Article on 360's gestation
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
Hardknock said:
Hmm... MS and Sony can work together on many fronts even tomorrow or yesterday (e.g., Sony Connect DRM). But for historical, sunken investment, profit margin, self-preservation and future growth reasons, it may be somewhat difficult for Sony to license MS's OS. The act will marginalize Sony's gaming thrust and impede it's ability to compete in the gaming space where innovation and creativity is important.
Also from the outside, the consumer and media space is set to grow (again) in the coming years, Sony would want to claim as much to itself as possible until it chokes.
From the inside, it seems Sony has extended its gaming platform into other divisions (music, movie, and consumer appliances). PS3 is now at the heart of its future. It will be a few good years before Sony consider any external sources that it does not have any control over (e.g., MS). Sony Playstation has many things going for it right now, the last thing it needs is another "Toshiba GPU project".
Finally, the analogy with Intel and Apple may not work here. The MS gaming division is a direct competition to Sony's most profitable division. I feel the only real possibility for Sony is to win this war without any whimp of a doubt. _Then_ they will consider MS as a supplier. Even if Sony fumbles and screws up PS3 and PS4 badly, they most likely will look for lesser or non-competing help elsewhere. Bringing in MS will likely seal its fate there and then, unless the gaming industry collapses and Sony decides to bail early.
Just my thoughts...
EDIT: cleaned up paragraphs, added Toshiba example
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you provide reasoning why? Sony would be losing absolute control of revenue streams to their 60% share, whereas MS would be showing excellent growth (from about 15% worldwide to 40%, total unit sales) in their brand and pushing to gain market share next iteration, where they wouldn't need Sony's PS brand. The idea that at 40% share for MS, both sides through away their chances at monopoly and buddy up, doesn't make sense to me.Hardknock said:
I think the only real obstacle is Sony's pride. By the end of the 360/PS3 lifecycle, I think the main difference between the platforms will be exclusive games because of developer loyalty or moneyhats. At that point, they'll be spending money to just to create an artificial difference between themselves. Why bother?xbdestroya said:
I'm *sure* MS could be convinced to collaborate.
Well, I guess I counted them int eh XB 15% current share figure, but Nintendo aren't featuring in the market I'm thinking of which is the convergence downloading market where content, games, movies, music, etc, is delivered to an entertainment system. This is the market Sony and MS are gunning for and why they may or may not work with each other. Nintendo appear content to stay with just providing gaming entertainment so their consoles. If MS own 40% market share in console units, Nintendo 20% and Sony 40%, that'd be different. But then still, if MS have grown to that strong position, why lose half their profits from the sector to Sony in a partnership instead of pushing forward your advantage, securing some key content in perhaps movie and music content deals for exclusivity, and going for total dominance?
As I said earlier, I see only one situation where MS and Sony would both be thinking cooperation is a good thing and that's if the convergence market stagnates as the competition splits the market and there's no device to cover all music, all movies etc. Like if MS's box has music from one label, they'll never have Sony music and vice versa, and if MS's secure exclusive movies from Warner, they'll not be able to provide Sony movies and vice versa. In that situation people either need two boxes and two ways of doing things, or just not bother and wait until there's a single box. At which point Sony and MS might come together to provide that solution.
As I said earlier, I see only one situation where MS and Sony would both be thinking cooperation is a good thing and that's if the convergence market stagnates as the competition splits the market and there's no device to cover all music, all movies etc. Like if MS's box has music from one label, they'll never have Sony music and vice versa, and if MS's secure exclusive movies from Warner, they'll not be able to provide Sony movies and vice versa. In that situation people either need two boxes and two ways of doing things, or just not bother and wait until there's a single box. At which point Sony and MS might come together to provide that solution.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Shifty Geezer said:
Why do you assume MS wants a monopoly in the console market? Maybe they only want to be secure, to counteract percieved threats to the PC space, and to push windows media center as the center of the living room going forward. An alliance with Sony would not counter these goals, and create basically a shared monopoly, both companies would be secure.
It comes down to motives. Is MS's main goal in this to make money, or just to 'defend' their PC domination?
I think MS could potentially want this to happen in the future despite possibly having 30+% market share, as they don't really need the revenue created by the console, therefore having a monopoly is much less important. They would be mitigating risk by joining with Sony, effectively trading future profits, for longterm stability and security in the market. And knowing MS, and their deep pockets, I think that could be a viable trade off.
Last edited by a moderator:
Which then begs the question, is this good or bad for consumers? Personally, i think its more bad than good, but maybe not enough of either to matter.
What I found interesting in this regard was a comment Peter Moore made in a 1up video interview a few weeks back. He said something along the line that :
"... they (japanese publishers) are looking at what we're accomplishing in North America and saying that a powerful competitor to Sony Playstation is very important."
http://gamevideos.com/video/id/3266
I wonder if they really feel that way or its just PR speak...
What I found interesting in this regard was a comment Peter Moore made in a 1up video interview a few weeks back. He said something along the line that :
"... they (japanese publishers) are looking at what we're accomplishing in North America and saying that a powerful competitor to Sony Playstation is very important."
http://gamevideos.com/video/id/3266
I wonder if they really feel that way or its just PR speak...
koldfuzion
Newcomer
I'm sure they think it's very important. Selling to a duopolist is better than selling to a monopsonist. If you have one buyer of content, it's a take/leave proposition every time, at least with 2 buyers you have one (and with Ninty maybe 2) alternatives. If you were a developer and the prettiest girl in the room you had to dance with was Bill Gates' every single time, you'd want some alternatives, no matter how bad. Though Howard Stringer ain't so pretty either. 
Gaming is now a huge industry, bigger than hollywood. Frankly I think MS/Sony would have a rough time getting a merger/coop deal through DOJ. Probably the only way for either to get a monopoly in this space is to go out and crush the other guy by selling a superior product (which is legal). Which in a few years could very well happen--but I think unlikely I think MS/Sony will wind up with significant market share. Wii, God only knows, but may occupy a small, but profitably niche area of the market (and continue to do well in portables).
Gaming is now a huge industry, bigger than hollywood. Frankly I think MS/Sony would have a rough time getting a merger/coop deal through DOJ. Probably the only way for either to get a monopoly in this space is to go out and crush the other guy by selling a superior product (which is legal). Which in a few years could very well happen--but I think unlikely I think MS/Sony will wind up with significant market share. Wii, God only knows, but may occupy a small, but profitably niche area of the market (and continue to do well in portables).
scooby_dooby
Legend
expletive said:
IMO it's basically all bad for the consumers, good for Sony & MS bad for us. I'm all about letting companies toss 100's of millions of dollars making games to 'differentiate' themselves. The good side would be that consumers need only buy one console, but I really don't mind buying multiple consoles if they have exclusive content that warrants it. Also, that exclusive content might not exist (i.e. would never have been funded) if there was only a single format.
All of you seem to forget: this isn't about consoles anymore. I know this point is brandished about by analysts and others but it is the real deal. In the digital age we pay for information and (in the digital age) that means we must get it from somewhere and, from someone. If you can be that someone or, offer the somewhere, you will make money from the content even if it isn't yours (a la MS) or be able to reduce the price if it is (a la Sony). This generation it just might still involve games but the signs are clear that next generation it probably won't be (online gaming, content distribution over the networks, producer exclusive lock in) to the extent that the generation after next I expect games will be a secondary concern (after all they are content themselves).
The whole online service setup is a gateway into the home rather than a gateway from the home which it is being sold as. We now, already, have two high profile companies locked into a battle of attrition one (Sony) has an entire entertainment studio on powering it, the other (Microsoft) has way too much money and is determined to get a chunk of the pie. The outcome is that one of them wins the 'monopoly' to distribute, for a profit, content into every household on the planet. Both of them know this and know being able to will let them kill the other and neither is going to cross-license any technology because it will cut into the spoils.
Sony won't partner with MS because it views PS3 (and undoubtedly PS4) as a media distribution system and has known this all along (when you look this is KK's vision): Sony Connect, Sony LocationFree TV, Sony whatever is a way of getting more of their content (the bit that they make money from) into your home (a bit which they can resell for more money). MS knows this and it is the whole reason behind seeking the inital deal and why there are such things as Xbox Live, WebTv, PlayForSure etc. The sole difference between the two is Sony has in-house content generation (providing it huge libraries for 'free' with which it can attract customers) in its film studios whilst MS must try and recruit as many companies as possible (I mention PlayForSure and it is a most enlightening illustration of this) through its own 'standards'. It can afford this, Sony can't BUT Sony has a huge media machine empowering the moves it makes.
The whole online service setup is a gateway into the home rather than a gateway from the home which it is being sold as. We now, already, have two high profile companies locked into a battle of attrition one (Sony) has an entire entertainment studio on powering it, the other (Microsoft) has way too much money and is determined to get a chunk of the pie. The outcome is that one of them wins the 'monopoly' to distribute, for a profit, content into every household on the planet. Both of them know this and know being able to will let them kill the other and neither is going to cross-license any technology because it will cut into the spoils.
Sony won't partner with MS because it views PS3 (and undoubtedly PS4) as a media distribution system and has known this all along (when you look this is KK's vision): Sony Connect, Sony LocationFree TV, Sony whatever is a way of getting more of their content (the bit that they make money from) into your home (a bit which they can resell for more money). MS knows this and it is the whole reason behind seeking the inital deal and why there are such things as Xbox Live, WebTv, PlayForSure etc. The sole difference between the two is Sony has in-house content generation (providing it huge libraries for 'free' with which it can attract customers) in its film studios whilst MS must try and recruit as many companies as possible (I mention PlayForSure and it is a most enlightening illustration of this) through its own 'standards'. It can afford this, Sony can't BUT Sony has a huge media machine empowering the moves it makes.
Last edited by a moderator:
expletive said:
After I originally posted the blurb about collaboration, I began to think about it from a consumer stand point on whether or not I thought it was good or bad for us. I'm having a hard time answering that, as some have mentioned on here, no one WANTS to code for multiple devices, its done merely for financial reasons. Now imagine having one NinSonySoft box, imagine the competition between devs with only having to code for one machine, that is where the win/good is for us as consumers, IMO we would get even better everything (maybe not better prices, but it is possible).
I think it would bring out the best of every dev team, knowing that they don't have to worry about the differing hardware, they need to worry about "the team down the street". I mean isn't that the reason "we" get all caught up in first-party games, because we expect them to show us the best the system can do (taking generations into account, of course)?
It's the same thing. It's the same market, just approached from two different ends. One is to get a livingroom CE product that provides content like a PC can, and the other is to get the PC into the living room as a CE product. Whether it's badged as a PC or console makes no difference.scooby_dooby said:
When have MS ever compromised when they've had a chance to crush the rivals? If they're on the up, I can't imagine the board saying 'okay, we're increasing our market share, we've got consoles selling and PCs selling. If we keep going as we're doing now, gaining market share, we'll own the digital distribution channel. So let's stop now and join up with Sony who are losing market share to us and settle for a 30% share of that market instead'!
And even if MS want to partner up when they just have a 'strong enough' position, why would Sony? A partnership would need both parties to want that. Sony would only go halves on that service if they thought they couldn't win it all themselves, at which point MS know they've got them on the run and should keep going for gold. A compromise sounds too amicable for these companies. The goal is the Midas Touch of business, a license to print money, if the dream that analysts have been portraying for years were ever to realise. Why didn't Sony take up MS's suggestion of an MS OS in PS2, or using XNA in PS3? Because they want that revenue stream all to themselves. Why did MS sink billions into XB and a whole new sector of their company? Because they want a controlling piece of that convergence pie, the OS, in whatever device people use, and if that's going to be consoles then they needed a console. Now both have entered the race with their positions known, and neither is going to want to compromise any more now than they did back then unless both feel neither can win.
That said, I can see the POV that MS only need apply pressure, and then can pull out of the hardware race when (if) Sony capitulate and get MS OS onto their PS brand. I'm sure MS would love to get out of the hardware struggle, and it could be that if they reach a stronger position, given the option to push hard for the win or settle for a compromise, they would do the latter for an easy life.
As for whether it's good or bad for consumers, both really. A monopoly would have a potentially limited service without competition to drive advancement, but competing products makes things difficult for consumers. I've a friend just bought a media hub thingum, movies and music from HDD (but not a PC) and was wondering what format to rip his audio in. He spent a couple of days ish ripping 100 CDs to .ogg, and then realized MP3's are better for use on the iPod though lower quality, while WMA is another alternative that'll play on his PSP... We want one audio compression format, the best one, that works on all devices, instead of juggling a dozen music and video codecs and finding all sorts of devices that play some and not others. Competing formats are really crappy and aggravating. The only right solution is a single benevolent monopoly, a company that controls all the tech and formats and everything designed efficiently, and who's aim is to provide a useful, beneficial service to people rather than make as much money as possible. Of course that'll never happen and whatever we have will leave the end user shafted one way or another.
Similar threads
