State of Microsoft Gaming

[Professor S]

Mass Effect 2 (the game, not the franchise) going multi-platform well after it is still relevant means virtually nothing in terms of "the state of MS". Games have jumped multi-platform like this before, and they will again, and it likely won't change anything.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by gekko

Earl, why are you trying to make something out of nothing?

Hey, there are a lot of gamers who agree with me.
I just had a look at their line-up while doing the two threads, and they are really weak on any type of 1st/2nd party content.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

No offense, but this doesn't make a lot of sense.

Since when has increasing your market share, increasing profits, and drawing in more support for your platform than your competitors not been a good business move?

I am actually a strong advocate for -not- making plans for the future, especially in the world of business. You will always be operating on guesses which will probably turn out to be wrong. It is much wiser to react to situations than to try to guess what will happen, especially in terms of business.

Microsoft is doing the best possible thing they can: increasing revenue in the current market. As long as they continue to produce a quality product, they will have developer support and in turn customers.

And I give them credit for most of that. (I'm still not sure how much profit they actually make on this model since they lump gaming into their entertainment section)

The fact of the matter is, we've seen a perfectly good example of what happens when you don't think of the future when Sony went from the PS2 to the PS3. They lost about 75% of their userbase so far. MS doesn't have that big of a userbase to erode as much, but the fact is if all 3 consoles start off on equal footing next gen, MS is in a terrible position.

I mean honestly, as far as I know, outside of Kinect stuff, MS has 4 major exclusives land up for the next 2 years. This generation, who knows when it will end, but would be the perfect time for them to experiment with new IPs and see what does and doesn't stick. Instead of trying to force the situation next gen by paying developers off again.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Mass Effect 2 (the game, not the franchise) going multi-platform well after it is still relevant means virtually nothing in terms of "the state of MS". Games have jumped multi-platform like this before, and they will again, and it likely won't change anything.

Mass Effect 2 on its own means jack squat. I'm almost certain I mentioned that. Its when Mass Effect 3 rolls around. MS no longer has it as a checkmark on their console if it comes out on the PS3 as well.

[Typhoid]

Hey, there are a lot of gamers who agree with me.

Hey, even Hitler had followers. Amassing a crowd of like minded people isn't hard.

The fact of the matter is, we've seen a perfectly good example of what happens when you don't think of the future when Sony went from the PS2 to the PS3. They lost about 75% of their userbase so far.

I think this has more to do with the fact that the 360 was released about a year before the PS3 was out. The 360 had an entire year to build up a fanbase and steal people away from the PS3 simply because it was there before the PS3 was. Not to mention the Wii was released at about the same time as the PS3.

I don't think it's specifically anything Sony did that made the PS3 sell a lot less compared to the PS2, for the most part. Yeah, you have people who will say "Well it was too expensive", but really - it's because it wasn't released first.

[gekko]

My last post was lost to the login screen, so here's a shortened version:

Originally Posted by BreakABone

The fact of the matter is, we've seen a perfectly good example of what happens when you don't think of the future when Sony went from the PS2 to the PS3. They lost about 75% of their userbase so far. MS doesn't have that big of a userbase to erode as much, but the fact is if all 3 consoles start off on equal footing next gen, MS is in a terrible position.

Stop pretending PS2 was a perfect system. Launch in Japan had trouble selling games, developers speaking out due to the difficulty and cost of development. PS3 also had some issues, Blu-Ray, cost, and of ya, development issues again...

Microsoft actually ended on a high note: Xbox Live version 2. Xbox Live was huge, and still is. Look at the research of how many people actually play their 360 vs. just own a Wii and let it collect dust.

This generation, who knows when it will end, but would be the perfect time for them to experiment with new IPs and see what does and doesn't stick. Instead of trying to force the situation next gen by paying developers off again.

Only 10% of games ever ship and the economy is bad. Only experiments you are going to see involve spartans fighting covenant and a Call of Duty game set in the last half century.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

The fact of the matter is, we've seen a perfectly good example of what happens when you don't think of the future when Sony went from the PS2 to the PS3. They lost about 75% of their userbase so far. MS doesn't have that big of a userbase to erode as much, but the fact is if all 3 consoles start off on equal footing next gen, MS is in a terrible position.

But that isn't a perfectly good example of that. It didn't have anything to do with them not "thinking of the future", it had to do with them creating a system that was too expensive and expecting the name to sell it. Then didn't need to start new IP's in order for the PS3 to be successful, they just needed to build a quality machine that people could afford. Look at how much better it's selling after the price drops. Did Sony suddenly develop a lot of new franchises that got gamers excited? No. They just made their existing product better.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

But that isn't a perfectly good example of that. It didn't have anything to do with them not "thinking of the future", it had to do with them creating a system that was too expensive and expecting the name to sell it. Then didn't need to start new IP's in order for the PS3 to be successful, they just needed to build a quality machine that people could afford. Look at how much better it's selling after the price drops. Did Sony suddenly develop a lot of new franchises that got gamers excited? No. They just made their existing product better.

A little of column A and B and a dash of C.

Price was a huge factor for Sony, I won't ever deny that.

But the fact is PS3 didn't have a compelling software line-up outside of maybe MGS 4 for some time. Its hard to say now, but I'm almost certain that if GTA IV or FF 13 had remained exclusive that 600 bucks wouldn't have been too much of a barrier for some people.

With the high price and few compelling reasons early on, no one had a reason to buy a PS3.

As for franchises, Sony has created a ton of interesting IPs between this gen and last, Resistance, Killzone, Uncharted, LittleBigPlanet, Heavy Rain, and its irk.

And column C was in addition to a price drop, they also created a better looking product.