Ken Kutaragi:" I can produce the PS3 anytime"

The whole world will be rejoiced if the price of Windows Vista doesn't reflect the loss in the Xbox business

 

Yes, yes we are. Sony so far have proven to be great market leaders, why are you against them? Or worse yet, why would anyone root for such a questionable corporation as MS?

 

@ BJ and BD:

Where did he say anything about wanting a Sony monopoly??? In fact, he said he doesn't mind MS competing in the market. That pretty much implies not a Sony monopoly.

MS's practices in monopoly, otoh, are well documented and factually established in a court of law. There is no ambiguity as to where they would take a monopoly if given the chance. Hence, apprehension in a MS monopoly of any kind is rightly a valid concern.

You can be a fan of MS all you like, but let's not be oblivious to what they are known to be capable of.

 

thx to microsoft

 

...and thx to Nintendo too
I don't think Sony would be any more of a Monopoly even witout Microsoft, Nintendo would still be there.

 

I don't know, if Nintendo does not change in some ways, I don't see them competing against Sony, not matter what mistakes Sony does...

 

Or it will make Sony fight even harder and make even better products. For example truth be told, if MS wasn't in the market, I doubt that the PS3 would have the RSX in there. I am sure they would have gone the route of PS2, with just the Cell in the console, doing most of the stuff.

Anyway, I don't see Sony going anywhere, not this gen, and not the next, or the next one after that, they will awlays have a much much bigger install base in Japan, and that will keep them alive no matter what, I can't see MS selling the xbox over there to more than a few hard hard core gamers.

The only market I can see MS competting for a 50% market share is in the US who knows, maybe even they will be able to pass them over there. In Europe they might expand the marketshare by a bit, but I don't think by too much, here it is still Sony land...

 

Where the f*ck I said that MS is monopolizing the market? *sheesh*

here is a quote of mine page 7

edit:And even if I said that(something I didnt) it doesnt mean that I will find it ok if Sony ever monopolizes the console market

 

No way... Nintendo and Sony and the 50-50 split (and Sega-Sammy if they want to come back too)!

FTW!

 

Calm Down.

I never said you said MS was monopolizing the market. I said that you said that MS were a monopoly in one market and thats what makes the Xbox brand exist and that's why xbox SHOULD NOT BE IN THE CONSOLE MARKET... to which I say who cares why or how a company gets its money to to be in any market it wants to be in.

Sony got its startup console money from electronics, Sega got its continuous supplemental money from arcades and Nintendo gets supplemental money from Handhelds. Microsoft gets its console funds from OS' ... so?

You and Rog and whoever else brought up the absolutely meaningless point of MS being a monopoly... I consider Sony to have the basic components of monopolizing the videogame industry. They sell the most, they get the most content because devs have the psychological expectation that they will sell the most, customers figure playstation will sell the most so they buy it and they expect it will be supported the best by developers... The most and the best is made for Sony and Sony knows this. They exercise this influence with devs whether anyone wants to believe it or not. Correction, Sony is now so powerful in the console space that they dont even have to exert influence anymore...This is what happened with Windows...

This is a really cyclical & totally tautological exercise that I am worn out from.

 

Agreed. We both understand the subtle points being made here and are going to have to agree on certain things and agree to disagree on others.

Enough of this.

 

Sony, Nintendo and Sega were or are puting theirselves in many risks by entering the console market.Since they are in higher risks it means that they all do their best to offer the best possible since dangers are higher because of great competition.If they fail, losing a billion would cost them, perhaps it would even be fatal.If their product doesnt bring revenues it means it was a failure.

To achieve competitive power they have to do a lot about the quality of their product.SEGA is no longer in the business so I ll keep it out in the later examples.
For nintendo to remain in the market they searched for a cheaper but efficient ways to create a very powerful console.We got the GC.Cheap for both Nintendo and the consumer.Thus experience and new technology patents are gained for the industry.

MS dont care about cost of hardware as much.They picked of the shelf PC parts, no matter how expensive they are and no matter how much this wont offer anything new.They arent facing the risks of competitive companies.They can cover losses with accumulated revenues.So why care to spend amounts of R&D since they can survive without them?They do not contribute at the evolution of the market.Because they dont feel that they are in the need.They are safe as they are.The laws of competitive market doesnt apply for them.No "natural selection" or evolution of the market applies.

Back to Nintendo again.to remain competitive in the next gen or atleast remain in the market they moved on to a new innovative idea which is the Revolution controller.
Now lets see the PS brand.They have spent millions on R&D for new technologies, they ve offered experience to theirselves and to developers by introducing different architecture logic.Based on this they have made plans which ofcourse will benefit the consumer.Experience and innovation evolve the market and thats what happened with Sony.

And experience and innovation happen when companies feel that they are endangered.

MS does not feel that.We have a new competitor that is a "vampire" product.It takes away from the efficiency of the market.It "sucks" market share from others and especially from Nintendo which is smaller and has to deal with two competitors.
Assuming that the PS2 sold us much as the PS1 did in 6 years of their lifetime, (around 100 million) and excluding that number from total console sales Nintendo would have had more sales with PS2 around the same lavel.Nintendo's presence was shadowed by a not so contributing player and I wouldnt find it strange if Nintendo vanishes thanks to MS's "vampiric" product.

 

The profit from one division being re-invested in another has no bearing on the price of Windows Vista. You might as well have said, "The whole world cursed when Microsoft announced a dividend because of the affect it has on the price of Windows Vista."

 

Really? Maybe you should read a bit more carefully before speaking for everyone:

 

Hey, I've never been too happy with some of MS's practices, but the fact is that WindowsXP is a pretty damned good product, as is the 360. I don't see Sony going anywhere in the forseeable future, so there is no danger of monopoly abuse here. Competition is good, ya know?

As far as being a "fan" of MS, that's just idiocy. Why would someone be a fan of a company (Sony included)?. And since Sony has single handedly given us three format wars, I'm not too happy with some of their practices either. It isn't as if MS are evil and Sony are saints, you know. They are both large corporations looking out for their bottom line, and their respective records clearly show that.

 

Now this is about the dumbest thing I've seen posted in this thread. Do you understand the concept of "investment?" MS made the choices it did with the XBOX to get it to market quickly and establish a brand. You act as if MS would continue producing consoles at a loss indefinitely.

Are you completely forgetting that in just a few years MS's second console has evolved (oops, didn't you say they don't do this?) from a modified PC into a custom built console, very sophisticated in its own right? It has a custom adapted core, and a GPU designed from the ground up for a console.

 

You are so talking out of your ass. To say that they have not contributed to the evolution of the market is so completely unfounded as to border on the comical. Live? Friends List? Cross game invites? Voice chat? User soundtracks? Achievements? Gamercards? Network port - built in? Wireless controllers - built in? These were all pioneered by the Xbox (and that's just off the top of my head). Have you ever even used an Xbox? Do you even have any concept of what the Xbox is or does? Or are your MS-hate blinders just speaking for you?

And if MS is so safe and doesn't have to compete at all, why did they enter the market in the first place? Just to make themselves feel good to kick around another industry? I know that's what you probably think, but they have to grow their profits just like every other publicly traded company, or else face the wrath of their shareholders. That's their fiscal responsibility. And if they're just pissing away money for no particular reason, then they open themselves up to shareholder suits. They expect to make money off this eventually, mark my words.

You don't understand MS at all. The key to them is that they always feel endangered, even when they have a monopoly; that's why they act the way they do.

So basically, the market should have fewer competitors so the market can be more competitive. Is that basically what you're saying? Maybe you should mull that statement over a bit before you post it.

 

I wrote that. Blackjedi wrote that if it´s better for us if Sony dominated the console market. I probably should have read more of the thread, but to me dominion is not a monopoly, that´s why I´m more than glad if Sony continues to be the market leader.

 

Didnt we beat the 'market competition is good' horse to death several times already? No offense guys but if past results are any indication this thread is going nowhere fast.