1up.com - 4 page article on advice for Xbox Next

[Teasy]

I've already proved it though.. As I've said nobody can prove wether another company could have done what MS have done cheaper or not. Therefore we cannot assume either as fact. If you think that whatever MS has spent is exactly the amount needed to get into the console market then fine, that's your opinion. But its definitely not a fact.

BTW I'm not sure how much Sony spent to get into the market but they actually ended up making a profit from Playstation 1 didn't they? After all we are actually talking about losses here rather then just money spent.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Apples and oranges. Different times.

 

[Teasy]

Apples and oranges. Different times

Of course yes, I was only responding to Quincy's comments about Sony.

 

[Qroach]

I've already proved it though.. As I've said nobody can prove wether another company could have done what MS have done cheaper or not. Therefore we cannot assume either as fact. If you think that whatever MS has spent is exactly the amount needed to get into the console market then fine, that's your opinion. But its definitely not a fact.

I'm sorry but I completely don't agree with you on this one. I feel you're being extremly wishy washy in what you are saying because you don't want to err on the side of microsoft in this discussion.

First, you haven't proved anything. Second, saying "nobody can prove wether another company could have done what MS have done cheaper" is actually agreeing with what I'm saying. The "or not", doesn't add a thing to to what u are saying. if you can't prove it can be done cheaper, and can't prove it can be done with MORE money, then you aren't proving anything are you? If you want proof, then you only have what MS spent for proof.

Third, what MS spent isn't an opinion, it's a fact they spent X amount getting into the console biz. Do you see anyone else entering the console biz for less? no, then why argue.

BTW I'm not sure how much Sony spent to get into the market but they actually ended up making a profit from Playstation 1 didn't they? After all we are actually talking about losses here rather then just money spent.

like I said, sony entered at a time when the competition was weak and this made it easier to make back the money spent on the investment. Sony is a far tougher competitor than nintendo or sega and that was proven this generation.

 

[Teasy]

I'm erring on the side of logic, your the one saying that lack of proof to the contrary makes something fact. Anyway I'm not going to respond to the other inaccuracies/misinterpretations in your post. I'll just say the following. Both our opinions can be summed up very easily:

You:

"We cannot prove that anyone could have done what MS did with fewer losses. Therefore lets assume nobody could have done it cheaper"

Me:

"We cannot prove that anyone could have done what MS did with fewer losses. Therefore lets not assume anything"

I know which one makes more sense. You simply cannot assume something as fact based on the fact that it cannot be disproved.

 

[Sonic]

Stop it you two! Try to remain civil, it's been a while since either of you got into it from what I can tell.

 

[Qroach]

hey I am being civil.

Teasy,

I know which one makes more sense. You simply cannot assume something as fact based on the fact that it cannot be disproved.

I find your argument a bit strange. For instance, one person says the world is flat and another says the world is round. The person that says it's round, sails around the world and returns to say "see it's round" if you don't think so, prove to everyone it's flat. The flat speaker says "You simply cannot assume something as fact based on the fact that it cannot be disproved".

logically speaking, of course someone could enter the console biz by spending MORE money than MS did. What MS spent is a fact and should be used a meter for this day and age, not an assumption. I've been saying that MS spending X dollars is a fact because there was no other company tried to enter the console biz when they did.

IMO logic would dictate:

a) if X company tried to enter the console business while spending less money that MS and failed to gain market share, developer support, and establish a brand, they did not spend enough money.

b) If MS spent X dollars to enter the console business and managed to gain market share, developer support, and establish a brand, they spent just enough money to do so, but not enough to be fight off the competition.

c) if company X tried to enter the console business while spending MORE money than what MS spent to gain market share, developer support, and establish a brand they would logically do better.

 

[Teasy]

Yes what MS spent could be used as an example of what it currently costs to get into the console market. I'm not arguing with that. All I've ever said is the fact that it cost MS X dollars doesn't mean it can be stated as fact that X dollars is the going rate. Especially when that's actually being used to defend MS (like it was in Johnny's post). Because then it becomes a totally circular argument. It ends up as "It cost MS X dollars to get into the console market. So then X dolalrs must be the going rate. Hey so MS did ok since they only spent the going rate".

BTW your analogy doesn't really relate to what I've been saying. Firstly it suggests that I'm for one side or the other when in fact I am only saying that neither of those sides can be assumed. Secondly the device used in the analogy doesn't fit with this situation. You can prove that the world is round by sailing/flying round the world. But you cannot prove how much it costs to get into the console business by getting into the console business. All that proves is how much it cost you to get into the console business. Unlike your analogy in this case neither side is actually proven. It could very well be possible that another company could have done what MS did cheaper. And it could be possible that nobody could have done it cheaper. Which leads to the conclusion that neither of those two can be assumed as fact. Of course what can be said is that what MS has spent is the closest estimate we have of how much it currently costs to get into the console market. I don't disagree with that.

 

[Qroach]

Yes what MS spent could be used as an example of what it currently costs to get into the console market. I'm not arguing with that.

and...

All I've ever said is the fact that it cost MS X dollars doesn't mean it can be stated as fact that X dollars is the going rate.

why?

 

[cthellis42]

Qroach, you're way off on this. First off, there IS no way to "prove it" in much the same way that you can't prove a negative. Why does one NEED to "prove" squat, anyway? Simple logic supports Teasy's position, so if one is going to apply anything as a "rule of thumb" you lean that direction over the single case sample.

Else, if Sony spends $2 billion in R&D to build a console, does that mean it takes $2 billion in R&D to build a console? If Nintendo profits more proportionally than the others through their business plan, is that the "minimum" that must be done to do the same?

Unless you're saying that Microsoft made no mistakes in their plans and wasted no money in console design and since launch, obviously even just from THAT there's the ability to "do things cheaper." Also keep in mind no one even said "to do as well as XXXX"--just "to break into." Even just claiming 5% would be "breaking in" and getting some notice.

Since there's no way to "prove" either side (and the case samples will forever remain small), then the only way to lean is on the side of caution.

 

[Qroach]

But you cannot prove how much it costs to get into the console business by getting into the console business. That only proves how much it cost you and you alone.

Replace the word "you" with MS and you'll see where I'm coming from. Here's what i said when i started talking about this:

You can keep crying about MS spending billions of dollars and how evil they are for it, yet that's exactly what it costs to compete with established console manufacturers. It's exactly the same reason Panasonic, NEC, SEGA, Atari, and numerous other companies couldn't climb back into a postion even close to what MS has managed to do.

I was talking strictly about MS dude. You seemed to want to contend that MS could do it for less did you not? I've been saying the entire time, the fact is, they couldn't. The proof is in what they already spent. This is a conversation about MS is it not?

 

[Qroach]

cthellis42,

"prove" squat, anyway? Simple logic supports Teasy's position, so if one is going to apply anything as a "rule of thumb" you lean that direction over the single case sample.

Not when you're talking about MS. simple logic says, if MS spends X dollars to do something then that's what it cost them. Logic won't tell you they could have done it for less unless there's proof to say that it "could" be done for less. What you're saying isn't based in logic, it's more of a guess or theory.

Also notice I said billions, i didn't give an exact figure becuase we don't have an exact figure.

 

[cthellis42]

Even just regarding MS they could have done it for less. More time spent developing the box and working out deals, they probably could have saved a lot more in hardware costs than they're burning now. And since Microsoft has changed direction in a few ways from their original design, obviously a better focus on what they see as "right" now would have made them spend less money before and likely make more money now.

Meanwhile, what Teasy was referring to in the beginning was talking about ALL parties, not just Microsoft. And even including Microsoft, the only way they "had to spend $4 billion" (or whatever) is if you're concluding that there has been no waste so far. And hindsight being what it is, we can certainly see points of fixing.

Fact is, it didn't "have to cost XXXX" for MS, Sony, OR Nintendo to get to where they're at now, since hindsight being what it is, we can all see definite areas of improvement for each of them.

 

[thop]

Let me wrap this up. If MS spend X then it did cost them exactly X to get where they are now. With the experience they have now, they could do it for less. However they had to pay for that experience.

So in the end: MS couldn't have done it cheaper, simple because they didn't!

 

[Qroach]

Fact is, it didn't "have to cost XXXX" for MS

See, now that's not an argument based on any sort or proof or fact. it's an opinion. It cost MS whatever is cost them to reach the point they are at. talking about doing things better and having more planning are all in hindsight of what has happenend.

Thop seems to understand what I'm saying.

 

[Teasy]

Here's what i said when i started talking about this:

I was talking strictly about MS dude. You seemed to want to contend that MS could do it for less did you not? I've been saying the entire time, the fact is, they couldn't. The proof is in what they already spent. This is a conversation about MS is it not?

Hold on a moment, I haven't been arguing with anything you originally said. I responded to Johnny's post, that's what I've been arguing with. The only reason I'm arguing with you ATM is because you responded to the comment I made to Johnny. This argument is about the fact that Johnny said what MS spent is what is costs to get into the console market. Not what it costs MS but what it costs full stop. Though in all fairness to him it was a rather harmless comment and I didn't expect it to turn into such an argument. Just making it clear that I'm not trying to get at you Johnny.

P.S. I haven't said at any time that I believed MS could have done what they did for less. Just that we don't know and so shouldn't assume either way.

 

[Teasy]

Not when you're talking about MS. simple logic says, if MS spends X dollars to do something then that's what it cost them. Logic won't tell you they could have done it for less unless there's proof to say that it "could" be done for less. What you're saying isn't based in logic, it's more of a guess or theory.

But that's not the argument at hand. Since you replied to my original comment and right through this thread I've made my argument clear. Which was that we cannot assume how much it costs to get into the industry only be looking at how much it cost MS. That was the point you originally replied to at the start of this argument.

thop

So in the end: MS couldn't have done it cheaper, simple because they didn't!

That's fine, but its not the argument hand. Unless the argument I was taking part in has ended and this new one has started? In which case I'll just go away now and play PES3 for a while.

As I've said above in this post. When this argument started I didn't say that whatever it cost MS to get into the market could not be assumed as the amount it cost MS to get into the market. That would be a crazy thing to say What I said was that what it cost MS to get in to the market cannot be assumed as the standard amount that it would cost anyone to get into the market.

 

[Qroach]

Even johnny was talking about MS teasy.

johnny wrote:
I'm not saying it's nothing. I'm saying that if MS gets 40% of the market by 2010 it will essentially have all been completely worthwhile. $2.5 billion (or $4 billion, doesn't matter) is a lot of money. Make no mistake, but that's basically what it takes to break into the industry. If at the end of the day they fail, we can all laugh and go play our PS4's, but if they don't then this cost of entry will have been acceptable.

"they" was referring to microsoft as he mentioned them earlier in his post.

 

[Teasy]

Well yeah obviously he was talking about MS in general since his post was in defence of MS's XBox losses. But that doesn't change the part I replied to which was:

$2.5 billion (or $4 billion, doesn't matter) is a lot of money. Make no mistake, but that's basically what it takes to break into the industry.

He doesn't say that's what it takes for MS to break into the industry, and given the point of his argument it would be silly for him to do so anyway. He was saying that while MS have lost X amount of money to break into the industry its ok because it would take that amount for anyone to break into the industry. Now if that's his opinion then fine, I only comment that its certainly not fact.

 

[Qroach]

Now if that's his opinion then fine, I only comment that its certainly not fact.

I think he was talking about MS the entire time, even when he said that as you continue reading. Even still, he didn't state that as a fact anywhere. even though i don't think he's worng if he did.