-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
J Allard sets out Microsoft's battle lines - he wants a standard console
- Thread starter GigaDrive
- Start date
Mr_Furious
Member
lolFujisawa said:
Norse
Member
DarienA said:I'm lactose intolerant... now normally if I eat ice cream as long as I drink a glass of water afterwards I'm ok... well I forgot the drink last night and I was up EARLY this morning... has made me cranky all day.
LOL..I am too...oh, and peanut butter just kills me. But I still have the pb and jelly sandwiches ever so often. With a glass of milk of course. hehe
Jonnyboy117
Member
This is an issue of pure competition versus market regulation, which goes way beyond the gaming industry and will likely not be intelligently discussed, ever, at GAF.
Sony obviously would be the one to try it first...they want to tear thier competition down to the point where they don't have any relevance and then licence out the PS & Cell tech. to other hardware manufacturer's so that they can bank on software AND hardware licencing.
Microsoft couldn't get it unless somehow other game companies started dropping like flies and were desperate and decided to join them.
Nintendo I see remaining profitable and still doing thier own thing...I don't think they could ever have the "standerd" again unless there is another HUGE video game market crash to scare non-game based companies like Sony & MS away.
I think the only company who could negotiate & force a video game "standerd" would be EA.
Microsoft couldn't get it unless somehow other game companies started dropping like flies and were desperate and decided to join them.
Nintendo I see remaining profitable and still doing thier own thing...I don't think they could ever have the "standerd" again unless there is another HUGE video game market crash to scare non-game based companies like Sony & MS away.
I think the only company who could negotiate & force a video game "standerd" would be EA.
TheGreenGiant
Banned
DarienA said:
yes. inumerous times but they didn't expect to lose as much money as they did. By year 2, they'd lost 3-6 times (can't remember the exact multiplier) more money on the xbox than they'd previously anticipated from having to cut prices to keep up with the cube/ps2. Can someone recall the exact figures?
Actually, I'd think that Nintendo would have the -least- to lose if they backed a video game standard via a software publisher consortium...
My logic is that:
* Sony wouldn't agree to a console "standard" at this point as they rake in plenty of cash as the sole licensing agent for the Playstation platforms. Backing an "outside" standard would only result in a loss of revenue, as they would no longer be the sole recipient of the entire $5-$9 license per game.
* Microsoft wouldn't agree to a console "standard" unless every one had an MS brand OS running on it... effectively putting them in the "same boat" as Sony.
* Nintendo would also stand to lose a LOT of cash on royalties, but they would stand to lose a -lot- less than MS or Sony. If Nintendo backed an standard format, and got together with several other major -software- groups, they could potentially gain from added sales (through more systems). They'd lose in the short term, but compared to the potential for future lost revenue if Sony keeps doing that Sony has done best...
Sony would lose massively from an standard they didn't control, so they wouldn't back it. MS wouldn't lose massively.. but they'd be unable to do the one thing they entered the market to do -- control the "set top box" in every house. Nintendo is the only company with a position SIMILAR enough to EA, Square, Capcom, and Namco to even consider creating a standard platform...
Actually, that might work. Nintendo convinces EA, Square, Atari, Capcom, and Konami to go in as founding members of the "Game Consortium". Each one gets a share of royalty revenues, in exchange for pledging sole console support to the new system. All the publishers would stand to profit by it..
My logic is that:
* Sony wouldn't agree to a console "standard" at this point as they rake in plenty of cash as the sole licensing agent for the Playstation platforms. Backing an "outside" standard would only result in a loss of revenue, as they would no longer be the sole recipient of the entire $5-$9 license per game.
* Microsoft wouldn't agree to a console "standard" unless every one had an MS brand OS running on it... effectively putting them in the "same boat" as Sony.
* Nintendo would also stand to lose a LOT of cash on royalties, but they would stand to lose a -lot- less than MS or Sony. If Nintendo backed an standard format, and got together with several other major -software- groups, they could potentially gain from added sales (through more systems). They'd lose in the short term, but compared to the potential for future lost revenue if Sony keeps doing that Sony has done best...
Sony would lose massively from an standard they didn't control, so they wouldn't back it. MS wouldn't lose massively.. but they'd be unable to do the one thing they entered the market to do -- control the "set top box" in every house. Nintendo is the only company with a position SIMILAR enough to EA, Square, Capcom, and Namco to even consider creating a standard platform...
Actually, that might work. Nintendo convinces EA, Square, Atari, Capcom, and Konami to go in as founding members of the "Game Consortium". Each one gets a share of royalty revenues, in exchange for pledging sole console support to the new system. All the publishers would stand to profit by it..
StrikerObi
Member
Bottom line: If J Allard and Microsoft can make this work, if they can sdnadardize the industry, I will kiss him right on the fucking lips.
Do I think it'll happen? No way in hell, not for at least 15-20 years.
Do I think it'll happen? No way in hell, not for at least 15-20 years.
RobotChant
Member
MS jumping into the hardware business was a reactionary one. They got spook by Sony's grand plan of the PS2 being an all in one wonder, which never fully materialize. They were scared that if Sony's plans took off they would control an area analyst predict to be the future. And since Sony didn't care about involving MS in those plans, MS made drastic decisions and got into an industry they weren't fully prepared for.
I'm not surprised that MS is talking about all this now. Its possible MS will attempt to do something like this with the Xenon, and that's probably why we keep hearing about this.
I'm not surprised that MS is talking about all this now. Its possible MS will attempt to do something like this with the Xenon, and that's probably why we keep hearing about this.
"Allard's vision of the future of the console market is a vile one."
"its not like the PC at all because the bit that plays the game is the same for all the models, its the extra functionality, like personal soundtracks, Tivo, Media Centre etc etc that he is saying will be extras."
Kind of like that PS2 and PSX dealy
I wouldn't mind having the choice of a cheap console sold at cost for the "gamer market" like consoles are today or the full blown home theater media center DVD bluetooth yadda yadda monster console sold for the high end market.
"its not like the PC at all because the bit that plays the game is the same for all the models, its the extra functionality, like personal soundtracks, Tivo, Media Centre etc etc that he is saying will be extras."
Kind of like that PS2 and PSX dealy
I wouldn't mind having the choice of a cheap console sold at cost for the "gamer market" like consoles are today or the full blown home theater media center DVD bluetooth yadda yadda monster console sold for the high end market.
Mr_Furious
Member
I'm totally 100% against any monopoly, regardless of what industry it's affecting. We as the consumer will lose in the long run. I'm totally happy with a 2 console war though. It's always been hard to afford supporting all 3 formats, especially around the holidays.
Fusebox said:
Hardware wise, it's a stripped-down PC; to be blunt,
any shmuck can do that. If I had to pick one, single solitary company out of all of them to run things should the need and/or want arise, Sony would be the best able to handle the task. They have the hardware experience, their 3rd party support is anything but unrequited, and they have the distribution channels necessary to pull it off.
GigaDrive said:
Glad someone agrees, there's no way I could go back to Sonys idea of 'value' in their hardware or their lack of standard 16:9 support, prog scan support, 60hz pal support or dd 5.1 support.
I know not all MS games are at that level either but they've got a much larger ratio of HD titles, and they seem far more interested in making their console get the most out of my HT which is something I care more about than Japanese RPG support.
StrikerObi
Member
Mr_Furious said:
Microsoft's not proposing a Monopoly. They only want to make the platform design and software. DVD itself isn't a monopoly, it's a format. Microsoft wants to control the format, not the industry.
You're interperting this as "Microsfot wants to control everything." While they want control, in fact they also want to better the industry and to stabalize it.
Kobun Heat
Member
There's not going to be a standard format as long as it's possible for some other guy to come up with a system that's better than yours that he can sell for the same price as yours. And right now that's still the case.
You poor, poor, fools. You still believe that MS has illimitable billions to pour into another profitless console venture? This is not an acceptable loss to stockholders with the potential of a long-term return, ala MSN. (which has recently come into profitability) When this begins to eat into overall profits, the stockholders will demand a pull-out. (as some already have since MS has far exceeded their initial projected losses regarding the X-Box's lifespan) Btw, MSN will not "monopolize" IPs either. I no longer have the articles saved stating quaterly & annual losses, associated layoffs, etc. but the construction of Xenon itself basically should give you some idea. Their choice of business partnerships, contract structurings, etc. are basically geared towards profitability & basically mirroring Nintendo's business acumen now. (as well as partnerships) MS also faces competition from other technology sectors as well, Linux anyone? Point being that Xenon isn't their main priority by far. When you no longer have the technological or graphical advantages, (when any & everyone can pull off a Halo 3 or better from a tech. standpoint) you begin to focus on & preach about the importance of software.
When in truth this was always what mattered most. (As proven by the PS2's continued commercial sales success) A standardized console will never happen, esp. if a perceptional visual threshold has been met. Then it becomes all about intellectual properties, software quality & innovation, 3rd party exclusives, etc. I hope MS stays in the game, the competition is always beneficial to the industry & gamer. I laugh at them even envisioning themselves in that monopolistic position, how many millions were supposed to be subscribed to XBL again by this point? Well, it's good to have long-term goals if unrealistic anyway. If anything, it wouldn't be so laughable coming from Kutarugi. But this even won't be feasible for a few generations at the very least.
When in truth this was always what mattered most. (As proven by the PS2's continued commercial sales success) A standardized console will never happen, esp. if a perceptional visual threshold has been met. Then it becomes all about intellectual properties, software quality & innovation, 3rd party exclusives, etc. I hope MS stays in the game, the competition is always beneficial to the industry & gamer. I laugh at them even envisioning themselves in that monopolistic position, how many millions were supposed to be subscribed to XBL again by this point? Well, it's good to have long-term goals if unrealistic anyway. If anything, it wouldn't be so laughable coming from Kutarugi. But this even won't be feasible for a few generations at the very least.
Norse
Member
xsarien said:
Then why didnt anyone do it before? It produced the most powerful console out there at the moment.
Think of this....with a standard, no little kid will have to worry about selecting the wrong system when they can afford only 1 of them. They would all play the same games so it wouldnt matter....think of all the kickass controllers and crap we could buy instead. hehe
Mr_Furious
Member
I beg to differ for the many obvious reasons you've probably heard before. If MS wanted to standardize the console market, why did they enter a 3rd pillar? Don't be fooled into thinking MS doesn't want complete control of the console market.StrikerObi said:
Norse said:
The XBox isn't the most powerful because it's based on modified PC hardware, it's the most powerful because it had the benefit of Microsoft throwing money at it, and it being released later in the generation.
3DO, CD-I, and the short-lived MPC-1 and MPC-2 specs. Standards look great on paper, but differences in hardware manufacturers, and desperate pangs for companies to differentiate their products from everything else will break any attempt. Yes, it's a nice dream, but it isn't going to happen. The truth of the matter is that right now, there's an industry out there that simply doesn't need Microsoft, and that's driving the company crazy. So they're doing what they always do, trying to shoehorn themselves in. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but if their attempts at other new markets are any indication, they're going to have a hell of a fight.
Also, to reiterate what Dave said. Microsoft's ideal situation would be to just have their fingers in everyone's business. They'd be just peachy-keen, pie-in-the-sky happy if the PS3 and Revolution were running some form of Windows. But Sony's self-reliance, and Nintendo's ego make that a little unlikely right now.
Yes, the high bar you had to wait an extra year and a half to receive in relation to the Sony offering. Not surprising then that the MS "standard" was higher, given the way technology advances and improves. Of course, this time around there's a possibility that the MS is earlier than Sony and also looking to save a few dollars. They haven't established any trend yet that should leave you so quick to go running to them for a standard over any other company.GigaDrive said:
kaching: The DC had a modem, 4 controller ports and progressive scan and it was released before the PS2. The PS2 had a year to 'catch up' to that technology and still chose to release these features as hardware addons.. Thats how they work, there's no point defending them - I'd even be surprised if the PS3 has 4 controller ports as standard.
PS2 supports pro-scan natively, no add-ons required. The PS2 network adapter, which includeds 56k and Ethernet, sells for less than the DC's ethernet only adapter did and is essentially being packaged for free with the PS2 hardware at this point. Then there's the 2 USB ports on the PS2 that allows one to use a 3rd party network adapter, among many other standard USB peripherals. 2 controller ports remains the only place where they may need to "catch up" to competitors although this is a very subjective perspective given that they've successfully fended off 2 generations of competitors who offered 4 controller ports but couldn't parlay it into a significant marketable advantage with console buyers.
But wait, who were you and Giga talking about providing the standard? Sega or MS? Sega was ahead of the curve in some ways, but they're not in the picture anymore and MS, who wants to stay in the picture, is finding they may have to economize on some of the extras and provide them as addons.
This gen has been a proving ground for some of the features you mention - pro scan, broadband online, 5.1 surround sound. I think you'd be barking up the wrong tree to suggest that any next gen console won't at least have these features built-in, including the PS3.
But wait, who were you and Giga talking about providing the standard? Sega or MS? Sega was ahead of the curve in some ways, but they're not in the picture anymore and MS, who wants to stay in the picture, is finding they may have to economize on some of the extras and provide them as addons.
This gen has been a proving ground for some of the features you mention - pro scan, broadband online, 5.1 surround sound. I think you'd be barking up the wrong tree to suggest that any next gen console won't at least have these features built-in, including the PS3.
Norse said:
I hope you like it a whole lot then, because Microsoft isn't going to update it again until Longhorn comes out. They can do this because they know they've won. They got away with just a slap on the wrist from their antitrust conviction, and people are still making websites that only work properly with IE thanks to Microsoft's perversion of web standards. So don't expect to see built-in popup blocking or any other nifty new features that the other browsers have added to IE, because Microsoft doesn't have to.
See, that's how Microsoft does business.