Ken Kutaragi:" I can produce the PS3 anytime"
- Thread starter mckmas8808
- Start date
).Serenity Painted Death
Regular
A small technical point:
Did MS succeed in setting up a brand? Or did Bungie?
I suppose it doesn't matter either way.
Did MS succeed in setting up a brand? Or did Bungie?
I suppose it doesn't matter either way.
Kutaragi saw what everyone else saw:XBOX not doing well.What he did ommit was the fact that MS would continue the support of XBOX despite that.His prediction wether XBOX was going to succeed or not isnt far from the truth.Laa-Yosh said:
When I see XBOX I actually see a console that's even worse than what the Saturn or DC were back in their time in terms of games and quality.Fortunately for MS they had the revenues to back them up and keep the console in market even if they had to deal with issues that otherwise a normal company would have given up on supporting their product.
Indeed MS at the end succeeded at establishing it.But its an extreme case of a product that in economic terms and efficiency was a failure but succeeded at remaining in the market to establish its brand name.
Its was an example of unfair competition thanks to MS's monopolistic advandage in other departments that had nothing to do with the game industry.It was like MS's console division was getting subsidies to remain in the market despite its great inefficiency.
XBOX penetrated itself in the market to establish the brand name.It didnt achieve this by doing well.
What distinguishes an investment in the future from "unfair competition"? There's lots of companies that take profits from one part of the company and make bets in another. For example, Sony Pictures and the Playstation division generates much of the profits that are being invested in the ailing consumer electronics division - yet no one would call that "unfair competition". Granted, I see the point that Office and Windows are de facto monopolies, but it's not as if they're leveraging that monopoly position for the sake of the Xbox division. They simplying reinvesting the money. It's only unfair in the sense that they have a lot of cash. Is that really unfair?Nesh said:
dubyateeeff
Newcomer
mckmas8808 said:
Well, the BR specs are final and everything that is left to do on PS3 is up to Sony. So yeah, I think *he* can produce PS3 anytime he wants to. Though the clocks may be lower now, or perhaps the (my mind is blank but...) 'the word for the number of ok chips you get from each waffer' may be too low at this point or perhaps they are waiting for the games.
I think Kutaragi and Dr. Dre should meet. They could produce excellent rap and console smack-talk.
Kutaragi: "Move units, then talk shit and we can do this. Until then, I aint even speaking your name. Just keep my name out of your mouth and we can keep it the same."
Edit:*yield
Last edited by a moderator:
Sethamin said:
The difference is that SCE is efficient.Playstation products are efficient.They are doing fine.And they are not in the market because they are being subsidized.They are taking bigger risks with each reinvestment
Products that are inefficient should get out of the market.Thats exactly what XBOX was.It exists because it was subsidized.Reinvestment didnt return revenues and that wasnt their target.That because simply XBOX division was inerfficient.MS unlike Sony was reinvesting on the XBOX only in an effort to force the XBOX into the market, taking slowly over the makret from the other competing companies.MS can do that because they have abundance of capital revenues thanks to their monopoly in other divisions.
Its unfair because at the end there are two products on the market, one being efficient and one being inefficient competing the other and taking away from the efficiency.
The point is Sony is investing on an efficient division and thats where the Playstation brand comes from.MS on the other hand is not.XBOX unlike the PS2 existed only because MS could cover the inefficiency losses thanks to other profitable divisions and only because of that.Sony could never do that unless that market was extremely small because its not a complete and major monopolist in any product to accumulate huge capital revenues.If SCE was to suffer the same losses from the PS, Sony wouldnt have kept the PS2.Not even for 3 years!They simply cant do the same.There is a HUUUGE asymmetry between these 2 competitors.
Last edited by a moderator:
from egm's interview with mr gates himself
"egm:Microsoft roughly lost $1 billion since it launched was it worth it?
gates: we knew going into the original xbox that we would lose....a lot. Or you can say, invest alot. And we knew the only thing we'd get out of that first generation was the learning and credibility that came with the experience
egm:if you lose money on 360,will there be another successor?
gates: Of course! It was my desicion to get into videogaming,so we are going to make that look like a good decision no matter how long it takes(laughs)"
"egm:Microsoft roughly lost $1 billion since it launched was it worth it?
gates: we knew going into the original xbox that we would lose....a lot. Or you can say, invest alot. And we knew the only thing we'd get out of that first generation was the learning and credibility that came with the experience
egm:if you lose money on 360,will there be another successor?
gates: Of course! It was my desicion to get into videogaming,so we are going to make that look like a good decision no matter how long it takes(laughs)"
Inquisitive_Idiot
Regular
Nesh said:
What?
Surely Microsoft deserves more credit than what you're giving them, especially when you consider the competition they were up against. Its not as if they can just waltz into the console market, money in hand, and buy everything up within five years. Their has to be a certain amount of reason applied to your assessment in order to determine the successes and failures that Microsoft has made during this past generation.
BTW: What do you mean by, "in terms of the games and quality"? Are you saying Microsoft hasn't established any successful, quality games during the Xbox's life span?
Holt
Arguing the Xbox wasn't a failure is never going to be won because people can keep setting imaginary targets that they reached proving success.
Even establishing a brand, they could've done much better this generation than what they have (money spent: consumers gained). In fact, most analysts predicted Xbox coming #2 right behind PS2. No one would've predicted, not even them, that it would cost them $200 a consumer.
But the Xbox wasn't meant to dominate game player sales (gaming is, afterall, a tiny market compared to their speciality) intially, it was meant to stop the momentum of the PlayStation brand being a threat to Windows dominance. Not in a computer OS sense, but they were far-reaching enough to understand that we're moving away from PCs in the household.
Microsoft saw the threat of the PS2, which is why they wanted it to use a WindowsOS, and when they were denied, they had no choice. So they did succeed in their goal (at least, they've given themselves a chance), but what they gained isn't representative of the cost. Thats why its a failure.
A bit about the Xbox origins
Even establishing a brand, they could've done much better this generation than what they have (money spent: consumers gained). In fact, most analysts predicted Xbox coming #2 right behind PS2. No one would've predicted, not even them, that it would cost them $200 a consumer.
But the Xbox wasn't meant to dominate game player sales (gaming is, afterall, a tiny market compared to their speciality) intially, it was meant to stop the momentum of the PlayStation brand being a threat to Windows dominance. Not in a computer OS sense, but they were far-reaching enough to understand that we're moving away from PCs in the household.
Microsoft saw the threat of the PS2, which is why they wanted it to use a WindowsOS, and when they were denied, they had no choice. So they did succeed in their goal (at least, they've given themselves a chance), but what they gained isn't representative of the cost. Thats why its a failure.
A bit about the Xbox origins
The "Xbox" brand and what it means for MS's future is worth far more than their $4 Billion dollar investment. Of course they would have loved to make a profit this past gen, but just because they didn't doesn't mean "what they gained isn't representative of the cost. That's why its a failure." That's ridiculous, it's called an investment. They are posed to make all that back and a whole lot more in the future. Not to mention they're strengthening the Windows brand with the whole connectivity features.
The economics of next (this) generation will be very different for Microsoft compared to XBox, since this time they own the IP for both the CPU and the GPU and hence can take advantage of IC integration advances to reduce cost the same way Sony did this generation with the multiple implementations of the EE and visualizer.
Last time the price of the XCPU and the nv2a were fixed, so MS kept on losing money as prices went down, despite component cost reductions.
I think there's a good chance that MS can break even on the hardware while Sony really has to work hard to cut cost to not have a loss leading box. IMO this is a real problem for Sony since they don't have the bags of money that MS has. I'm fully expenting MS to undercut Sony with >$100 when PS3 launches (unless of course the 360 is still supply constrained).
Cheers
Last time the price of the XCPU and the nv2a were fixed, so MS kept on losing money as prices went down, despite component cost reductions.
I think there's a good chance that MS can break even on the hardware while Sony really has to work hard to cut cost to not have a loss leading box. IMO this is a real problem for Sony since they don't have the bags of money that MS has. I'm fully expenting MS to undercut Sony with >$100 when PS3 launches (unless of course the 360 is still supply constrained).
Cheers
seismologist
Regular
^^^
Why do people think the PS3 will be so expensive to produce? It's not because of Cell. That chip has been designed since conception to have high yields. They can even use the defects in other devices.
Blue Ray is decoded on the CPU so no extra costs there.
If anything Sony's PS3 process looks even more streamlined than it was with the PS2.
Why do people think the PS3 will be so expensive to produce? It's not because of Cell. That chip has been designed since conception to have high yields. They can even use the defects in other devices.
Blue Ray is decoded on the CPU so no extra costs there.
If anything Sony's PS3 process looks even more streamlined than it was with the PS2.
Last edited by a moderator:
