Console "wars" already over?

Stoichkov

I'm just wondering if the competition already has an outright winner in Microsoft. I say this because Microsoft has almost unlimited funds and of what Bill Gates said after the Xbox and just on release day in the US.

Basically he said that they will continue to have another go even if they dont come out on top. Could any other company afford the previous losses?

The Xbox was a $5bn loss, if that kind of huge deficit had been on Sonys books there would be no PS3, if it happened to Nintendo they'd be sharing an office with Sega.

Is the war already won with just a few battles left to play out?

Also for xbox fans who might think this is a good thing they need to remember that without competition producers get lazy, just look at windows.

Hopefully I'm just being stupidly pessimistic, maybe Sony, Nintendo and Sega will join forces to create an uber console.... :cool:

BlitzKrieg

The Xbox was a $5bn loss, if that kind of huge deficit had been on Sonys books there would be no PS3, if it happened to Nintendo they'd be sharing an office with Sega.

Thinking of the top of my head, wouldnt the majority of a 5 billion loss on microsoft ended up in the hands of sony and nintendo. they make a loss cause someonebought a ps2 or gc instead. Money in sony's pocket in theory.

anyway

It doesnt mean microsoft will win, it just means they can take the blows harder. I would see it as more of a failsafe that the wars will continue. Sony can outsell in every generation but microsoft will always be there, keeping them on there toes.




I mean for one console to suffer such large losses, means another must have done really well. So for Microsoft's financial support to actually prove effective they still need to make and market a better console then sony and completely crush them.

You gotta remember it took 4 duds to push Sega out of the race (Mega CD, 32X, Saturn, Dreamcast)

ok things are more expensive so if thats the case, sony need to have the PS3 be a complete dud (unlikely by brand appeal) and then also the PS4 (or PSP, again unlikely).

By dud i dont mean not *as* popular, i mean absolutely crushed in the market forces and the large playing base moving away (ala saturn) and keeping them away. Hence it will take 2 generations of bad consoles at least to push the masses away from sony.

I mean look at nintendo, both N64 and Gamecube grabbed smaller pieces of the pie each round but still there are enough support to hold them.

The only way this will allow Microsoft to win the console wars, is if a catastrophe hits ALL game consoles. Which with the raising expensives could be possible, but still unlikely.

honru

Definetly not. Microsoft have done very well so far, establishing themselves as a major player in the console war is no easy task, but they still have alot to do in round two. Japan, for instance, needs serious work on.

There shouldn't be much trouble for Sony. Respected and a safe bet for all future development, it's guaranteed that the PS3 will sell by the bucketload from launch. Whether they'll have a "killer app" that moves consoles remains to be seen.

Nintendo is the more interesting one. Their next console could set the standard for gaming and steal their competitors' thunder. Of course, it's a hit or miss situation. Before that can happen however, they really need to fix their image in the general public's eye, aswell as having the right games ready at the right time.

It'll be a fierce battle no doubt, but there's definetly no sign of a clear winner yet. And you're going to need more than money to survive this war.

iregk

Its a tough one to call, MS do have the financial force to deal with this type of blow but as said they have also established themsleves as another name console provider. Not a simple task. Also what we have to remember is that MS have a history of seeing what they want and getting it. Look at their background and the business be it ethical or not over the past 20years.

They have the drive and money to get pretty much what they want so while I'm not certain they will do it with the 360 or even the xbox 4 or whatever its going to be called, I do feel that they will in the end come out to be the winner.

Dont be at yourself

For the largest company in the world to throw so much money at something, and still come away with a $5billion loss and a distant second place, surely says a lot about the brand-power of Playstation.

Sure, they're closer, but they're still a long, long way off.

rabbitinlights

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

For the largest company in the world to throw so much money at something, and still come away with a $5billion loss and

Did Microsoft really take a €5billion loss on the Xbox? Is this because they are in for the long run and plan to break even with the 360 or the next Console?

projectmayhem

rabbitinlights wrote:

Did Microsoft really take a €5billion loss on the Xbox? Is this because they are in for the long run and plan to break even with the 360 or the next Console?

they wont recoup $5billion in the current generation

but you're all correct, microsoft have a bottomless pit of money - but do you think sony's broke?

sony can subsidise it's losses by putting cell into tvs, stereos, mp3 players and whatever else they make... that's what they did with ps2, hence them coming out in profit (even though ps2 made losses on each console sold until last year) every year the ps2 was out.

also, sony, microsoft and even nintendo don't set out to make money on the consoles. they set out to be in competition with them... they make their money on the games.

as far as the "war" being over... not a chance. i say in jan/feb 2006 sony'll belt out some demo material for the press to play with and hopefully show killzone, warhawk, mgs4 etc. in "proper" action

and remember, we have no idea what nintendo are doing yet...

kaimera

I thought MS lost the money per unit sold rather than lack of sales towards competitor consoles. Much as Sony will take a loss on the ps3 [it appears]

and didn't Sony come out with a record loss last year in every other department aside from the playstation? i don't think as a brand they are doing as good as made out with the exception of it's consoles.

Peteee

kaimera wrote:

I thought MS lost the money per unit sold rather than lack of sales towards competitor consoles. Much as Sony will take a loss on the ps3 [it appears]

and didn't Sony come out with a record loss last year in every other department aside from the playstation? i don't think as a brand they are doing as good as made out with the exception of it's consoles.

Yep, they are on for a full year loss of 100 million dollars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4380938.stm

Zombrex

rabbitinlights wrote:

Did Microsoft really take a €5billion loss on the Xbox? Is this because they are in for the long run and plan to break even with the 360 or the next Console?

Microsoft make a loss on every single product they produce except MS Windows and MS Office.

The point of all the other divisions of Microsoft has never been to make money, Microsoft don't need money. The point is to have a finger in every market and trend, so if any major shift happens the company is there riding the wave. The point is to be part of everything so nothing can take you unawares

With the X-Box Microsoft is positioning itself in both the traditional office/bedroom desktop and the new market of the sitting room entertainment system. Its not about beating the PlayStation 3 or Revolution, its about having a foot in the door if a huge cultural change happens and the sitting room entertaiment becomes much more important that the desktop in the bed room.

Corben Dallas

^^
MS have publically stated that they mean to win the Console War and become the sole/main provider of Games Consoles/Entertainment portals hubs etc.

---

The Console War (round2) isnt over.....it hasnt even started! MS have rolled up in their shiny new tank.....the enemy is no where to be seen on the battlefield...... but they can hear a loud rumbling in the distance......

1huge1

well considering nintendo is the only company making real money of the videogame market for quite a while now i would say there in quite a situation to keep pumping money into the consoles
and with all the money they have made over the years
but when it comes down to it all 3 companies have all the money they need to survive its just a case of using the money the right way like nintendo have imo

steviec

Nintendo are the only ones making profit off hardware, but Sony are very much making a profit from games, it's their best performing sector.

I'd expect Microsoft to turn a profit too this time around, they've learnt from their mistakes of having expensive contracts with third party suppliers for xbox parts in the last generation.

All three companies have said they hope to grow the market, and not just improve their own market share, and I think there's comfortably room for three different consoles out there.

Gizzard

Stoichkov wrote:

I'm just wondering if the competition already has an outright winner in Microsoft. I say this because Microsoft has almost unlimited funds and of what Bill Gates said after the Xbox and just on release day in the US.

Basically he said that they will continue to have another go even if they dont come out on top. Could any other company afford the previous losses?

The Xbox was a $5bn loss, if that kind of huge deficit had been on Sonys books there would be no PS3, if it happened to Nintendo they'd be sharing an office with Sega.

Is the war already won with just a few battles left to play out?

Also for xbox fans who might think this is a good thing they need to remember that without competition producers get lazy, just look at windows.

Hopefully I'm just being stupidly pessimistic, maybe Sony, Nintendo and Sega will join forces to create an uber console.... :cool:

It has not started yet PS3 has not been released yet

LookingFor

MS has sustained many relative "failures" as well as successes, so no, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that simple persistance will place MS on top. The only difference with MS and most companies is that they can afford to keep "failures" around, until either their shareholders get pissed off, or it gets quietly swept under the rug.

flogen

Yeah, MS have a huge pit of money to dip into, maybe bottomless, but it doesn't mean they'll keep using it. If in 3 years time MS are still losing a rediculous amount of money and Sony are kicking ass to the point where the market gap remains the same, then MS might rethink their position. They are a company after all, and if an arm remains lossmaking and shows no sign of a pick up (which it does show a potential for at the moment), they wont think twice about cutting the rope.

gamer

i think ms will get alot of game companys support as the xbox360 is basically a powerful pc with defined components , ie u dont have to upgrade it every year ,and its easier to program for the the cell cpu,ALOT easier,any pc game can be easily ported over to 360 consoles.even if u have a fast pc its not easy to get hires grafhics on a standard tv from a pc graphics card.and they have it out now a year be4 ps3 release.if they get a good selection of games out in 2006 they will have time to build up a user base over sony,in 2 years time if u go into game it cud be 50/50 between sony and ms in next gen games , every console maker loses money on the sale of each console,the profit is in the software.there might be a wider range of games for 360 because its programmer friendly,theres 1000.s of programmers out there with experience of pc games design.

1huge1

Gizzard wrote:

It has not started yet PS3 has not been released yet

nor has the revo
some of you probably think the revo will be a sham me though well i dont think nintendo are stupid enough to totally screw themselves
so i wont be giving my opinion on it until i actually played it

Gizzard

1huge1 wrote:

nor has the revo
some of you probably think the revo will be a sham me though well i dont think nintendo are stupid enough to totally screw themselves
so i wont be giving my opinion on it until i actually played it

yes very true, for me the controller is a major issue, I just dont like playing first person games very much on consoles because the mouse is just so much better, its a mystery to me why the xbox360 does not come with a mouse keyboard control support for first person shooters games, if PS3 has that controller support or revo has something similar or better then that the system im buying

Ciaran500

The 360 can have keyboard and mouse controll if the developers implement it.

jaggeh

Gizzard wrote:

yes very true, for me the controller is a major issue, I just dont like playing first person games very much on consoles because the mouse is just so much better, its a mystery to me why the xbox360 does not come with a mouse keyboard control support for first person shooters games, if PS3 has that controller support or revo has something similar or better then that the system im buying

tbh i think the new ninty controller is going to change the way people look at fps on consoles.

i am totally against fps games on consoles usually but i cant wait to see how they tackle it with the gyro's

tba

On the topic on the different architecture that is being implemented between the two systems. Indeed the cell architecture is a world apart from the x86 IBM standard and as such would be a deterent for developers to work on, however luck favors the prepared.

It really just takes one example of a great game that simply could not be made to run on anything but a cell to grab public attention. The implementation of cell architecture could be extended to other platforms and the PC, meaning that only foolish developers would ignore its impact.

Anybody with an eye on the market would be excited by the concept of coding for a new architecture, primarily to see its capabilities but also to expand their knowledge.

As was said the Xbox is essentally a PC with standard components. It is this rigidity that I believe will hold microsoft back in the end, innovation has always bred success (as has anti-trust) and is the main reason Nintendo still exist and will continue to for many years. Sony are innovating with the cell, if it succeeds it could dominate the market.

steviec

The 360 is nothing like the standard PC architecture of the xbox. In fact it's closer to the cell than it is to a PC, it's based on a modified version of the same architecture used in apple macs(as is the cell, partially). The cell is however more complex and more ambitious, so most of the same arguments apply.

I'm not sure being easier/harder to program for is all that huge an issue. There's a lot of talented programmers working in games who've been used to very difficult to program for consoles for years. The original xbox was probably the first really friendly one. And yet there are much more technical achievements to be seen on PS2(considering how slow the hardware is, yet there are many games that look as good as or close to xbox games)

As a programming student right now, I'd personally prefer to work with something that was more difficult, but gave more satisfying results when you get it working. Of course I'm sure that's not how the management of EA would think, but there are a lot of creative developers out there willing to take on the challenges and opportunities of the cell, and the Playstation brand name and potential financial rewards are enough to keep everyone else on board too.

tba

So in reality there is no argument for the alienation of programmers regarding the architecture they work on.

And I agree if the cell does produce better results, why use something else?

LookingFor

tba wrote:

On the topic on the different architecture that is being implemented between the two systems. Indeed the cell architecture is a world apart from the x86 IBM standard and as such would be a deterent for developers to work on, however luck favors the prepared.

gamer wrote:

i think ms will get alot of game companys support as the xbox360 is basically a powerful pc with defined components , ie u dont have to upgrade it every year ,and its easier to program for the the cell cpu,ALOT easier

It is easier, yes, but it shares some of Cell's characteristics as far as being in-order goes and the like. A X360 core, and the PPE in Cell, are virtually identical. Cell then mixes in 7 SPUs which is where things get different. Cell is PowerPC, though, as much as Xenon is. It's the programming model that's fundamentally different, but you could take a more conventional/conservative approach and still do alright on it.

Regardless, it would not matter how different it was. Look at how different PS2 was - much more different and complex, for the time, than PS3 is - and it didn't do it any harm - how an architecture diverges from the conventional doesn't really matter in isolation.

Gizzard wrote:

yes very true, for me the controller is a major issue, I just dont like playing first person games very much on consoles because the mouse is just so much better, its a mystery to me why the xbox360 does not come with a mouse keyboard control support for first person shooters games, if PS3 has that controller support

Ciaran500 wrote:

The 360 can have keyboard and mouse controll if the developers implement it.

Sony has said that you'll be able to plug a keyboard and mouse into PS3, although devs will have to support it. I think MS has actually said that X360 will not support kb/mouse, at least not in the standard way. There is apparently a "keyboard addon" for the x360 controller in the works, for text input.