Nintendo--VS--Microsoft

[gekko]

Originally Posted by TheGame

MS is losing money now to build thier userbase up... and once they get a big enough mind share they won't have to spend like they do now to stay on top.

it's that simple.

If MS wouldn't have used this tactic, Xbox would have done worse than Atari Jaguar.

Null is right. Microsoft has no userbase come Xbox 2. If that were the case, Nintendo would have every NES, SNES, Game Boy and N64 owner jumping on board Gamecube, but they don't.

You can't assume that Microsoft won't have to spend like they do now to stay on top. Microsoft has not made a profitable console, so you can't assume they will be able to. People bought Xbox for a reason. Maybe they want the best graphics and sound, seems reasonable enough. Well now what if they don't have the best? You can't count on that guy buying Xbox 2. Or maybe they do have the best again, but to get the best they need to take another huge loss on the console. Now they're losing money again.

Maybe they bought Xbox because they wanted the HD. Well if all the systems have a HD next generation, you can't count on them buying Xbox 2.

This spending has only gotten Microsoft a name, but a lot of good that does. Atari had a name when they released Jaguar, Sega had a name when they released Saturn and Dreamcast. Let's not forget about Nintendo, by far the biggest name in the gaming industry. They single-handedly revived the gaming industry, and spread it all over the world. They are responsible for many of the greatest games of all time, the most recognizable characters as well as the best selling system and game of all time. Come on, surely if you want to compete with that you need to get your name in the industry by spending a lot of money, right? Damn, I knew Sony did something wrong