Topher
Identifies as young
A very small one.
All this PR is extremely damaging to an already dying brand.
No doubt. I'm trying to be an optimist here.
A very small one.
All this PR is extremely damaging to an already dying brand.
Arrogance
Fair enough.No doubt. I'm trying to be an optimist here.
Then why did they make it?
I was more theorizing on if MS went 3rd fully 3rd party. I should have mentioned that.Still have to see where Microsoft takes their hardware strategy. I'm not convinced Xbox is done. If Microsoft can offer a compelling handheld and an aggressively priced revamped Xbox Series X then I think there still may be a place in the market, albeit a small one.
Anyone that thinks Sony are just going to abandon their core user base just because MS probably won't be either making consoles or living in the same price bracket."Their" who?!
Me? I have two PlayStation consoles (PS4 pro and PS5) and zero XBOX's and yet, I'm the one who wrote it! Just wanted to put it out there that competition is good. I don't like XBOX in the slightest, but I dont want them to fail either
Somehow Xbox fucking it all up is still Sony's fault and now Sony is to blame for what happens in the future.
I don't think MS is going the way people fearFair enough.
It's hard to find anything optimistic though.
Honestly can't see any possibility for MS to recover in a meaningful way.
![]()
And I don't trust money hungry suits to not trying to price gouge when people have no other place to turn
And don't give me Nintendo
I was more theorizing on if MS went 3rd fully 3rd party. I should have mentioned that.
I don't think MS making a handheld is a great idea tbh. As much I'd love a VIta 2, I don't think that's a good idea either. Nintendo runs that's shit.
I do want a PS6 that is more than $500 and I'm pretty sure you do to. Let's be straight about it, I hate having a console that will be underpowered at launch and drag on for the next 7 years after.Dude a lot people don't believe that here, Sony is a good guy
They would keep pushing the envelope and still keep prices under $500 because they care
![]()
I suppose it depends on how generous Nadella is.I don't think MS is going the way people fear
I still believe they have at least one more generation in them but if the new approach fails all bets are off
Maybe I am reading too much into it but I don't think they waited a week to have a meeting just to say they are going 3rd party
But MS better be very clear and concise with their wording on their future
There better not be any of this case by case wording
I like the handheld idea simply for the fact that they are trying something different. They are not going to get Switch numbers, but at this point, I think Microsoft has adjusted down their hardware expectations a great deal. I think having a presence in the hardware space is important for Microsoft, but they are not going to let it drive their gaming business.
Another win for the Toph man!![]()
Xbox One: Microsoft aims for 1 billion lifetime sales, 100 million Xbox 360 units
Microsoft's senior vice president of Interactive Entertainment Business Yusuf Mehdi has stated that given the broad mul…www.vg247.com
![]()
We also need to consider that the competition may be kind of over and these are the result for the foreseeable future.
I don't see anyone overcoming Steam on PC.
I don't see anyone overcoming Playstation in consoles.
I don't see anyone overcoming Nintendo in handhelds.
Am I wrong?
I believe Sony can and will increase prices a bit if MS takes a back seat in the console race. I just think it wont be that much and I personally feel it's worth the investment. I enjoy the products they release. In the end you never know but I feel like they would rather just continue to expand on the accessories in the playstation ecosystem to make money.
![]()
Xbox One: Microsoft aims for 1 billion lifetime sales, 100 million Xbox 360 units
Microsoft's senior vice president of Interactive Entertainment Business Yusuf Mehdi has stated that given the broad mul…www.vg247.com
![]()
Another win for the Toph man!
I know I'm late to replying to this, but fuck Phil Spencer and his "we hear you and we're listening."
That's been the response for 10 years and it's year after year of failure by this guy and this company.
I thought when they started acquiring companies we would see a slew of new games that allowed Xbox to compete with Sony first party. But it's just more gamepass and disappointment. How about you make some games Phil instead of telling us you're listening (when you aren't) and give people a reason to buy an Xbox. Too late now though.
What a sad decline from the 360 era. Xbox 360 is my favorite console of all time. So many great memories on that console.
Moat infuriating is Phil will ride off into the sunset to swim in his Scrooge McDuck vault of gold coins despite failing massively.
I mean, technically they would have be justified in increasing the console price, as people won't need to buy TWO consoles anymore to play all games (except Nintendo exclusives)
PS5 + Series X = $1000 at launch
Let's say PS6 is $650, it's still a pretty good deal
From a hardware perspective, I think Nintendo has a more dominant hold of the handheld market than Sony does of the console market.The weirdest thing for me is that although the "competition" is always framed as Sony vs MS, with their focus on streaming I'd argue that its Nintendo that MS should have been competing with since they embarked on the Game Pass approach.
Didn't they use it to push their blue-ray format?Then why did they make it?
This. Not to mention they literally called it a business event.The fact that we haven't even got a day or date for when Phil sets the record straight.
You guys need to do a little bit of thinking about this stuff before you dive head first into fear porn. Sony cannot price games so high that people can't afford to buy them. These fears of things like an $800 console are a bit absurd. Let's Sony raises the prices of consoles and nobody can afford to buy them. No consoles = no games = no revenue. Console sales need volume and volume has a price limit.Somehow Nintendo copied the cost base for games on the PS5 and Xbox, was that a coincidence?
If they aren't competing with the other 2, why not charge $100? $150? $500 per game? If they are so isolated and with no competition, why price exactly the same as the... "competitors"?![]()
Having wifi built in and ps2 back compat upped the costs as well.Didn't they use it to push their blue-ray format?
So I thought a bit more about this and came to the conclusion that they may be announcing lots of big changes to Game Pass in this event.Maybe I am reading too much into it but I don't think they waited a week to have a meeting just to say they are going 3rd party
PS3 was made to push blu-ray and _incidentally_ to be used as a games machine. It was also an R&D project for heterogenous computing (Cell).Then why did they make it?
Scratch that, you got me again pretending to want a real conversation
![]()
It's really simple yet MS seem to make things really complicated: Just shut the fuck up, make some great games that you can't experience anywhere else (and PC if you really must) and people will buy your shit.
Release substandard, half finished buggy games and people will buy other shit.
Going third party won't solve the issues.
Or next Wednesday when they buy SEGA lolThis. Not to mention they literally called it a business event.
It would hilarious if it's NEXT Friday. Lol.
I think this is highly likely what we seeSo I thought a bit more about this and came to the conclusion that they may be announcing lots of big changes to Game Pass in this event.
Think about it: they are in this mess because of Game Pass. And because it has cannibalized their software sales on Xbox, they are looking to port their games on PS5 and Switch so they could sell enough to get a positive ROI.
If they only port their games, it means they recover some of that development costs. But then how will that QoQ growth come?
Porting is for increasing revenue. But what is their path for reducing expenses - which Amy Hood also hinted at last month? Until they fix this Game Pass situation, they'd always be in this vicious loop.
So I think 3 things are coming in this event, which is why it's taking longer:
- Multiplatform games announcement on PS and Switch
- Big changes to how Game Pass works (day 1 releases, pricing, COD on GP, and/or new tiers, etc.)
- Handheld Xbox to promote Game Pass and xCloud
I don't think it was a matter of a lack of "powder" (as you put it). They were already headed on an upward trajectory and played it safe because it was financially sound to do so and got one of the smartest guys on board to fit the bill. On top of that, they realized the strengths they had, used them in the second half of the PS3's life, and doubled down with the PS4 (which was a major return to form for a PlayStation). Never mind the easy layup after arguably the biggest self-inflicted brand injury in the name of the originally planned Xbox One.The PS4 system architecture was entirely driven by Cerny trying to deliver performance without breaking the bank as Sony had very little powder left.
Competition keeps the prices in check
Then why did they make it?
They have to be totally clear on their wording
I don't think it was a matter of a lack of "powder" (as you put it). They were already headed on an upward trajectory and played it safe because it was financially sound to do so and got one of the smartest guys on board to fit the bill. On top of that, they realized the strengths they had, used them in the second half of the PS3's life, and doubled down with the PS4 (which was a major return to form for a PlayStation). Never mind the easy layup after arguably the biggest self-inflicted brand injury in the name of the originally planned Xbox One.
PS3 was made to push blu-ray and _incidentally_ to be used as a games machine. It was also an R&D project for heterogenous computing (Cell).
The STI (Sony-Toshiba-IBM) partnership was supposed to act as an alternative to x86. There were papers floating around about self-healing CPUs etc. Lot's of this was fanciful and never came to anything and it was a huge money pit for Sony as they had to have cutting edge fabs to actually fab the processors.
Remember that there was a special version of Linux for PS3s - the whole idea was that this thing was essentially going to be a work station like a silicon graphics box - it was utter madness.
The end result was that x86 remained dominant, Arm took off in mobile and Sony nearly went bankrupt and had to sell-off a load of assets.
The PS4 system architecture was entirely driven by Cerny trying to deliver performance without breaking the bank as Sony had very little powder left.
The PS3 was just them finding out the hard way that you need to find the right balance between innovation and cost. I doubt we'll ever see them do that again. Regardless of hubris
it's a rule that applies to everyone except apple
PS3 was designed as if the cost to manufacture the thing didn't matter - this followed the "normal" console mode where players buying games would overcome the initial hit taken on the hw. That hit for PS3 was huge and it took a while for them to rejig things to cut costs (hw ps2 emulation was stripped out for EU version etc)I don't think it was a matter of a lack of "powder" (as you put it). They were already headed on an upward trajectory and played it safe because it was financially sound to do so and got one of the smartest guys on board to fit the bill. On top of that, they realized the strengths they had, used them in the second half of the PS3's life, and doubled down with the PS4 (which was a major return to form for a PlayStation). Never mind the easy layup after arguably the biggest self-inflicted brand injury in the name of the originally planned Xbox One.
how the fuck has this 53 pages?
lol....Microsoft potentially revamping their entire video game strategy not news worthy enough for you?