Top
260°

Xbox 360 Leading To PlayStation Glory?

"Microsoft has a plan. I know that this statement might conjure up images of Steve Ballmer and Robbie Bach sitting in darkened office plotting new ways to steal more PS3 exclusives but if you look at Microsoft as a game company, they've come a long way in just two short generations of consoles."

-TheGamerAccess.com

Read Full Story >>
thegameraccess.com
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Pein4008d ago

but it also can be the ps3 downfall

4008d ago
Danja4008d ago

[email protected] my comment being reported as SPAM....

I said nothing biased or fanboyish yet it was deleted....hmm oh well...

guess the truth hurts sometimes

killajd4008d ago

There is a storm coming which side are u gonna be on??? Seriously this year is gonna be huge and u may be right on this article but time will tell!!!

Silellak4008d ago

A storm coming?

Which side are we going to be on?

You do know we're talking about video games, right? When the competition is this intense between companies, EVERY gamer is a winner.

XxZxX4008d ago

the bad is u have to waste $1000 to get 3 console.

morganfell4008d ago

While Sony has expanded it's studios MS has slashed and burned their way across the gaming landscape. Not exactly a plan for MS success but it certainly assists Sony.

4008d ago
creeping judas4008d ago

I prefer both of them. What happens in your one sided view of things, is that if it wasn't for MS then you would be playing crap games. Without competition, what would be SONY's driving force to get games like Killzone2 on their console?? None, because if the PS3 was the only gaming console on the market, there would be no reason for them to aspire to greatness. People would be forced to accept the shovel ware that is tossed at them. I get the point, you don't like MS, but at least accept the fact that you as a gamer need them to be around, in order to drive SONY to bigger and better things.

The Peoples ARMPIT4008d ago (Edited 4008d ago )

@ fugly judas

Umm Sony was doing fine game wise even without M$ being in the gaming market for two straight console gens(ok more like 1.7 gens since M$ arives late). Might i add during those two gens they managed to release some of the most genre defining games the industry has ever witnessed.

Can you smell me?

The real question should be "If Sony wasn't in the game would M$ be able to steel all their once exclusives and actually good game?". The fact is that M$ wouldn't have survived that war especially with their lack of knowledge compared to Sony and their first party devs. Comprende?

How about now?

Danja4008d ago

fact remains also..if Sony hadn't entered the Industry M$ wouldn't be here making consoles either

Ghoul4008d ago

if it wasnt for sony and nintendo, ms wouldnt have a console at all

Silellak4008d ago

The fact that your post is in the Gamer Zone and hasn't been modded just shows how far this site has sunk.

It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the sentiment of his post; I think we can all agree that the phrasing of it is entirely unnecessary. How does "You either support Sony or you're a 'fanbrat'" belong in the Gamer Zone for "friendly and civilized discussion" where "fanboyism is left at the door"?

SmokeyMcBear4008d ago

why dont you guys report more instead of trying to fan the flames

4008d ago
morganfell4008d ago (Edited 4008d ago )

The belief that lack of competition always bodes ill for the consumer is naive and idealistic at best. It is tantamount to saying the consumer will accept anything. Most gamers are not some soccer team stranded in the snow willing to devour their own dead in order to survive. They won't accept pure crap because it is the only thing around. And remember, Sony innovated even when they owned the market. Why?

Debate will rage endlessly about whether Sony gives a crap about the consumer. What isn't up for question is the fact that if they did not care they would have rammed the PS3 out the door a year earlier than they did. Instead they were more careful about their hardware, refused to abandon gamers that had an investment in the PS2, and have proceeded very methodically after a few initial bloody noses with the PS3.

Do you think the billion dollar warranty extension on the 360 was about taking care of fans? Or was it because word concerning a mandatory product recall issued by the Federal Trade Commission was already flying around?

Are Sony's actions just good business or do they really give a crap? Does it matter when the result is the same? If they truly did not care then a great many things we have seen instituted would not be in place. Yes those things are smart business. But they do benefit the consumer. Sony now does what MS used to be great doing - talking to their fanbase rather than talking down at them. Sony's continual investments in proprietary technology, game development, and the player experience are second to none at this stage.

After the PS2, Sony had a memory lapse and some momentary high headedness. They were hit for that stance. Hard. It was rough but they learned some very tough yet consumer friendly facts of business.

Then the entire gaming community began to attack them en masse. It was ridiculous to watch as the young lions tried to force the older leader of the pride from his position. But as sometimes happens, the younger less experienced and ultimately more arrogant upstarts get the mauling of a lifetime as they are on the receiving end of a brutal lesson about why and how the alpha male took over the pride in the first place and it wasn't through conniving or back room deals on the Serengeti with a group of jackals.

maniacmayhem4008d ago

I guess I now know where this site stands when I make a valid response to both Armpit and Slayer's super trolling and then I get deleted by the mod.

Death4008d ago

"The real question should be "If Sony wasn't in the game would M$ be able to steel all their once exclusives and actually good game?". The fact is that M$ wouldn't have survived that war especially with their lack of knowledge compared to Sony and their first party devs. Comprende?"

Are you asking if Sony wasn't around, could Microsoft "steel" their exclusives and make a good game? Are you aware Sony "stole" their best exclusives from other consoles? Metal Gear and Final Fantasy started life on non-Sony consoles. Grand Theft Auto started out as shareware on the PC. The reason they became Sony exclusives was the simple fact Sony owned the majority of the console market share. It was a no-brainer to develop for the system that had the 100+ million install base. Kind of like it's a no-brainer today to develop for both systems since Sony no longer has the marketshare it once did. If you really want to point fingers, shouldn't you atleast consider Sony's responsibility in retaining customers and developers?

Sony first party. That's an interesting issue. Sony bought it's first party studios. Microsoft was doing the same thing. The problem with buying studios is there are no guarantees in keeping the talent. Rare is probably the most famous example. Microsoft bought Rare for insane money. The founders of Rare cashed the check, smiled and moved on. It's nice to have a great first party development team, but you also need to have strong relations with third parties.

-Death

IdleLeeSiuLung4008d ago (Edited 4008d ago )

I totally agree with death.

That is my point all along, time and time again it is proven that once a game studio is purchased it falters then get consolidated. All you get out of it is some IPs and usually the IP isn't even used well. See when you purchase a company you gain it's talent, but no guarantee that you will be able to keep the talent.

A better strategy is to fund 3rd party studios to make your IPs. You get to keep the IP and bring in a new studio to make your games. There are very few companies that can absorb another company and still keep that absorbed division intact and motivated. MS is not one of them as history has proven.

I think Bioware + Pandemic sold for $600 million to EA. That is a lot of new IPs you can fund! MS bought Rare reportedly at $500 million.
To put in perspective the original Gears of War cost less than $20 million to make.

I'm not saying it is impossible to purchase a company and retain it's talent, but the likelihood is damn slim. Better investment is in the IP itself, not the talent.

JokesOnYou4008d ago

I've said stated similiar proposition many times and I'll keep saying it.

#1 Sony is no Angel many of the games that appeared on ps2 were originally on nintendo or previous platforms.

#2 Both sony and micro buy talent to make exclusive games/content for their platform, sony brought out independent studio's years ago, micro pays individual 3rd party devs for exclusive IP's and exclusive multiplat DLC, they have even stated on the record over a year ago that their focus is less about owning dev studio's and more about finding opportunities to bring exclusive content and games to 360.

#3 Owning more studio's does not automatically equal getting more top quality games simply because you have more 1st party studio's working for you....and there are pro's and con's for both business models/strategies.

#4 ha ha disagrees on n4g are meaningless

JOY

SaiyanFury4008d ago

@3.10 Morganfell

Brilliantly put. Very succinct analysis of the current industry model. Bubbles to you my friend.

rockleex4008d ago (Edited 4008d ago )

Sony simply offered a system with enough storage for developers to freely exercise their creative rights.

Everyone jumped ship because they were getting tired of cartridge limits.

Don't try to act like developers only jumped because of a larger fanbase. Are you telling me PlayStation 1 started with 100 million+ user base? Ridiculous. In fact developers RISKED a lot when they jumped because PlayStation wasn't a proven brand yet. They risked alienating their whole fanbase and losing a lot of money.

Hell, PlayStation BECAME so successful BECAUSE developers jumped ship!

But why did they take the risk? For creative freedom. Example, FF7.

Ghoul4007d ago

impressive and great reply morgenfell +bubble

and rocklex

your right, the one major difference is that sony didnt just threw money around the industry and buy developers or ips, it was infact first the cd on the ps1 and then the dvd on ps2 that made many devs switch the plattform because of the bigger possibilitys, sure there was some money involved and some studios where bought into the firstparty lineup but its nowhere how microsoft operates.

Death4007d ago

I get confused when I think the Sega CD, 3dO, Phillips CD-I, and Turbo CD came out first. I suppose Sony's stake in Squaresoft was a gift for being pioneers and freeing developers. Either that or Sony actively bought their way into the market. Don't get me wrong, Sony took gaming to the next level with their marketing techniques and aggressive drive to gain developer support. Without their desire to succeed, who knows what we would be doing today. What irritates me is when people fault Microsoft for doing what Sony did in 90's with the Playstation and should be doing with the PS3.

Another newsflash for those that missed it, Sony's first party studios are devs that they bought up during the Playstation 1 and 2's reign. Just because they claim to not buy exclusives today doesn't mean they didn't buy them in the past. The only differance is now they are getting less third party exclusives since they aren't throwing the money around they used to. Today they are relying on the developers they bought already.

-Death

CBaoth4007d ago

but to me the biggest gaffe on MS's strategy is they're funding exclusive IPs from 3rd parties but they're not owning the IP itself. As a potential but informed consumer, how does this practice ensure said IPs will remain exclusive with MS? And as Sony's install base grows, how long can MS afford to continue this practice? We've already seen the shift from exclusive IPs to exclusive DLC. Is this a temporary measure to offset the price drop or a paradigm shift instigated by 3rd parties?

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 4007d ago
MrJack4008d ago

There is no point to this, just a quick recap of the last 15 years, seriously who approved this?

Zeus Lee4008d ago

The leader falls during their 3rd console?

Mh,Xbox 720 :)

Godmars2904008d ago

Well, its not like MS is leading.

And we are in Sony's 3rd console...

Show all comments (61)
The story is too old to be commented.