Gaming Microsoft's Best Decision?

[The Catboy]

Edited out my stupid comment, it wasn't well thought out and more trollbait than I thought it would be.

 

[emigre]

Because we live in a world where it seems on 3 systems is the acceptable limit of systems and anyone who tries just gets shot down before they even take off, so it's required for one of the 3 to fuck up badly enough for a third one to sneak in there and take it's places.
Just observing the history of the gaming market really. In recent years it went from Nintendo, Sega, Atari as the 3 big boys, then Atari fucked up and dropped out allowing Sony to take it's place. Then it was Nintendo, Sony, Sega, but Sega fucked up, thus allowing M$ to sneak around and take that spot. Now it's Nintendo, Sony, and M$. Of course there are smaller systems in between, but no one seems to recognize them and they often just end up with a small following or flat out fail.
But right now M$ is on pretty thin ice and risk fucking up so badly that another system can come and take it's spot like they did Sega. This just comes from observation.

Yeah, no.

 

[FAST6191]

Or they could just drop out of video game market out right and let someone more qualified take their place, that would be nice.
Same with the computer world too

My list of grievances with MS is long and full of unpleasantness.

Not one of them is pertains to the quality of their tech (give or take bundled crap that I always knew/was designed to be more or less replaced) or their qualifications to do things.

 

[Gahars]

Because we live in a world where it seems on 3 systems is the acceptable limit of systems and anyone who tries just gets shot down before they even take off, so it's required for one of the 3 to fuck up badly enough for a third one to sneak in there and take it's places.
Just observing the history of the gaming market really. In recent years it went from Nintendo, Sega, Atari as the 3 big boys, then Atari fucked up and dropped out allowing Sony to take it's place. Then it was Nintendo, Sony, Sega, but Sega fucked up, thus allowing M$ to sneak around and take that spot. Now it's Nintendo, Sony, and M$. Of course there are smaller systems in between, but no one seems to recognize them and they often just end up with a small following or flat out fail.
But right now M$ is on pretty thin ice and risk fucking up so badly that another system can come and take it's spot like they did Sega. This just comes from observation.

I forgot that the games market totally works like a game of musical chairs. Totally. Definitely.

 

[The Catboy]

My list of grievances with MS is long and full of unpleasantness.

Not one of them is pertains to the quality of their tech (give or take bundled crap that I always knew/was designed to be more or less replaced) or their qualifications to do things.

I have my own personal grievances with Microsoft that causes my bitterness towards them, but they are a bit off topic and I feel I might have already made some silly posts already in this topic. I'll fix those up a bit.

I forgot that the games market totally works like a game of musical chairs. Totally. Definitely.

It was a gross simplification of my observation on the gaming industry, not well thought out nor my best post on this site, I will give you that thought.

 

[emigre]

I forgot that the games market totally works like a game of musical chairs. Totally. Definitely.

But he's right.

 

[The Catboy]

If another company was more qualified then they would already be doing it or would have done it.

I forgot that the games market totally works like a game of musical chairs. Totally. Definitely.

I would like to rephrase my previous post.
Based on my observations of trends in the gaming market, it appears that the gaming market is often based on 3 larger companies dominating most of the market with a few smaller companies spread out through the generation. More often than not it seems to require one of the three companies to drop out of the market for another company to really start succeeding.
This really isn't based on pure fact, but more based on my personal observations on the gaming market.

 

[Gahars]

I would like to rephrase my previous post.
Based on my observations of trends in the gaming market.It appears that the gaming market is often based on 3 larger companies dominating most of the market with a few smaller companies spread out through the generation. More often than not it seems to require one of the three companies to drop out of the market for another company to really start succeeding.
This really isn't based on pure fact, but more based on my personal observations on the gaming market.

Not really. Atari faced a ton of competitors at the time of the Atari 2600. After the crash and the rise of the NES, it was really only a two way race between Nintendo and Sega as the main forces in the market (especially with the SNES vs. Genesis). The 3-company market that we're used to today didn't really emerge until the 90s (and even then, there was competition from Atari's Jaguar and the 3DO), and Sega was no longer much of a competitor by then anyway.

The market has changed before and it can easily change again. Microsoft isn't depriving us of hypothetical consoles just by existing. If another company had the interest in entering the market and the finances to back up such an investment, they could.

The real reason we don't see more companies enter the console race is because it's expensive as hell. Console's take a lot of money to promote, manufacture, distribute, and market, and if it tanks, it's going to hit hard. Most aren't going to even bother when they can make safer investments elsewhere.

 

[FAST6191]

Not really. Atari faced a ton of competitors at the time of the Atari 2600. After the crash and the rise of the NES, it was really only a two way race between Nintendo and Sega as the main forces in the market (especially with the SNES vs. Genesis). The 3-company market that we're used to today didn't really emerge until the 90s (and even then, there was competition from Atari's Jaguar and the 3DO), and Sega was no longer much of a competitor by then anyway.

The market has changed before and it can easily change again. Microsoft isn't depriving us of hypothetical consoles just by existing. If another company had the interest in entering the market and the finances to back up such an investment, they could.

The real reason we don't see more companies enter the console race is because it's expensive as hell. Console's take a lot of money to promote, manufacture, distribute, and market, and if it tanks, it's going to hit hard. Most aren't going to even bother when they can make safer investments elsewhere.

I know we had similar discussions in the past as to what counts where (what is a console and what is not) but the PCE/TG16 did OK in Japan and the Amiga did good in PAL country. Things were made by recognised game companies for it, they were often lead platforms (even to the point of having the superior versions) and at the very least some of the software was sold in game shops and game areas in other shops.

Right now Android and co are knocking at various doors and gobbling/undermining various userbases too.

 

[The Catboy]

Not really. Atari faced a ton of competitors at the time of the Atari 2600. After the crash and the rise of the NES, it was really only a two way race between Nintendo and Sega as the main forces in the market (especially with the SNES vs. Genesis). The 3-company market that we're used to today didn't really emerge until the 90s (and even then, there was competition from Atari's Jaguar and the 3DO), and Sega was no longer much of a competitor by then anyway.

The market has changed before and it can easily change again. Microsoft isn't depriving us of hypothetical consoles just by existing. If another company had the interest in entering the market and the finances to back up such an investment, they could.

The real reason we don't see more companies enter the console race is because it's expensive as hell. Console's take a lot of money to promote, manufacture, distribute, and market, and if it tanks, it's going to hit hard. Most aren't going to even bother when they can make safer investments elsewhere.

I should rephrase it to recent years that I have been alive, this is merely from my own observations.

 

[DinohScene]

At this point would it be easier to just drop the whole Xbox One concept, give sony a head start and make a new console that people will want to buy?

No.
First of all, console exclusives.
Second, Xbox fanboys.

The system will be sold.
It'll prolly struggle a lot the first few years like the PS3 did.
YES DON'T FORGET THE PS3 ALSO HAD PROBLEMS IT'S FIRST FEW YEARS!
But it'll eventually catch up.

It might not sell well but it'll sell regardless.

 

[Qtis]

No.
First of all, console exclusives.
Second, Xbox fanboys.

The system will be sold.
It'll prolly struggle a lot the first few years like the PS3 did.
YES DON'T FORGET THE PS3 ALSO HAD PROBLEMS IT'S FIRST FEW YEARS!
But it'll eventually catch up.

It might not sell well but it'll sell regardless.

While true, Sony's main problem wasn't that the PS3 was bad, it just happened to cost an arm and a leg. For some people, even another arm or a leg or both. Fanboys cry and rage a lot on the internet, but that's about that. If the value isn't there (at the time someone would be thinking of buying it), they won't buy it. Just look at the WiiU and the PSVita. They're both fantastic pieces of hardware, but most people can't find jack to do with them.

Now that games are coming out for both platforms (though the WiiU has the main focus in late 2014 for some reason according to E3 (IMO, there are only a few games I want for it at the present time)), they'll hopefully get better market penetration.