Poll of the Day > M$ Exec: XboX 'Lost' Console Wars To Sony/Nintendo...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/microsoft-exec-admits-console-war-174951394.html

Do you agree? (Poll Question)

Absolutely.
Xbone was the biggest major blunder in video game history, and "599 US Dollars" isn't even comparable.

And MS deserves to fail. Like I feared from the very beginning, they were the leading edge of trying to blur the lines between console and PC gaming. As a life-long console gamer that bothered the hell out of me, and sadly Sony and to a lesser extent Nintendo followed along.

But if MS actually focused on console exclusives, the one thing that keeps Sony and Nintendo consoles selling, they still would've been a success. Instead they not only never invested much in that, they even went so far as to put the few they do have on PC as well. Which I guess is great as a consumer, having more options. But...why ever buy an Xbox, then?
(Of course, I speculated since the original Xbox that MS's true goal was to make the console obsolete since MS controls the computer gaming segment, so the Xbox becoming pointless is basically what they wanted anyway...they just hoped the other 2 companies would "follow their lead" there, too)

Yeah they screwed up the Bone launch and haven't really been able to recover since. Pretty remarkable turnaround given how well the 360 performed. The Xbox brand still has a ton of value though so it's far from dead but they got a bumpy road ahead of them

MeatiestMeatus posted...

Yeah they screwed up the Bone launch and haven't really been able to recover since. Pretty remarkable turnaround given how well the 360 performed. The Xbox brand still has a ton of value though so it's far from dead but they got a bumpy road ahead of them

A lot of its value got restored once the forced Kinect thing they did died down and when in dropped in price drastically.

It doesn't help that Microsoft has completely mismanaged their flagship franchise about as horribly as they possibly could have. I don't know how a company like Microsoft fucks that up so badly. It almost seems like intentional self sabotage

It's really obnoxious though when people use the whole M$ thing like Sony and Nintendo aren't trying to maximize profit just like any other corporation

Its just not true that if we go off and build great games, all of a sudden youre going to see console share shift in some dramatic way. We lost the worst generation to lose in the Xbox One, the Microsoft exec said.

he's only talking about last gen

$on
Nin...ten...dollars?

why would they win?
they lost every gen before this too

The console war at this point is just Sony and M$. Nintendo is cornering a completely different market.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

why would they win?
they lost every gen before this too

They definitely won the 360 gen but that's itn

OhhhJa posted...

They definitely won the 360 gen but that's itn

Wii probably sold more than PS3 and 360 combined (I have no data to back this up, just speculation)

Zareth posted...

Wii probably sold more than PS3 and 360 combined (I have no data to back this up, just speculation)

Shit wii was that gen wasn't it? Lol I'm getting old

yeah, that gen ended up as wii, ps3, and then 360

sony kept selling the ps3 for a few more years after microsoft stopped selling the 360

that's honestly probably why the did tbh, because definitely nothing was releasing on it anymore, the ps4 was out

one before that was ps2, xbox, then gamecube. after the last one was the ps4, xbox one, and wii-u, now it's switch, and we honestly don't know where the other two are at, but going by microsofts regulation filings that aren't redacted, it's switch, ps5, xs

I've had a hunch for about a year now that Nintendo is going to 'absorb' Microsoft. They'll call it a merger.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Nin...ten...dollars?

Nintendough.

supergamer19 posted...

I've had a hunch for about a year now that Nintendo is going to 'absorb' Microsoft. They'll call it a merger.

...no

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Not sure how needing to sit through hours of console updates when you first turn it on made things easier for everyone.
Not sure how releasing broken bugged messes of games b/c "we can patch it later" made things easier on everyone.
Not sure how shifting to focus on milking customers for DLC made things easier on everyone.
Not sure how the attempts to move to digital only and restrict the ability to sell used games (which failed for now, but they WILL try again) made things easier on everyone.

But please, do elaborate.

streamofthesky posted...

sit through hours of console updates

this has never been true ever

streamofthesky posted...

Not sure how releasing broken bugged messes of games b/c "we can patch it later" made things easier on everyone.

this isn't a console only problem

streamofthesky posted...

Not sure how shifting to focus on milking customers for DLC made things easier on everyone.

not a console only problem

streamofthesky posted...

Not sure how the attempts to move to digital only and restrict the ability to sell used games (which failed for now, but they WILL try again) made things easier on everyone.

not a console only problem

your post was fucking stupid and just demonstrably wrong on every single level.

go outside. none of that even began on consoles, it all started with pc games. on consoles, microsoft didn't do jack shit.

dlc started with the satellaview, the online thing for the super nintendo. then sega had theirs for the saturn or genesis, then dreamcast. nintendo 64 had the 64dd, ps2 has the network adapter + hdd thing, ect.

literally everything you're bitching about was on consoles before microsoft entered the game.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

this has never been true ever

Happened to me when I started up my PS3 and PS4.

this isn't a console only problem

That's not what I said. I said consoles became more like PC gaming, inheriting all the negatives. You're agreeing with me.

not a console only problem
not a console only problem

See above.

your post was fucking stupid and just demonstrably wrong on every single level.

Well, you would be the expert on that, Helly.

go outside. none of that even began on consoles, it all started with pc games. on consoles, microsoft didn't do jack shit.

Learn to read? That was my whole argument, that it started on PCs and became problems for consoles as well.

dlc started with the satellaview, the online thing for the super nintendo. then sega had theirs for the saturn or genesis, then dreamcast. nintendo 64 had the 64dd, ps2 has the network adapter + hdd thing, ect.

And Overwatch wasn't the first game to ever have loot boxes. It's the game that popularized them.
I've never even heard of most of that shit. Was it even called "downloadable content"?
Also, PS2 was the same gen as the Xbox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content

While the Dreamcast was the first home console to support DLC (albeit in a limited form due to hardware and internet connection limitations), Microsoft's Xbox console and Xbox Live platform helped to popularize the concept. Since the seventh generation of video game consoles, DLC has been a prevalent feature of most major video game platforms with internet connectivity.

The Dreamcast was the first console to feature online support as a standard; DLC was available, though limited in size due to the narrowband connection and the size limitations of a memory card. These online features were still considered a breakthrough in video games, but the competing PlayStation 2 did not ship with a built-in network adapter.
With the advent of the Xbox, Microsoft was the second company to implement downloadable content. Many original Xbox Live titles, including Splinter Cell, Halo 2, and Ninja Gaiden, offered varying amounts of extra content, available for download through the Xbox Live service. Most of this content, with the notable exception of content for Microsoft-published titles, was available for free.
The Xbox 360 (2005) included more robust support for digital distribution, including DLC downloads and purchases, via its Xbox Live Marketplace service. Microsoft believed that publishers would benefit by offering small pieces of content at a small cost ($1 to $5), rather than full expansion packs (~$20), as this would allow players to pick and chose what content they desired, providing revenue to the publishers. Microsoft also utilized a digital currency known as "Microsoft Points" for transactions, which could also be purchased through physical gift cards to avoid the banking fees associated with the small price points.

streamofthesky posted...

Xbone was the biggest major blunder in video game history, and "599 US Dollars" isn't even comparable.

I feel like the Wii U was worse. It was the only Nintendo home console to be supported for less than 5 years.

streamofthesky posted...

Happened to me when I started up my PS3 and PS4.

then your internet sucked, because updates on them did not take hours. what a stupid thing to try and lie about.

streamofthesky posted...

I said consoles became more like PC gaming, inheriting all the negatives. You're agreeing with me.

if you had learned to read, you'd understand that they happened at the same time.

streamofthesky posted...

Learn to read? That was my whole argument, that it started on PCs and became problems for consoles as well.

yes, learn to read. you claimed it was microsoft that caused it, it wasn't.

streamofthesky posted...

I've never even heard of most of that shit.

not my fault

streamofthesky posted...

Was it even called "downloadable content"?

yes.

streamofthesky posted...

Also, PS2 was the same gen as the Xbox.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

ect.

and then your quote from wikipedia about dlc, which changes utterly nothing so i don't need to comment on it, because something that popularized a thing, is not what started or caused the thing. thinking otherwise is ridiculously stupid.

No one knows what the newest Xbox is because you keep letting senile Bill Gates name your consoles or something. That's kind of important.

Welp if theyre going to drop out of the console game maybe we can finally get Rare Replay on PC or on a Nintendo console or something.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

then your internet sucked, because updates on them did not take hours.

I will second this. I've owned and regularly played on every Sony console and I've never experienced more than a couple minutes for an update.

Downloads for full games (30,40,50+GB) could take longer. This was largely subject to internet speed as well. Not so much a hardware issue.

It would seem the argument streamofthesky is making is that consoles adopting aspects of PC gaming has had an adverse impact on consoles. I'd disagree with that. If anything, it's had a negative impact on PC gaming. And the evidence of this past year supports this: modern consoles are fairly uniform, and have standard architecture that developers can properly optimize for. PC architecture can be all over the map, with many variables to account for. The major PC+console releases these past few years have all run well on consoles, with the exception of devs trying to make a current-gen game work on last-gen hardware (Cyberpunk 2077, for example). Yet we're seeing major releases have awful launches on PC. Devs typically build their games on PC, yet find it easier to optimize for consoles. How has the hybridization of consoles and PCs hurt consoles, specifically?

If the argument is that downloadable, patchable games are a net negative, then that is simply absurd. It's far from perfect, but progress will only improve the situation. We can't roll the clock backwards. The internet is a thing, and it's here to stay, and will only be further integrated into gaming going forward.

Yes, developers should have the time to create and fully develop games prior to release. They shouldn't be releasing games in a broken state. Bugs have been a thing since floppies and cartridges, and are never going to go away, but broken games shouldn't happen. We can get into the weeds about budgets and financing and publisher demands vs developer needs but at the end of the day there is no excuse for releasing a broken game.

But Day One patches are here to stay. The better developers (and/or devs with better publisher support) will have their games largely functional by launch so the Day One patch adds polish and addresses any remaining technical issues they couldn't fix prior to meeting the launch date. This is the best-case scenario for the current climate. Arguing we should go back to how things were before the internet is plain silly. They should improve things, no argument there. Fixing games for the better is undeniably easier for the consumer.

As with D1 patches, DLC is here to stay. Personally, I don't care for DLC when it's simply cosmetics or in-game currencies. But I like DLC when it offers full expansions or game modes, or something else significant. Used to be that we had to go out to the store and buy expansions. Now we can do it from the comfort of our homes. This is undeniably easier on the consumer.

Things weren't better before the internet, but its introduction has borne with it a myriad of problems for both developers and consumers. The internet has opened a floodgate to the market, and with the sheer glut of games available now, you're going to have to do your due diligence as a consumer and research a game before you buy it.

No one is forcing anyone to buy these games. Wait for a sale. Watch gameplay. Wait for reviews. Find reviewers you can trust. Find developers you can trust. But longing for the "bygone" days is not a solution.

Seek improvement in the process, instead of fighting the current of progress.

Yellow posted...

No one knows what the newest Xbox is because you keep letting senile Bill Gates name your consoles or something. That's kind of important.

My uncle who works at Nintendo says the next Xbox is just going to be called Xbox

The other part of that interview that no ones mentioned is that Microsoft said that they are transitioning to cloud gaming. Which is what I have been saying for a while: Microsoft does not want to be in the hardware business anymore. It isn't as profitable as being a games "service".

microsoft made it clear several years ago, when they said they weren't competing with sony or nintendo, they were competing with google and amazon

google has since dropped from the cloud game service, and it's really just amazon now, though they aren't really doing much

tbh, I never thought M$ was the industry leader, although the 360 was popular.

OhhhJa posted...

It's really obnoxious though when people use the whole M$ thing like Sony and Nintendo aren't trying to maximize profit just like any other corporation

M$ does it harder, though.

faramir77 posted...

I feel like the Wii U was worse. It was the only Nintendo home console to be supported for less than 5 years.

idk, I feel like they both failed hard in their own special way. The WiiU was more of a low-key flop, though.

Dikitain posted...

The other part of that interview that no ones mentioned is that Microsoft said that they are transitioning to cloud gaming. Which is what I have been saying for a while: Microsoft does not want to be in the hardware business anymore. It isn't as profitable as being a games "service".

this

Count_Drachma posted...

tbh, I never thought M$ was the industry leader, although the 360 was popular.

ps3 still sold more.

and I wonder how many xbox sells were due to rrod

ps3 ylod had a larger effect rate than rrod

ConfusedTorchic posted...

ps3 ylod had a larger effect rate than rrod

[Citation needed for obvious bullshit claim.]