GameBlurb writes, "Microsoft has been very vocal about having no desire to enter the handheld video game market, but if they had a change of heart, could they create a device that could compete with Nintendo and Sony?"
It's hard to imagine MS doing a handheld just because of their lack of 1st party studios.
I don't think there is room for 3 competitors in the handheld market. Japan won't accept a MS handheld and they play a big role in handhelds.
What I said above and this. Good point.
Microsoft could have made a handheld by now but then they would have to justify paying fees to play online, which no one would pay.
Oh cmon. So what if MS doesnt have enough first party studios? Did it stop them with the 360? Hell no. They can throw cash at developers to secure exclusives. They can throw cash in massive advertising campaings. 10 years ago, nobody thought they can succeed in home console market, and look where are they now. Sony, the unstoppable leader for the last two generations is catching up just now, at the end of the cycle.
Catching up just now? Since it came out, the PS3 has outsold the 360 year-on-year. Total sales have been nothing but a useless bragging point since that is not really what the companies are focused on. And the consoles did release in different time frames. The "throwing money around" argument/excuse is quite lame to be honest, especially for a company who is 2 generations deep. A company that is in this business for the long-term must invest in their own studios producing their own IPs - it's the natural way. Nintendo, Sony and even Sega realised this. Third parties are quite volatile and you cannot trust that they will always warm up to you, or not offer the same content to the competitor. Look at how Capcom opened up to Microsoft with Devil May Cry, and Square Enix with Final Fantasy. And how Capcom looked to Sony with Lost Planet and EA with Mass Effect. 2K with BioShock.
Yeah, with catching up I ment total sales. And like it or not PS3 is still at 3rd place. The gap is so small its irrelevant, but its still exist. My point is, that MS did not need 20 first party studios to make the 360 a success. Why cant they do it with a handheld?
If the gap is irrelevant, what's the point of mentioning it? The companies don't really go on total units sold, but more on regulated profit and number of units sold EACH year, to discover whether their gaming division is gaining or losing money. Software i.e. games is really where the companies make their money. Honestly, the number of consoles sold is really just a bragging point for fanboys - the 360 fanboys used it for years when it was heavily in their favour and now the PS3 side is using it to show how quickly the 10 million gap dwindled down to where it is today. It honestly doesn't bother me because I'm more concerned about games, and I'm not being disappointed with Sony's efforts from now going into the future with Vita and PS4. Of course it is evidenced this generation that to be successful, Microsoft didn't need 20 first party studios, but as I mentioned, their reliance on third party companies has made itself clear over the past few years. It's only a short-term solution. In a handheld market that is already crowded, the 3DS and Vita will perform great because they are already providing games which define the platform from their own studios. An Xbox handheld would actually be a disappointment for them by their own established standards of success, and they know it. Microsoft can afford, but probably won't want another disappointment like the original Xbox, Zune and Windows Phone 7 especially in the handheld market, and with the excellent competition that already exists. And Xbox Live Gold on a handheld? Don't get me started on that. Like I said above "A company that is in this business for the long-term must invest in their own studios producing their own IPs". Keyword: Long-term!
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.