Prophecy2k
Veteran
I don't get this... I mean... Other platform holders seem to be able to simultaneously develop both hardware and software.
So how is it a corporation as big as MS only seems to be able to focus on one at a time?
NPD June 2017 Sales Results
- Thread starter djskribbles
- Start date
-
- Tags
- npd npd june 2017
I don't get this... I mean... Other platform holders seem to be able to simultaneously develop both hardware and software.
So how is it a corporation as big as MS only seems to be able to focus on one at a time?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Nope. XBO last June did over 200k. This June was a rather significant drop (a bit over 150k for XBO). In comparison PS4 did just a bit over 230k for June 2016, compared to a bit over 380k June 2017.
Regards,
SB
Success breeds success, and Sony got out of the gate fast with the PS4. They nailed it with their pricing and messaging. On top of that Sony has the far more impressive exclusive lineup. By getting out of the gate fast and becoming the established market leader, this steers more consumers in their direction. Often times people are going to buy the console their friends are gaming on so they can game together online. Once Sony gained control of the momentum it became all the easier for them to maintain the dominance. Sony has been the leader for years. They had a brain fart with the PS3 costing $200 more than the 360, but otherwise have been on top of things. While its true that Nintendo has bested Sony with the Wii, that operated more so as a third pillar to home console market. I believe we are seeing that again with the Switch where it too works in its own bubble.
I don't see Nintendo successfully doing that.
I'm just calling it as I see it; all this stuff with BC, audio codecs, game pass, ea access, etc all platform stuff costs $$$. It's not like they have infinite budget. It's not like being in second place by 2:1 means your swimming in cash right ?
They took their studio money and invested in platform. That was their strategy to differentiate from PS4; one could also say that they weren't confident in ever winning this generation since launch, so they are investing in BC to appeal to 360 owners to transition to XBO.
Now they have hardware that can compete, and 1X is there to help cap off the platform. If you're into 3rd party experiences which everyone is, that's much easier to sway folks to play 3rd party on the best system, then doing first party. Ideally if it's successful more money comes in to put money elsewhere in particular first person studios.
I think it's pretty clear, first party games, and making a them a success is _not_ easy. And that's a core strength of Nintendo and Sony who have been in the business for a long time. Xbox is still learning, they've never followed a traditional path, and even now with their first party titles they don't.
First party to them is multiplayer lol. And they are trying to make it work, but 3rd party games are also very good at it.
So now that MS doesn't need to fight so many fronts, they can focus on library.
That's all. I'm not saying that they haven't been putting focus there, but now Xbox can put even more focus there.
Last edited:
Do they need too when the sheepeople just buy up the incremental Mario Karts, Zelda and Mario games like a drug addict buys crack.
They are in third place for a reason. Lacking 3rd party titles hurts them overall. Perhaps not in the mobile scene, but for sure with the home console scene.
MS faltered at launch and has been playing catch up ever since. They've done a hell of a job turning things around but I just don't think there's much they can do at this point. Maybe focus on X1X and getting the price down faster and ditching X1 after a year or two. But even then I'm skeptical because I'm no longer confident that X1X will sell that great beyond the initial launch. I once said it would sell more than PS4 Pro but that is among a scenario where MS actually delivers and focuses it as their main console. Plus it'll be the most powerful console which a few out there care about.
But in the end it's too late. The Playstation brand is dominant yet again on a global scale. The execution of Sony this generation has been excellent. The amount of work they've put into making the PS4 the incredible gaming machine it is has been a joy to experience. And now it looks like PS4's hold in the US will likely widen for the rest of the generation outside of some random month here and there. At this point in the game it will be interesting how long the legs of PS4 will be. It may not reach PS2 levels of sales but should surely surpass PS1.
But in the end it's too late. The Playstation brand is dominant yet again on a global scale. The execution of Sony this generation has been excellent. The amount of work they've put into making the PS4 the incredible gaming machine it is has been a joy to experience. And now it looks like PS4's hold in the US will likely widen for the rest of the generation outside of some random month here and there. At this point in the game it will be interesting how long the legs of PS4 will be. It may not reach PS2 levels of sales but should surely surpass PS1.
PS2 had 'non-gamer' drivers like SingStar and EyeToy, plus the competition was weaker. Nothing's going to catch PS2 ever again IMO (except if the world population balloons. Proportionally PS2 will remain king).
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Yeah, I was going by my vague spotty memory... I was hoping to be corrected on it. Cheers
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Huh?
Nintendo has many development studios... more than MS, and they consistently put out games... they're in fact more or less the only publisher putting out games on their hardware. I'm not sure how you can possibly disagree that Nintendo is able to develop software and hardware simultaneously.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Their games division already makes billions of dollars in revenue. They bring in more revenue proportionally, when considering the size of their console installed base, than Sony does.
How much more money do they need to bring in before they decide to spend a little on filling out the first party software library.
Yeah, I'm sorry but I don't buy it.
MS isn't interested in taking risks on first party development. They've coasted along on their meat & potatoes franchises (i.e. Halo, Forza, Gears etc) and invested in a few experiments here and there. Some worked out for a while, some didn't. Regardless of what Spencer says, I just don't believe he really has the corporate backing to invest in studios and a first party output to rival Sony's, and I think he's perfectly ok with that.
Anyway, this is getting a little off topic now.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Or the Chinese console market grows rapidly? I reckon that's a more realistic prospect in the short term.
Pretty sure i read somewhere that sony made more revenue on one quarter then then nintendo made the whole year
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-04-28-sonys-psn-is-making-more-money-than-all-of-nintendo
Thats was only psn, but thats pretty huge.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I was talking about MS' Xbox division. Xbox makes a lot of money in proportion to the size of the console installed base. It maybe because their business is concentrated in the wealthier and stronger currency nations (i.e. US and UK), or it may just be that the average Xbox gamer spends more on digital games, media, DLC etc.. Whatever the reason it's a rather curious data point.
Playstation brand is a lot more stronger, which will attract a big user base, and a lot none gamers, or very casual gamers.
Possibly, but given the lacklustre response to the current consoles, it's not something that can be expected. Maybe in ten years time, India and China will be buying enough consoles to push something over 150 million. But again, there's more competition. PS2 was so one sided, the total install base for the gen was like 200M, of which 150M was PS2. If the console market grows to 300M and PS5 or some machine gets 45%, (two consoles at 45%, one at 10%, say) it'll be <150M. that's with massive market growth, which we don't have.
So I give it maybe 10% chance some console released in the next 10 years will beat PS2's numbers.
The answer from me is I don't know. These questions are a little too, impossible to know unless you were operating at the leadership level of Xbox division.
I would add however, that your posts assumes unlimited resources. And makes a lot of assumptions which I think I are not founded.
MS took a lot of experimental risks. None of them successful. It's quite a stark difference from barely trying at all. Or unwilling to invest.
If you've been folllowing the Xbox scene it's been all experiments and only now are they settling down into meat and potatoes. A quick check of their first party output shows a great deal of many titles (and experimental) are at the start of gen to nearly nothing today.
Somewhere in there if you line it up with other things, you can see a trend of a reshuffling of priorities.
Imo, it would be a critical error to assume Microsoft as a corporation operates or provides budgeting the same way SIEC/SCEA does. it doesn't matter how much revenue Xbox makes because it goes back to MS as a whole. The finance departments will provide an annual budget for Xbox, if Phil wants more money he needs to
Fight for it against all the other major divisions at MS. You know the bread and butter departments like office, windows, azure, etc.
This is normal behaviour. I'm under the assumption SIE does not operate in this way. SIE and other Sony divisions sound like they operate more independently from each other. I mean SIE/SCEA is its own company. The whole structure is entirely different.
Last edited:
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Nowhere have I stated that I assume MS works the same way as Sony. But given everything you state in this very post about MS' experiments, why would you have any faith in them doubling down on first-party software development after they're done with XB1X?
If anything, after years in the console industry, experimenting in first-party developed and funded software, all they have to show for it is Gears, Forza and Halo, then why would you expect at all that Spencer would be able to see a bigger budget for game development approved at the corporate level? Certainly, the opposite is more likely?
