Please don’t confuse this with me saying that MS can’t compete. But you’d be wrong to say there is no brand loyalty at play here.
So Sony's business choices and marketing had nothing to do with it? Peoplek buying PS3 for its BRD weren't doing so for watching movies but because it was Sony? People buying it for the exclusives weren't doing so but because it was Sony? People buying PS3 because of Teh Powerz of Teh Cell weren't doing so because of effective marketing but because of Sony?
Okay, let's say you're right and there is a Sony brand advantage (earned that over two generations of giving gamers what they want...) - quantify that to how much advantage it gives Sony. Do they double their sales just because of blind fandom? Quadruple as the sheep buy products they don't like over the rivals because they are high on Kool-Aid? 10% advantage? 2%? What level of handicap are MS playing with that can't be competed with via products, services, pricing, marketing, and small studio acquisitions+2nd party exclusives adn require a wholesale shift in market dynamics towards partisan consolidation?
And as another take, what you're also saying is MS can't compete by offering a product and service people want and so should be allowed to gain a competitive advantage by taking content
away from platforms? Like, it'd be okay if Ouya failed to sell and so, acquired by Meta, they buy EA and make all EA games exclusive to Ouya so where no-one would buy it because of its innate value as a gaming platform, they will because it's the only place they can play EA Sports etc?
Ouya's argument - we can't compete. No-one is buying our console. They all just buy PS or XB. We need a USP and for that, we're going to grab a publisher and own all their content
Are you okay with that approach to not only the console business, but any? If a player can't compete on product, price, services and marketing, they can always just buy up the content?
Sort of. I mean, Sony had a rough start, launched a year late but they ended up outselling 360 that generation anyway. That means they sold more units in a shorter amount of time than Microsoft, while the common consensus (I think anyway) is that Microsoft offered the superior games device. I'll give Sony credit for righting the ship on PS3. They really leveraged their internal studios and contracted exclusives to put together a pretty unique library on that system. But there was a lot of brand loyalty at play, and there still is.
You know what else Sony did between 2005 and 2013, they bough Guerrrilla Games, Zipper Interactive, Sigil Games, Evolution Studios, Bigbig Studios, Media Molicule, Sucker Punch, and Gaikai. I know the Activision acquisition is a big deal, much bigger than these companies. But consolidation is and has been a part of this industry for a long time.
You've reduced it down to winner/loser and as such, as MS lost, they are entitled to massive boosts to competitive powers through acquisition. There are too many factors at play to determine winner like that to say it's the Sony advatange. eg. PS3 was an awesome BluRay player. If MS had sided BluRay, maybe they'd have taken that market and dominated the generation? Little decisions like that can push sales one way or another. Certainly it can't be attributed to magical Sony Secret Sauce. As we know, those secret sauces don't exist.
Or putting it another way, MS just got out-businessed, no? Why is it attributed to Sony being somehow magically attractive and not the fact that Sony are just a better console business who have earned their position through smart business?
You know what else Sony did between 2005 and 2013, they bough Guerrrilla Games, Zipper Interactive, Sigil Games, Evolution Studios, Bigbig Studios, Media Molicule, Sucker Punch, and Gaikai. I know the Activision acquisition is a big deal, much bigger than these companies. But consolidation is and has been a part of this industry for a long time.
I already posted a timeline of that. Market consolidation is not a part of the industry. Small acquisitions, tiny drops in the developer ocean over the decades, has been part of the industry. MS have done the same, especially when you look at all MS and not just MS gaming - MS were buying up talent before Sony Computer Entertainment existed, so if anyone started it, they did and Sony copied MS's example when it decided to get into gaming (which it wouldn't ahve doe if Nintendo had screwed them over). If MS was contnuing the tradition of acquiring a studio every couple of years, there'd be no issue. They be competing at the same level as Sony and Nintendo. By dropping massive purchases, they've pressured Sony into spending big on consolidation now (console consolidation? Console-o-dation?
). MS's attempt to 'level the playfield' so they can compete is seeing Sony counter-purchase to 'keep the field level'.
metro.co.uk
Microsoft boss Satya Nadella was so pleased he proclaimed that, ‘We are the market leader this quarter among the next gen consoles in the United States, Canada, the UK, and western Europe’, while adding that Xbox had increased its market share for two quarters in a row now.
