I think you just hit the very definition of "image". But whatever. you can deny it all you like it's no skin off my nose..
That's not an image issue in my opinion.
One definition of image:
8 : a popular conception (as of a person, institution, or nation) projected especially through the mass media <promoting a corporate image of brotherly love and concern -- R. C. Buck>
Microsoft is a faceless corporation. In the game space they didn't have an image before they started and they still don't have an image. Yet there was a decision to not support them between many Japanese companies. SONY had the mind share, the money, the install base, and the clout to prevent or influence any major support in that region from moving in that direction. They are not Japanese and did not understand the Japanese market. That's not an image problem, it's reality problem and it's an issue they still have, although they are understanding more, it's still an issue.
Sony, a company that is very entrenched in japan also had problems getting going in that region. they had to convince the development community that they were real and planned to be successful in that market when compared to nintendo and sega. sony however did understand the japanese market and knew how to approach building a gaming business there. Again not an image issue, but a reality.
If MS can buy into POPULAR IP in that region, they will make inroads will increase sales on those people interested in that IP. Showing they have a strong base of IP for that region will also help other japanese companies realize there is a market on that platform.
I don't think buying a competitor - say Capcom for argument's sake - will make the rest more likely to develop also.
Well good for you, but I disagree.
Sony met with good success both in NA and EU without buying out any major studios. They bought psygnosis in the UK but they were small fish really. Likewise did MS. Bungie was their biggest buy (not counting rare which happened later) and bungie only became really big after releasing Halo. Nintendo probably hasn't bought up a single major developer ever.
Perhaps you aren't following the game industry closely enough. Sony bought quite a few companies in north america and Europe when they got started. Psygnosis was a publisher, they were a pretty large company with a long background in game development and IP. Bungie also had a very good history a a developer with bunch of popular titles under their belt. Bungie was MUCH smaller then psygnosis. They were strictly a developer.
Nintendo has bought lots of companies. They bough DMA, they had a large stake in Rare, , more recently they bough retro studios, among other companies in japan. Nintendo forms close partner ships, but their development background is long and deep. They didn't need to make as many purchases as Sony or MS.
I didn't "focus" on it. I just found iy somewhat entertaining you chose to word it that way.
Well call it what you will, as I explained, to those people that buy a console and want games on it, it IS unfair of a company to not put support behind a platform when you have the public there asking for it. I'm not going to explain that again. You can continue making comments about netscape and how business isn't "fair" all you want. none of that matters to people that want to give their money in exchange for entertainment.
I personally don't pick the console that gets the most capcom games (for example.)
I don't know of anyone who does.
you're missing the point! exchange capcom with whatever company makes the games you like and the point still stands. People by PS2 if they like square since they are really into the final fantasy series. That's the point I'm making.
Most multiplatform publishers put out at least some games for each platform that are worthwile to own and play. Maybe not EA though people say even their latest footballer for Wii is fun so who the hell knows really.
The ONLY people that care about multi platform publishing are enthusiasts. The general public, you know the overwhelming share of the gaming market, make their purchase based on the console that has whatever game they want. It's usually not a multi platform title.
From what I can tell you proposed it would be good for people who only buy one console that MS might buy Capcom so that all capcom games appeared only on the 360. That implies the one console they'd buy would be the 360..
This was the way I interpreted you but if you say that wasn't your intention I'll take your word for it.
No, that wasn't my intention. What I was saying was, for those those people that only buy one console and they liked capcom games or (replace capcom with whatever developer/publisher you want), and those games were exclusive that platform, capcom or whomever being exclusive wouldn't be a problem with gamers.
If I don't like them as a console maker it would be pretty silly of me to buy their console now wouldn't it. Well I did. so what was that you saying again?
Do you own more then one console? well as you said you're not really interested in capcoms games, so wouldn't that almost invalidate your opinion on the usefulness or of having them support a single platform?
Besides I already said it would be bad for more reasons than the one you mentioned. Namely it would hurt diversity and competition in the multi platform market. If for example sony had bought capcom during the game cube era we wouldn't have seen resident evil 4. One of the premier cube titles.
Diversity and competition were already "hurt" long before this rumor. GTA anyone exclusive for a very long time anyone? Final fantasy exclusive anyone? devil may cry anyone? the list goes on and on. I think you give way too much credit to multi platform publishing for capcom when they didn't spread their entire lineup across platforms. If sony had purchased capcom you would have seen Res evil 4, you would have seen it only on the PS2.
