cupid_Viper's point is exactly what I'm talking about. MS tried to pull one over on its consumers with the "always online 24 hr check in DRM crap." Once they realized that Sony wasn't including any of that crap, and the ginormous backlash from the fans, they decided to remove all that bull. Exactly GameSpawn... "No one company NEEDS the other. However, the market DOES NEED competition."
I have both systems and to be honest @&$:/...... You know, how can you tell someone that pizza taste good when they already decided that they don't like i, when they already enjoy pasta and cheese. Indie is DRM, playstation now is DRM and kinect is not responsible for broadcasting a married couple sleep for hrs. You didn't want paid live subscription and demonized MS for it and now I'm stuck with this playstation plus. I'm glad to have a very powerful console like the ps4 next to a weak Xbox one . You agreeing with Sony on everything they do is why they came up with this PSnow. In a few years my ps4 will be obsolete because of PSnow , thank you, I just waisted $400, and that's exactly what the author was referring when he said "monopoly " PSnow , DRM , PSnow, DRM . I really love Nintendo, no matter what, they stick to their guns.
Can you keep your brash generalizations to yourself? I most certainly did not want the PS3 reduced to anything last gen. And I bought a X1 this gen. Your "Us vs Them" mentality perpetuates a senseless flame war that needs to die.
Question! Did I say all? So where's the generalization at? The statement I made was true, just because maybe you weren't one of those people doesn't mean there weren't any.
This is N4G generalizations are allowed here. People use them all the time without a hinder of thought. N4Gers love generalizations because it allows people to make grandiose claims that gives little leeway for others to argue against it. It puts people in a "well he's technically right/true" kind of bind. When you call them out on the generalization they give a "well, we all know where the general trend is anyway. Let's not kid ourselves here" kind of a response. It's typical argument 101 on here.
I think you missed, or ignored, the point he was making. There was no brash generalization.
Stuna, the generalisation is quite easy to find. Here you go: "It's amazing people are using this stance in their argument now! Last Gen people wanted to see Sony and the PS3 reduced to a smothering pile of plastic! " Note how you see an opinion piece from an individual, label the person a collective "people", and then attribute another opinion you've seen in the past to that same collective? It's common on N4G, people seem to struggle with the concept of individuals speaking for themselves.
@Volkama OMG. It doesn't take an English major to figure this stuff out. It really doesn't. What Stuna1 said: "It's amazing people are using this stance in their argument now! Last Gen people wanted to see Sony and the PS3 reduced to a smothering pile of plastic! " How you misread it: "Note how you see an opinion piece from an individual, label the person a collective 'people', and then attribute another opinion you've seen in the past to that same collective?" Note how Stuna reads an opinion piece in which the writer makes an argument that Sony and gamers need Xbox and includes the writer among a collective of "people" that argue that Sony and gamers need Xbox — because that's what the writer did. Note that this is where you fail. For some reason, in your mind, the word "people" only refers to one collective, so when Stuna later brings up how "people" wanted to see Sony's downfall, you embarrass yourself by trying to belittle other people when it is really your own ignorance causing the misunderstanding.
I like how one of the guys above me talk about generalizations, saying that n4g users love them and use them to make grandiose claims.. The fun part is, that this guy that talks about generalizations as a bad thing, while doing a generalization of N4G! That blew my mind.. "It's bad when other people do this, but is fine when i do it" That's what i got from his comment. OT: Sony doesn't need MS, as MS doesnt need sony, if anything consumers need em to get more choises, but then again if someone is out, always there's a new contender joining the console war, so in this case i wouldn't be worried if MS is out #but i was sad when Sega was out even having a ps1, and ps2 back then.
Stuna makes a link between people wishing the PS3 failed, and people saying a console failing would be bad. He paints a group of hypocrites, but there is no foundation for it, nothing to suggest anyone held both contradictory views. This is why Fireseed objected to the generalisation. If Stuna is not attempting to make that link then we're wrong, and I will duly apologise. If you can't see how that's different to me saying that a particular attitude is commonly observed here, or if that difference "blows your mind"... well that's cute. Carry on doing what you're doing.
I was being sarcastic. I was making fun of those that like to say "This is N4G...(Insert Generalization Here)". Wasn't trying to say stuna1 was wrong in what he was saying as there was a lot "OH HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN!" comments about Sony last gen. Make no mistake though, what stuna1 said was treating a group of people's opinions as one breathing hive.
"It's amazing people are using this stance in their argument now!" There were people in the past that were saying the same thing, but a lot of people only recall the bad. Its a shame, but I guess thats life.
Sony Does want to harm the xbox.. they want all the market share. However, WE the gamers do want the xbox one. Even though maybe we dont want to BUY it, we want it to be here. We want the competition. Or else sony would be such a lazy ass arrogant company. They have only grown so much, because of the competition of last gen. They still aren't perfect.. they are a company. their whole purpose is to make money, be profitable. We need the competition.
"Sony Does want to harm the xbox.. they want all the market share." If they take 100% of the market share, the market is unlikely to survive. That's kinda the point. Try reading the article before you comment. It'll do you the world of good.
@ peripherality .. great. ive read it. its just wrong though. I understand what they've said. but your wrong. They are talking about consoles, and the console market. Its kind of a narrow path of an opinion on why they think one company would fail without the other. Having complete control of a market is monopoly.. you want a monopoly. Just because "consoles" may be in danger in the future, doesnt mean sony doesnt want a monopoly. sony and any current console maker knows consoles will go away in the future.. and they are already preparing.
"Having complete control of a market is monopoly.. you want a monopoly." Black and white.
Lol @ saying Sony wants monopoly. When MS has already been to court and failed on their monopoly.
Gaming life was great during the ps1/ps2 era. I wouldn't mind if Sony ruled most of the market share. From the three companies they know what we want.
Mikey...son...there international trade/antitrust laws in place to guard AGAINST monopolies. Ask MS...
Theory is Microsoft spend hard to expand the market. That benefits Sony. If you like to think in pies (charts, sweet, savoury, whatever) then consider 100% of a pie is not as much as 50% of 3 pies. It's not so simple, as ownership of those pies is not exclusive. There will be large segments of pie that both companies have licked, that's where the "battle" lies. Hopefully you went with sweet or savoury pies for the analogy, as licking pie charts would be pretty weird.
The Ps1 and Ps2 both did great numbers without the Xbox. Despite what everyone said about the PS3 and bluray Sony still kept pushing the boundaries. The Playstation brand is successful thing because Sony listens to the consumers. This time around they listen to the developers as well. That combination is why the PS4 is so successful. At M$ it seems you have a bunch of corporate idiots running the gaming division.
Some of you guys need to take an economics class, before incorrectly arguing with something factual. And.. truly every company would want a monopoly if possible. Obviously there are anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, but a true monopoly is desired by an for-profit company. Where the hell did you guys go to school? or did you. @Periphereality (and all those who agreed with him) Here is a definition of monopoly "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly." http://dictionary.reference... First definition when you google for it.
Competetion is always good,but with valve and amazon jumping in the consoles its getting a little to cramped and someones got to go
People(Mostly xbox and fanboys of other consoles)are hurt to see Sony success. Nothing to be surprised about actually. This was all to be expected. This only affected people in denial.
The claim in the article is right. If there were no competiton the PS4 would be something totally different than what it is. Think about it, Sony designed the PS4 to beat the competition. Without that motivation do you think you would have gotten the PS4 or something that cut more corners to save more on costs? Competition is good for the consumer, it makes organizations compete for your $. It was good last gen and it's good this gen. I'm not a fan of MS, but a complete failure of the XB1 is not something that would be good for gamers in general. I think a weaken position for the XB1 compared to the 360 will be good for gamers because MS won't be able to secure as many 3rd party exclusives. So hopefully more games are available on more systems.
I can agree with what you're saying! But I also have to look at things from a different perspective as far as if Microsoft was the ones in the leading position. If there was no one to keep them in check, the gaming landscape would be completely different from what we see it as! See I hold no illusion to what Microsoft really planned to do, it's pretty obvious from what we see in their product that is the Xbox1, they wanted to change the entire formula for gaming, and the sad thing is there were big developers behind them to support them. Imagine not exactly a monopoly, but you holding large shares in the gaming arena, but your supporters all also hold large shares in the gaming arena, and they are major developers with huge holdings with major ip's, what do you have then? The potential to change the direction of gaming as we know it if they combined their resourses. The thing is, no one would have ever looked at it as a monopoly! Sony stood in the way of that.
The way they tried to snatch my consumer rights, and force a camera down my throat made me not want one. Even now that they 180d most of that crap I still don't want one with the forced camera and high price.
They have not, You just think they have because you were only on N4g, which was actually the place that sony fans would migrate to since 2007... And they would always say how they were outcasted yet that was never true.
Gaming companies/manufacturers come and go. Gaming itself will never die. So no, Sony doesn't need the xbone to succeed. Sony needs to do what they have been doing, producing powerful consoles and attracting the best developers on the planet to produce the best games for the system. If there is no next console cycle, or only one more console cycle, it will be because gaming and technology evolves, not because these companies did something wrong.
I'm all for competition, but it has to be healthy competition. MS is definitely not healthy competition. All they do is take from the industry. Need I point out their DRM and timed DLC. And I don't know why people think Sony would get lazy is they got the monopoly. When the PS1 and PS2 were dominating the industry thrived. I want to see that again.
Agreed, the gaming industry would be better off without MS as all they seem to do is instigate ways to raise costs one way or another. Xbox itself can stay though.
Nah the gaming industry would be better without fanboys like you .
"I don't know why people think Sony would get lazy is they got the monopoly." Look at every other situation where one company owns the entire market share. Look at something like Madden; since EA has no competition, they can be as lazy as they want, because there's no alternative. It's either buy a stripped-down, feature-neutered football game or no football game at all. Look at last gen: the Xbox 360 was the best thing that ever happened to the PS3. Remember the doom on the PS3 launch? Sony realized that they were losing market share to Microsoft, so they dropped the price, shaped up their online and got better games. And guess what? Things improved. If the 360 wasn't there, I don't think the PS3 lifecycle would have been the same. More competition means more reasons for companies to top each other, and we gamers reap the benefits. That's how it works.
Sony didn't get lazy when they dominated the ps1-ps2 era. PS2 is considered the greatest console and that gen was one sided.
@cochise_313 You're missing the point. The point is that many of the things about the PS3's later success were reactionary. They were in response to a competitor's success. In fact, the same thing happened with the PS2. Voice chat and online features in SOCOM? Xbox Live caught on, so people were into that. Hell, Killzone was designed to be a "Halo killer." None of those things would've happened unless there was another company achieving success with it and putting pressure on Sony. Sony saw those successes and followed up with things like Killzone. Just because the PS2 was a big hit doesn't mean that it would've been the same had there not been two other consoles on the market.
We need games in general but what we don't need is getting F over in the process.
and the guy is right some want sony to go belly up and others want MS to drop out of the console market.
I own all of the next generation system's and i hope they can make a profit but if there was a company that is doing right by gamers it's sony.
Just today i got remember me,street x tekken off playstation+ what has MS given me for owning a X1? nintendo did have that 30 cent deal on classic games and that was cool but other then that nothing.
So yeah we need MS,nintendo%sony but if they are going to keep f over gamers then let them go the way sega dreamcast.
Not really... Here is a post from one of the mods of NeoGaf which I feel eloquently puts this stupid concept to rest: ---------- No, it's not. I don't understand where this is coming from. Competitive platforms are good for the consumer. Sales parity is completely irrelevant to the consumer. In fact, if one platform lags behind the other, it is because the consumer has decided that one platform is not actually good for them. That is how it works. The dog wags the tail. This "competition is good" thing has grown completely into a monster. Competition is the means by which a lessor is weeded out. If a platform is weaker, it should lose. That is competition. This whole "parity is good for the consumer"/"two platforms selling well is good for the consumer" sentiment is bizarre. What you are espousing is not capitalism or competition but instead crony capitalism in which market competitors are propped up for the sake of having market competitors. --------
That explanation is a very short-term description. Very socially Darwinian, actually. In that view, the PS3 should've been dead a long time ago. Do you really think that we would have games like Uncharted 2 or Journey if Sony kept the PS3 at its original price and stayed the course they launched on? And "weaker" platform is subjective, but I'm assuming you mean "weaker on the market." Competition is diverse challenge, not parity or market equity. Otherwise it's an "irresistible force, immovable object" scenario. But the systems are different enough for us to know what we like and what we don't. There will always be enough of a difference in sales for competition to exist and for gamers to have options. We need options so we can compare ideas to understand which is better; competition is a good thing. If $599 systems were our only choice, we'd settle. If all-digital systems were our only choice, we'd settle. That's how the gaming market works; we go where the options are, and when they're are none...well...we're stuck with them.
Lest we forget the Ouya exists contrary to this depiction of "capitalism". Ouya sold on a premise, and an idea. People bought that like a product, and the hardware came later. That, too, is not "how capitalism works." Yet it did. It's now a tangible thing.
Erroneously assumed I was directly supporting capitalism. In actual fact, not at all. As strange as it sounds, the only meaningful point is that if you want a traditional console market for the next 5-10 years, you should support what there is -- and that doesn't necessarily mean financially. Yes, under-grad logic can rant about how "that's not how capitalism is supposed to work" or "that's not how capitalism works", but that wasn't what this was about. Besides, capitalism is doing weird things now'days. You can get a product or service supported through tantamount to charitable donations through fund-raising sites. Effectively trading in 'good-will'. People criticize Kickstarter because "that's not how capitalism works," and even that's getting old. "If a platform is weaker, it should lose." By what rule? History? Is that a positive statement? An ethical one? Regardless, it misses the point completely. The idea is "if you want a viable traditional console market, you should not actively work towards or celebrate the loss of a competitor". Not to mention the unfortunately lax definition of 'lose' in this context (lax being literally nonsensical). Has Ouya lost yet? Has the Wii U lost yet? Why should a consumer shed a tear for a product? That's another discussion. When you try to be smart, someone will inevitably try to be smarter. Usually for the sake of it. At 210 degrees, this article had been clicked (not even read) by a total of 165 people. Most of those commenting will not read it. They will dedicate more time to a statement on the premise, rather than the argument. That's what being smart on the internet is about. Shouting eloquently, within 140 characters. I don't know if the moderator was commenting directly on this article, or if you chose to speak through him, but cookie-cutter responses to complex situations don't do you nearly enough justice, free-thinking internet person.
It's actually commented about a different poster. I know it makes you feel all tingly that the Mods of NeoGaf think you even exist on the radar, but you do not. I just wanted to show you that you're not the first person to make this cookie-cutter fairy tale argument and you're not a special snowflake. You're just one of many who, when Microsoft has lost grounds in the US, began championing for competition all of a sudden and this reply works for all them. I'm sorry to burst your fantasy, in hindsight the fault lies with me... :(
We do not need microsoft in the Gaming Industry. Competition is not always healthy and having one console that everyone has is better than having a split between your group of friends that play. Also development teams that dont have to spend millions making two version when time could be spent making the game better or longer.
Sony needs MS like Hitler needs Jews.
common sense... Last gen i had both systems. This gen i went ps4 first choosing to wait on purchasing the x1 until they get more exclusives under their belt. Ps4 hit the ground running so i chose to go with them first. But in no way do i want to see a failing xbox 1. Unlike the the mob of people with the torches and pitch forks... i actually understand the need for choice and competition. Why the hell would anyone want to see the Monopoly of the videogame industry. Valve, Alienware or steam does not have the budget or financial muscle to be a competitor vs X1 or ps4. Picture naughty dog or rockstar spending $75 million or a movie budget to make a Grand theft auto 6 or Last of Us 2 for a Valve system or for Steam. They would go bankrupt in months. I like gaming so i see the potential in both systems.
I don't need Microsoft. Neither does Sony. Competition is good ,.. when competition is good,.. and MS is no good. And as far as I know Nitty never left the building. I'll probably get the WiiU when Zelda hits,..like always.
Sony PS4 will dominate this gen like there is no other console. Xbox will probably take the role of Gamecube or worst Dreamcast and die off.
The hurt from fanboys pleases me. more....MORE!!!
MS already harmed the X1 last year with their mediocre reveal. Now the gamers have spoken and the ps4 is their console of choice. If anyone is to blame for the X1's short comings it's MS.
Sony doesn’t want to harm the Xbox One, Microsoft already did!
I wouldn't say either needs the other. You should be in competition yourself and support your customers with their needs.
Competition is being used way too much. PS1 and PS2 dominated without much competition. I'd be very happy with MS leaving. I have no interest in buying XB1 or any future XB console. Call me a fanboy all you want I don't care. I don't like MS.
You are a fanboy.
oh look - a neutral and reasoned article and the fanboys still spout their godforsaken crap... Just think about it logically. If Sony are the only show in town, the home console market will DIE. You cant have a monopoly that runs effectively - you need innovation, and that is stemmed from competition. SO YOU DO NEED MS, EVEN IF YOU DONT LIKE THEM. And Microsoft tried to innovate - they wanted a wholly digital platform, with games shareable outside your own home. That came with restrictions which people didn't like so they had to pull back. But they tried something different, and that was admirable. The whole cloud processing tech in xbox live is potentially huge (the whole driveatar implementation in forza is a great idea, for example) - but everyone ignores that right now because the current fanboy fad is to bash the xbox. If you don't like either console, don't buy it, thats fine. (I just ordered a ps4 so please dont start with the "YOU LOVE MS, SONY WINZ!111ONE crap). But never assume that your console of choice would be half of what it was without other consoles in the market putting pressure on its creator to improve it. PS online was a complete crock of crap when it came out - much of its improvement is due to xbox live. Trophies? Oh look, xbox achievements. PS move? Wii controllers, same with kinect. Playstation 4 eye? Kinect. Actually making the gawd-awful ps3 os usable while playing a game? Copying the 360 dashboard. Even putting force feedback in dualshock pads for the ps3 was done because ms did it on the 360 and there was an outcry. I have an original sixaxis for my ps3, and its SHIT. You dont have to buy it, just realise competition breeds innovation. The consoles you know and love wouldnt exist without it. And dont decry a company for trying something new - trial and error are the only way an industry moves forward. Reasoned feedback helps them develop compelling and enjoyable products. Rabid fanboyism helps no-one.
Most of these rabid fanboys are too irrational and filled with hate to think clearly.
What's with the headline? If you look at sales figures sony is obviously hurting the Xbox One by selling so man PS4s which reduces Microsoft's market share.
There will be lots more competition by the time the next gen comes
I have to wonder how different these comments would be is MS were leading.
Competition is always a good thing, but in order to compete you need a product that competes in performance and price point. $500 for lesser hardware is not a very fair fight.