sorry but I had to laugh at this one. Sony got the tech from Nintendo? More like the opposite
How (ir)relevant/replaceable is Sony/MS/Nintendo? *spawn
- Thread starter eastmen
- Start date
sorry but I had to laugh at this one. Sony got the tech from Nintendo? More like the opposite
You may want to read about that CD extension Sony was making for Nintendo that ended up as the PlayStation...
I know about the CD add on. But the final PS was a different product altogether. In addition it was Sony who was providing the technology to Nintendo including the sound chips for Super Nintendo.
The geometry processor was key to the success of the original Playstation, it was able to produce 3D graphics at a relatively reasonable price. Ken Kutaragi/Sony didn't steal that tech from Nintendo. And if anything it was the design of PS1 and its cheap cost and at the time relatively good performace that made it successful.
In fact at the time Nintendo was using Silicon Graphics to develop their 3D hardware. 2 different approaches to solve the problem of rendering lots of polygons at a relatively reasonable price.
edit:
I should add that the use of CD ROMs also gave them a competitive advantage over Nintendo who was using cartridges at the time
In fact at the time Nintendo was using Silicon Graphics to develop their 3D hardware. 2 different approaches to solve the problem of rendering lots of polygons at a relatively reasonable price.
edit:
I should add that the use of CD ROMs also gave them a competitive advantage over Nintendo who was using cartridges at the time
Last edited by a moderator:
Nintendo backed out and screwed Sony. Sony didn't receive this tech from Nintendo, but they may have had the inspiration to go with their own hardware and release it from them. But that was just a brilliant business move by Sony. They weren't copying Nintendo in the slightest. Nintendo was attempting to copy SEGA.
I disagree and will continue to consider that Sony entered the business thanks to its cooperation with Nintendo on the never released CD addon.
As for the topic, we used to have Nintendo and Sega, now we have MS & Sony as the main competitors (and still Nintendo), so I think we can safely consider they can all be replaced by someone popular and/or with deep pockets.
As for the topic, we used to have Nintendo and Sega, now we have MS & Sony as the main competitors (and still Nintendo), so I think we can safely consider they can all be replaced by someone popular and/or with deep pockets.
Its well known Sony wanted licencing control for solftware and the majority of revenue/royalties from everything based on the CD.
It wasn't a 50/50 partnership it was Sony getting most of the profits and kinda screwing Nintendo.
So its completley understandable why Nintendo backed out. Never read about the reasons they cancelled the Phillips CD drive addon.
It wasn't a 50/50 partnership it was Sony getting most of the profits and kinda screwing Nintendo.
So its completley understandable why Nintendo backed out. Never read about the reasons they cancelled the Phillips CD drive addon.
Its the conflict of interest between the two companies that got Sony into the business as well as Kens vision to make a games console which was rejected before .
Also even if you are right that Sony entered the business because of the initial cooperation it doesnt suggest at all that Sony took technology from Nintendo. We know factually that the PS1 shared nothing in common with SNES or Nintendo's vision, that Sony provided the sound chips for the SNES, and that Sony was providing the CD ROM technology as a manufacturer just as other manufacturers are providing components for consoles. Nintendo provided nothing Sony for the development of the PS. Whatever pushed Sony to enter the business even if it was the initial cooperation, it is irrelevant. They entered the business alone, designed the product from scratch, and pushed 3D games harder and sooner than Nintendo. They succeeded where other newcomers failed. The CD Rom is just a medium and the add on wasnt going to be a groundbreaking game changer.
Ps: it was Sega that came first with a CD add on and ironically Nintendo kept the cardridge medium even after the PS.
Same reason they backed out of the Sony deal. The monopoly they had on cartridge production was way too lucrative to switch to optical.
I keep reading that Sony's unequal partnership was a big reason. Wasn't purely a cartridge monopoly angle though you bring that up and im sure that played a part. THe way they snubbed Sony dropping them right after the day it was announced at e3 (or the day after e3 ended) speaks volumes.
I remember reading that at the time Sony was very disliked in the japanese business world for their past history of ruthless business practices and giving raw deals to business partners, and for Yamauchi after the deal fell through there was alot of negativity towards Sony and their business practices afterwards.
I don't know where you heard that version, but most accounts paint Nintendo as the villain. It was well known their control of cartridge production was abusive to third parties and they stabbed Sony in the back on the CD ROM device at the last minute. Sony were rightfully peaved and pressed forward with their own product.
Apparently there was a clause in the legal agreement that would give Sony control of Software published for the SNES CD addon.
While true, I don't think that'd be the case. The industry has grown substantially bigger. It has taken Sony a lot of years to build up their brandname and market and Microsoft, the last one to enter, a not insignificant amount of money to enter. Such large amounts of money that only a company like Microsoft could afford and did so for the right reasons - in order to gain a foothold to the livingroom.
How many companies do you think would be willing to make similar sacrificies and investments to get where Microsoft and Sony are now?
Apple is a possible candidate. (But probably not the only one.)
Perhaps. But one has to ask how long it would take any of these candidates (which I'm pretty sure you could count on a single hand - that being Apple and Google) to build up an established market as we have now. As I mentioned; back in 1993/1994 - the market wasn't as big as it is today. Games weren't as complex, as expensive. I would think that it take much bigger level of investment to enter the industry in its state today than it was 20 years ago. Microsoft could tell a story on just how much it cost them 10 years ago.
I'm convinced, if Sony were to leave just like that, that void would take a long time to be filled. Or, on a more note; all would go to Microsoft and the Xbox brand, before any of your candidates comes in with an investment this large.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
According to Wikipedia, the largest electronic companies are as follows:
1
Samsung Electronics
2
Apple Inc
3
Foxconn
4
HP
5
IBM
6
Hitachi
7
Microsoft
8
Amazon.com
9
Sony
10
Panasonic
11
Google
12
Dell
13
Toshiba
14
LG Electronics
15
Intel
Samsung Electronics
2
Apple Inc
3
Foxconn
4
HP
5
IBM
6
Hitachi
7
Microsoft
8
Amazon.com
9
Sony
10
Panasonic
11
12
Dell
13
Toshiba
14
LG Electronics
15
Intel
Interestingly, Microsoft and Sony are placed 7th and 9th respectively. I could imagine several of the others here competing in the console market: Samsung, Apple, Amazon, Google. Whether any could offer anything new is difficult to define.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Any company trying to buy their way into the gaming market, with no prior games experience, nor reputable stable of first party developers, nor prior relationships with third party publishers and distributors, are going to STRUGGLE if they intend to go against the existing three using the same business model as employed by them.
The only thing I can see is if one of the existing three pulled out, and a new entrant came in, they would attempt to go against the grain and not follow the traditional console gaming platform model.
Given how averse to change core gamers are, I'd be hard pressed to believe that any new entrant will be able to come up with something compelling enough to draw significant business (read: market/mindshare) away from MS, Sony or Nintendo to out-compete them. Gaming is fundamentally unlike every other entertainment and consumer electronics market out there.
Tbh, out of all the big companies out there, I think Google would probabaly be the one with the greatest potential for success in the console games industry. It's just that if they'd wanted to break in, they should have made attempts 8-10 years ago to establish themselves. Trying now would be like a company up and deciding the wanted to break into the car manufacturing business, starting from scratch and competing against the big boys and trying to beat them at their own game.. yeah... not gonna work ;-)
The only thing I can see is if one of the existing three pulled out, and a new entrant came in, they would attempt to go against the grain and not follow the traditional console gaming platform model.
Given how averse to change core gamers are, I'd be hard pressed to believe that any new entrant will be able to come up with something compelling enough to draw significant business (read: market/mindshare) away from MS, Sony or Nintendo to out-compete them. Gaming is fundamentally unlike every other entertainment and consumer electronics market out there.
Tbh, out of all the big companies out there, I think Google would probabaly be the one with the greatest potential for success in the console games industry. It's just that if they'd wanted to break in, they should have made attempts 8-10 years ago to establish themselves. Trying now would be like a company up and deciding the wanted to break into the car manufacturing business, starting from scratch and competing against the big boys and trying to beat them at their own game.. yeah... not gonna work ;-)
I don't see how Sony exiting the market makes it easier for a new incumbent to enter in the core gaming console market. Nobody else has tried in the past 10 years probably for a good reason. If anything it would make it more difficult as MS would get more mindshare, most of those ex Sony gamers would transition to MS and get hooked on MS franchises.
The entry costs are ridiculously high and profits at this stage are comparitively mediocre. Removing the Android licensing royalties Microsoft Xbox Group now probably makes a few hundred million to a half billion a year in the best of years. Taking the life cycle and all the fiscal years of X360 we don't see it doing so hot given Android royaties, also increase the Device & Hardware Divion group starting in 2008 or 2009, and ignoing the year they had to write off their Surface blunder, overall even without exact figures you can see that we are talking hundreds of million in profits and sometimes less. We see it in the short term motives of investors who want to split off Xbox Group, vs the long term motives and vision from Gates/Balmer others who defend Xbox group from investors.
If Sony exited it would probably take a Google or an Apple or someone else probably +$15 billion to establish as profitable core gamer business that is competitive with Microsoft in the core gamer marketshare. Then another 15 or more years assuming they profit a billion a year before they see a retun on their investment.
So they'd spend billions developing the hardware/software, hundreds of millions on new hires and new facilities for the establishiment of the gaming division hq, hundreds of millions to billions on the online infrastructure, maybe take a billion or 2 in loss over several years establishing 1st party games studios and financing their games/marketing, and 2nd/3rd party exclusives for an audience that cannot yet support the costs of developing and marketing a library of game as good as XboxOne Exclusive games. If Sony were to die in 2016, its not like Google even if they wanted to could come in the next year and suddenly have a console out.
The entry costs are ridiculously high and profits at this stage are comparitively mediocre. Removing the Android licensing royalties Microsoft Xbox Group now probably makes a few hundred million to a half billion a year in the best of years. Taking the life cycle and all the fiscal years of X360 we don't see it doing so hot given Android royaties, also increase the Device & Hardware Divion group starting in 2008 or 2009, and ignoing the year they had to write off their Surface blunder, overall even without exact figures you can see that we are talking hundreds of million in profits and sometimes less. We see it in the short term motives of investors who want to split off Xbox Group, vs the long term motives and vision from Gates/Balmer others who defend Xbox group from investors.
If Sony exited it would probably take a Google or an Apple or someone else probably +$15 billion to establish as profitable core gamer business that is competitive with Microsoft in the core gamer marketshare. Then another 15 or more years assuming they profit a billion a year before they see a retun on their investment.
So they'd spend billions developing the hardware/software, hundreds of millions on new hires and new facilities for the establishiment of the gaming division hq, hundreds of millions to billions on the online infrastructure, maybe take a billion or 2 in loss over several years establishing 1st party games studios and financing their games/marketing, and 2nd/3rd party exclusives for an audience that cannot yet support the costs of developing and marketing a library of game as good as XboxOne Exclusive games. If Sony were to die in 2016, its not like Google even if they wanted to could come in the next year and suddenly have a console out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
