Top
260°

Why gaming needs Microsoft (and Sony and Nintendo)

Microsoft has had a bad time of it lately but they have the perfect chance to turn things around and show how they’ve learned from their mistakes. And Sony and Nintendo fans should hope they come out swinging as much as Xbox owners, because competition is good.

The story is too old to be commented.
Thatguy-310560d ago (Edited 560d ago )

The more companies the better the industry will thrive. Competition is always good and each one of those companies has changed the industry for the better at some point in their life cycle. That being said whoever dominates does change the playing ground and not to be a fanboy or anything but with Sony leading the way it paves way for diversity in genres. Last generation Wii introduced a lot of shovelware junk and MS paved the way for shooters.

560d ago Replies(7)
rainslacker559d ago (Edited 559d ago )

No single company is needed for gaming to survive. Sony, Nintendo, or MS could drop out tomorrow, and the industry would continue.

Gaming is a consumer product, and as such, the consumer will go to where they can get what they want. If one drops out, the consumer will go to another. If one drops out, some other company will take their place to make their mark.

What gaming needs is creative people who take risks, and to create products which people want. Creating products people want is what ensures that gaming will continue, because the consumer decides if and when the industry actually survives.

Truthfully, historically, the time gaming was considered to be at it's best is when a single company dominated the market. the SNES/Genesis era is about the only time when two companies trived equally, and we had a generation which was respected during it's time, and in retrospect. Last gen, we had three successful consoles. The two primaries among the hardcore were roughly equal the whole generation. Last gen was mostly lackluster in comparison to prior gens, and this gen is already more exciting IMO....particularly more recently. But only Sony is really delivering that excitement, although Nintendo looks like they may be ready to strike, and has for some.

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen560d ago

The author seems to ignore the fact that Microsoft Xbox has been doing the bare minimum in the games department since 2014 while trying to convince people to buy their hardware and services. If Microsoft wants to survive, they are going to have to offer more than, controllers, powerful hardware, and multiplats.

DLConspiracy559d ago (Edited 559d ago )

I don't think they need to beat Sony in order to 'survive'. So it really shouldn't matter as long as they have a market for what they offer. Which it seems they have enough to get by. If we are going on and on about which is doing better constantly in the comments to prove a point or feel justified for our purchases. Sure. Sony wins..

but.. when it comes to playing on the most powerful console in just a few months. I am sure it will be appealing for a large chunk of the majority who mostly play AAA games to get a console that will play them better. Whether or not anyone likes to hear that. There are still people who will.

So survival. Is not really something you or I should even care about unless we are rooting for a team and waving a flag to feel superior. Regardless of how many downvotes I get or how well you try to play the middle road. You still are and always have been extremely biased.

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen559d ago (Edited 559d ago )

In order to survive in the console gaming market long term, the Xbox division needs offer more than powerful hardware and multiplats. Gamers have overwhelmingly rejected Microsoft's vision for gaming (Hardware, multiplats, online services and microtransactions) and that should be more than enough proof. At the moment, Microsoft Xbox is looking at short term revenue generation via services and microtransactions while completely ignoring the fact that annual franchises and games based on online multiplayer are on the decline and have been since 2014. You can already see changes from Ubisoft and Activision which have already started to offer more than the typical cookie cutter annualized franchises in order to keep the service game "model" relevant.

As for you saying that I'm biased, I'm not bashing Microsoft or Xbox, I'm just pointing out things that are actually happening or things that have already happened. You should realize that i'm not the one who's trying to bring console wars into this discussion. Read my original post and understand that I didn't mention Sony at all YOU DID.

oakshin560d ago

I'm not a fanboy and I'm not a troll either and that's not what I'm trying to do....

I've come to the realization that Microsoft NEVER needs to be the market leader. I really don't see the point in xbox anymore sorry I said it best xbox was the og with the black and white button with awesome games like halo and nights of the old Republic and morrowind and the only good fable IMO (the first one) I can go on for hours damnit but I'm not SAGA come back long live the dreamcast!!!

Thatguy-310560d ago (Edited 560d ago )

I Think MS is needed to further innovate the online space so others can learn from it. Imo each one of the companies serves a purpose. But I agree that MS being market leaders doesn't benefit the industry at all.

rainslacker559d ago

The online space is innovated on within the PC market. Everything MS has done has been taken from the PC market. The only exception would be account based achievements and central accounts to connect. Beyond that, MS isn't even an innovator in online services when it comes to games. They adapt what is on PC to the console space, and they haven't done much of that since the early 360 days.

Yohshida559d ago

When MS drops out of the console business, you will see Sonys true face aka a 700$ PS5 and closing down first party studios left and right (since they don't need them anymore).

MS dropping out of gaming would mean billions of dollars of investment are gone and Sony having 0 competition = monopol = your games getting more expensive and dropping in quality.

But hey, lets hope MS dies amIright?

oakshin559d ago (Edited 559d ago )

I 100% see your point why I said I miss Sega and sega was Kool they just R&D all there money away

Oo and that already happened with the ps3 sonys used to having the market cornered this gen is back to normal in that regard playstations doubling comparators sells is the norm historically

ABizzel1559d ago

Living in hypotheticals never did anything for anyone.

The reality is Sony is pumping out games, and from that point it will be Sony and Nintendo in the hardware department, with Sony making consoles, and Nintendo hopefully sticking with handhelds of quality like the Switch, if MS dropped out.

And the reality is that if a $700 PS5 did come out, it wouldn't be supported by the majority of gamers, because it's simply outside the budget of most households. And that $700 price would be determined by the hardware inside of it. If it's running semi-custom hardware based off high end GPUs and a decent CPU, then by all means that's what the asking price should be.

For example if the PS4 launched with a GPU equivalent of the R9 290x back in 2013, then $600 is worth the asking pricing considering the GPU alone cost $400 back then.

But Sony learned a hard lesson with the PS3 that there is a market limit for mass production and in their case it's $500, and unlike previous generations, gamers (especially those of us who know specs.) are much more informed and console manufacturers can't get away with selling underperforming and overpriced hardware (Wii U). Worse case scenario we'll get a $500 PS5 that should have been $400. Anything beyond that and they're in trouble.

rainslacker559d ago (Edited 559d ago )

Sony makes a lot of money on games they make. Not all of them turn a profit, but the ones that do turn a big profit. They also make money on the fees they charge 3rd party publishers to put their games on the system. Then they make money on the subscription fees for PS+. Then they make money on their cut from whatever they sell on the store.

What do all these things have in common?

They require a user base to actually make more money.

Sony learned big time with the PS3 that install base is more important to making money than trying to make a console which prices itself out of the market. They know quite well by now that making a console which is expensive isn't necessary, because so long as it can play games at a respectable level, then it's fine. They know that striking balance between power and price is important, and will net them more money in the long term than trying to make a bit of extra money on the console itself, or trying to make some super powerful console which may or may not show huge gains to the actual software.

MS isn't outputting billions of dollars of investment. They haven't come anywhere close to that this gen. Sony will always have competition. They actually implied they are concerned about PC, and right now, Nintendo is looking to make a dent. On top of that, if MS drops out, no doubt, some other company would look to take their place, and maybe could provide better competition, better investment in the industry, and potentially actually do something good in terms of advancing games, instead of just trying to maximize profits by focusing in on narrow segments of the market.

Sony has had 3 generations now with no competition. In those three generations, they have output a lot of well respected content, and one of those gens was considered the golden age of gaming. The one gen where Sony had equal competition, was probably one of the worst in terms of output from them. They had some great games sure, but nowhere near what came before, or even what we're seeing now.

That being said, I don't want MS to die or drop out. I just want them to do better, and do the things which make them interesting competitors.

agent4532559d ago

Not really, for one no console gamer will buy a $700.00 console. Google, Apple, hey maybe Amazon can take Microsoft spot for gaming. Steam is killing it for it has forced console manufacturers to push for digital distribution, digital sales, DLC, mod support; it forced Microsoft to bring early access to its xbox ecosystem plus to try again with Windows Live service. Even if Microsoft leaves gaming, Steam and Nintendo (the forgotten console manufacturer) are bringing competition towards Sony. There is more to Microsoft and Sony gaming 😊

Yohshida559d ago (Edited 559d ago )

See guys, and this is where you are wrong "The reality is Sony is pumping out games" if we go by actual first party IPs, they are on the same level as Xbox is right now.

"MS isn't outputting billions of dollars of investment. They haven't come anywhere close to that this gen. Sony will always have competition"

Marketing Deals profit publishers = a lot of money
Paying First Party Studios = a lot of money
Researching new Tech in Scorpio, VR, AR, Controllers etc. = a lot of money
Supporting Indie Devs with [email protected] = a lot of money

I don't think you know how much all of this costs.

"Not really, for one no console gamer will buy a $700.00 console."

PS3 was 600$ without taxes.... If its the only console out, it will sell. What else will people buy?

"Sony has had 3 generations now with no competition."

So this is why they were last place last gen? Coming from a 150 million lead to last = no competition? Oh okay

"Sony makes a lot of money on games they make. "

Actually even MS makes a lot of money on PS4. Just look at the Top sold games and you rarely find exclusives after its launch month while Minecraft is always in the Top 10.

InTheLab558d ago

Where in Sony's history have you seen anything that would give you this idea?

They will suddenly drop ND because who needs games.

Sounds familiar. You don't need to be market leader with no competition to do that.

MS dumped Lionhead
Canceled several games
Tried to kill player ownership
Tried to kill game trades
Tried to drm is to death
Dropped an underpowered $500 console
And has given up on single player games that can't be milked beyond the initial sale.

What you think Sony will do, MS has done, yet we need them?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 558d ago
Ristul560d ago

I don't like the direction Microsoft is taking this generation, and if they can effect the industry in any mayor way it will be bad for gamers like myself. This whole "games as a service" and multiplayer focus and microtransations are things that I can't get behind, and my guess is that it would be a lot worse if MS were the leader.

Thats why I will never support MS again in the console space, but I will keep playing games on PC so there is always a chance for MS to earn my money there. Thats what they should do imo, return to PC in full force and leave console gaming to Sony and Nintendo.

Yohshida559d ago (Edited 559d ago )

" but I will keep playing games on PC"

See, this is why you are a troll. You are a so called "PC gamer" and don't complain about Valve, which are 100% Games as a service now. You don't stop playing PC because of that right? Oh wait you don't even play on PC. Gotta love those people.

trooper_559d ago

The irony of you calling people trolls.

Ristul559d ago

VideoGameLab: Lol, I could basically pirate any game on PC and store it on my harddrive, thats why I'm not even gonna worry about it on PC, It's not a walled garden unlike consoles. Also, the games I buy on PC are dirt cheap on sales, so not spending nearly as much as I do on console games.

rainslacker559d ago

Steam is primarily a storefront. It doesn't require any kind of support other than to use them as a store front. Valve's game output has certainly declined in the wake of Steam, but consider that MS wants this steam model to be successful for them. If they actually achieve success...do you think they're going to continue on with the content creation?

Yohshida559d ago (Edited 559d ago )

try pirating nier automata for example. Aint gonna happen. How you pirate those mp games? Play over hamachi? gg

Ristul559d ago (Edited 559d ago )

VideoGameLab: Ok, let me answer you on that one, maybe you will see were I'm coming from. Nier Automata is awailable on PS4, so in that case I just buy it on PS4. Second, I rarely play multiplayer games, and if I do, it's almost always on consoles b/c thats were my friends and family are, so it's not even a factor for me to play PC multiplayer games. The only exception is Starcraft 2, and I hate the fact that it's a game I have to log in to Blizzards server to use. But in that case I have no choice, it's a game I love playing and it's not awailable on any other platform. Still, I always support GOG when I can, if a game is awailable there and on steam I always go for GOG. But like I said, I spend so little on PC gaming (b/c of sales) that it almost doesn't matter. It's my "bonus platform" so anything I spend there is money I feel comfortable throwing away. The trend has been set on PC, and there is no going back from that. And those games I have are mostly awailable to pirate, like I said, so no biggie.

rainslacker: I agree on Vavle, we need HL3 asap!

Allsystemgamer558d ago (Edited 558d ago )

Who is this guy and how long ago did he hit his head? His ramblings aren't even coherent.

Must be the Xbox.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 558d ago
agent4532559d ago

They are doing that with Windows Live and they are doing it very poorly. Microsoft has completely forgotten what appeals PC gamers meaning it treats PC gamers as if they were console gamers:

No mod support
Lack of game options
Lack of game sales

Barely got game refunds which works the same way as steam.....

Kashima559d ago

We don't need M$, they just keep milking Halol and Forza.

XanderZane558d ago

We don't need Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft. All of them could fall off the face of the Earth and we would all go back to PC gaming. The fact remains, none of these companies are going anywhere anytime soon. So get over it.

Show all comments (66)
The story is too old to be commented.