Xbox's future in Japan
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- microsoft
Sure they can have success with hired help..
I just think the talent working on their IP's would be safer if they owned the studios.
i.e. great sucesses like 'From Software' are making multiplatform Dark Souls, wich Sony don't own.. And Bioware make Mass Effect multiplatform.
And it would be better for the consumer to know that they had studios working bringing them new content targeted at us, instead of crossing the fingers and hope that MS will buy some new content wich they again can sell to us. :-/
I'm pretty sure that Sony and MS wanted to own both franchises, or atleast have them exclusive, but the creators are freelance and can work for whoever they want.
And who knows, perhaps they might earn some money in the process in the long run, by getting creative themselves, instead of hiring creative people to work for them every once in a while.
MS had a number of 1st party studios for a while, and they didn't really deliver. In the end they were mostly closed down. I don't know why that was, but MS owning a studio isn't in itself any guarantee of worthwhile content being produced and the results profitable. MS have made much money and success from 2nd and 3rd party. There investment in 2nd party Japanese exclusives got them nowhere. Welll, it got them much further than last gen, but relatively nowhere by the competitors standards. So short of buying DQ or FF, which would cost far too much for the benefits, I don't see any advantages to MS owning Japanese studios. I guess if your perspective is a Japanese gamer, MS owning studios would ensure regional content ensuring a trust when buying their console, versus not wanting to buy their console because you doubt relevant games will materialise. But everythings pretty much multiplatform these days anywhere, so that's not an issue, especially going forwards.
cue - the usual suspects making the usually xenophobic statements
I wouldnt worry about too much, theyre what just over 10% of the worldwide market (they used to be ~20%)
the thing is their tastes are completely different to most of the western ppls, look at the films,fashion
and video games.
look at the PSP sales, where else has the PSP done even 50% as well as in Japan?
At the start of this generation I predicted what would happen WRT MS and how(*) they went about trying to 'win' japan and how it was bound to fail. They should of listened, at least they listened when I said pay nokia billions to put WP7 on their phones
(*)paying a few well known developers lots of cash to develop new unproven IPs
I wouldnt worry about too much, theyre what just over 10% of the worldwide market (they used to be ~20%)
the thing is their tastes are completely different to most of the western ppls, look at the films,fashion
and video games.
look at the PSP sales, where else has the PSP done even 50% as well as in Japan?
At the start of this generation I predicted what would happen WRT MS and how(*) they went about trying to 'win' japan and how it was bound to fail. They should of listened, at least they listened when I said pay nokia billions to put WP7 on their phones
(*)paying a few well known developers lots of cash to develop new unproven IPs
I'd say MS was going after a different goal in Japan. The goal being to secure the support of Japanese developers for the western markets. Where they bet wrong was the importance of Japanese studios this generation.
Western publishers and studios have really dominated this gen while the Japanese studios have fallen behind. Even guys like Kojima will has made numerous comments on such.
In that sense of securing support, MS has succeed. They are now getting Final Fantasy, Metal Gear and other "Japan centric" games on their platform. That's a huge win.
And Zed, they did try hard at the beginning to secure local games but the public just didn't bite hard enough to justify dumping more money into them.
Next gen, they will already have the major studio and publisher support from Japan thus that budget is better spent on mainland Europe where they are much more competitive and just need better regional focus.
Western publishers and studios have really dominated this gen while the Japanese studios have fallen behind. Even guys like Kojima will has made numerous comments on such.
In that sense of securing support, MS has succeed. They are now getting Final Fantasy, Metal Gear and other "Japan centric" games on their platform. That's a huge win.
And Zed, they did try hard at the beginning to secure local games but the public just didn't bite hard enough to justify dumping more money into them.
Next gen, they will already have the major studio and publisher support from Japan thus that budget is better spent on mainland Europe where they are much more competitive and just need better regional focus.
I don't think I ever stated that I think Sony intentionally treat their EU customers poorly. No, I believe it's worse than that in that they unintentionally treat them poorly.
Surely you remember the situation where Sony's EU top brass had to buy PSP's from Lik Sang because SCEJ didn't see fit to supply their own staff with them?
Or, for a more recent example, it was announced yesterday that previously Japan Only PS1 titles are going to be available to EU PSN gamers to purchase. Excellent. Except the same service was available in the US over a year ago.
Note that these are the games in their original form and no localisation has been needed. Also, there is no cost (risk) in terms of physical media. Yet it has still taken more than a year for this service to have become available.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-04-psn-imports-announced-for-europe
The simple argument, again, is that if MS can price the EU markets on close to a level-par with the other major markets, why can't Sony? They've been at it long enough to have found a way.
Sorry, that 'slashing the UK price bit' was in relation to the original Xbox launch (I stuck the 360 bit on the end by mistake) where within a few months of launch they knocked something like £100 of the MSRP, but went out of their way to reimburse those early adopters.
Since then (and definately with the 360) $ price goes down and the € and £ prices are reduced accordingly. Also, what are you on about focusing on English and Spanish speaking countries? The 360 is available in (and mostly localised for) all EU countries.
Once they are talking EMEA, then they may cover a couple more countries. But in the EU region all 3 major console manufacturers are fighting in the same markets.
There are always going to be localised content. For example, outside of Japan there is little desire for Hentai-type content. That is not the issue here.
The fact remains that Sony (and to an extent Nintendo) have pretty much maintained the same stance in the EU marketplace. "Launch last and launch more expensive," followed by "keep updates to last and keep price more expensive"
Microsoft have taken a different approach since early in the lifecycle of the original Xbox, making sure that EU gamers get (such as with the change from the original Xbox controller to the smaller one) get the new content at much the same time as elsewhere in the world..... "and while we're at it let's not stiff the Europeans on the price."
There are inherent channel conflict and complex licensing issues across regions. ^_^
There are also services available in EU but not in US, like PlayTV, VidZone, etc.
This is patently false. Logistics cost in a complex, heterogeneous market can be very different. Besides scale, custom, business channel, tariffs, and language issues, there are also overheads like theft/loss and strikes in public transports.
If Sony can make online gaming free, why can't MS ? "They have been at it long enough to have found a way", plus their MSN, Bing side of businesses should provide sufficient economy of scale. By your definition, MS cheat/ill-treat gamers out of their hard earn money just because they charge for XBL ?
MS's EU presence is different from Sony's. Sony's EU cost structure and businesses are different from MS. Having a business office in a country doesn't tell me about their company activities there.
Both Sony and MS adjust for currency fluctuation where it makes sense. I remember Sony and MS adjust for Canadian $ independently. Plus Sony has a different timeline to drop PS3 price anyway.
For development and efficiency reasons, Kinect focused on English and Spanish speaking customers first. Sony execs also mentioned that outside of UK, Sony led MS by 50% margin. But in UK, the situation is reverse. This implies that MS marketing is more focused in UK in EU.
And yes, I am referring to EMEA. It is not uncommon for MNCs to lump Europe and Middle-east together. I believe I saw a EMEA country list for both MS and Sony in GAF, but I can't find it now.
I don't know if it's a stance, as opposed to just the nature of EU being a heterogenous market, and strong Japanese yen.
I've mentioned licensing issues before, so no argument there. But over a year for old PS1 titles to be available in Europe? And what licensing issues were in place that forced the delay of 6 months for the DS3 to come to Europe?
So yes, licensing issues are all to real and present. Though when we are talking about music and movie media, there is no better placed console manufacturer to break through some of that red tape. That they don't, that their main console competitor can supply such media before they can, is embarrasing to say the least.
How so? In the example I quoted the only associated cost is bandwidth when a title is downloaded, and by its very nature that cost is built in to the price paid in advance of the download.
Really? You're using that as an argument?
So how about, "If MS can offer X-game chat, why can't Sony? They've had 5 years to get it right."
True. The result being that Sony consistently charge Europeans more than the Japanese and North Americans for their hardware, Microsoft don't.
Of that there is no argument. Again, it's disappointing given how long Sony have been at this that they haven't found a way to do things differently.
At no point has the EU PS3 price been comprable to the US or JPN price. But you're right, Sony ensure that the currency rates maintain that situation for European gamers.
Yes they did, for the voice elements of Kinect. However, that didn't stop them launching in other regions at the same time as in the US.
As for the marketing thing, Europe (especially the southern european states) is Sonyland, where Playstation=console. The UK is somewhat different in that they bought into the 'hardcore' game experience almost from day 1 Xbox launch. In Germany, for example, the 'hardcore' still game on PC primarily.
But you're right in that MS should have focused more of their marketing $'s on Europe at launch of the 360. In fact, I'm pretty sure that was my first point.... why waste all of that energy, focus and cash in the Japanese market, where greater returns would almost certainly have been seen if it was directed to the European market.
But again, that's another red herring by stating somehow Sony have it harder because they count more countries in EMEA. For example, Australia falls into the EMEA grouping for Sony and not for MS, but that doesn't mean MS doesn't serve Australia.
I don't know either. But maybe if you had to wait longer and pay more (and often get less) on a consistent basis, as opposed to getting it earlier and paying less as you currently do, then it's entirely possible you would be less of an apologist for a global corporation that cannot competently act globally?
Phhppt... one can always look for a negative argument without sufficient info. Sony may just decide they want people to focus on buying new PS3 games first -- for the sake of the developers. PS1 games are abundant in Japan, but they also didn't make it to US until rather late. It doesn't mean they are trying to screw EU and US customers.
I looks like you're set to pin "Sony is bad against EU customers unintentionally or untentionally". Businesses are just not run this way. They need $$$. They are not a religion or cult group.
I was referring to your statement that there is no cost associated with a physical media.
How about recording video while playing a PS3 game ? They are different services with different focus. Shuhei cited memory is a limiting factor. They chose to go other route instead.
It is futile to pull comparisons like this.
PS3 is more expensive to begin with. It also supports open standards such as SATA 2.5" HDD. MS overcharge _all_ their customers in HDD, and perhaps other peripherals. Maintaining the same, high price everywhere doesn't sound exactly friendly either.
Controllers, headset, etc. are priced according to what the market will bear for both 360 and PS3.
I stopped reading your last post at this point. ^_^
Have better things to do.
Seems like you stopped before even reading the first post...since Rotmm clearly was talking about digital distribution which he even mentioned again in which you clearly missed...again. Arguing that either of these companies is "friendlier" than the other is insane.
As was mentioned in other posts neither the 360 nor the PS3 is healthy in Japan I would imagine both companies taking a long hard look at that particular market but I don't foresee either eschewing the market.
I know he was talking about DD but his point about physical media was wrong. I didn't counter his DD argument except to remind him that Sony may have an interest in selling PS3 games first, before PS1 and PS2 games.
Also, there is no cost (risk) in terms of physical media.
There is NO risk in physical media because there is NO physical media involved unless you are somehow talking about the data warehouse where these items are stored but I'm not sure how much a public transit strike matters in that case...
And you'd be right. There's no excuse for Sony, other than they're pretty useless in that regard. What Patsu's missing is the bank-balance - anyone can offer free online if they don't care about being profitable.
I've rechecked some of my prior 'knowledge' on prices and see that you're righ; Sony have been charging a higher premium for Europe than local market warrants in some cases, and very signifcantly at times. However, that's not one black mark against Sony and a clean sheet for MS because Sony do actually release their products in Europe, whereas MS sometimes don't. Even if PSP launched a year late in Europe, at least it launched unlike Zune.
It'll always cost more for the same hardware due to taxes and general costs (taxes through the whole distrubtion and marketing chain, cover for statutory guarantees, etc.), unless the console company is willing to take a bigger hit to gain market share, which Sony don't need to do. If the roles were reversed and MS could charge more, they would. I agree Sony have been charging Euro premiums, very significant in some cases that I missed, so that's a big negative against them. A...20% markup shouldn't be seen as unfair though.
For me, this is the fundamental difference. Perhaps neither can claim to treat Europe as equals to the other markets, but where Sony may charge more and release later for European markets at which you rightly take offense, they do at least recognise there's more to Europe than whoever buys with Euros and speaks in English. MS typically target the US and then release whatever US products they create to the rest of the world. The non-English library for Lips is a handful of songs, versus a much bigger (if still tiddly compared to English) range for SingStar. MS released Kinect that plain doesn't fits great in the large US living rooms but doesn't work in a lot of small European homes, and with no support for languages outside of their NA languages. They have developed products like Zune that they've never launched outside of America.
I don't think either deserves credit for supporting Europe fairly.
...
For me, this is the fundamental difference. Perhaps neither can claim to treat Europe as equals to the other markets, but where Sony may charge more and release later for European markets at which you rightly take offense, they do at least recognise there's more to Europe than whoever buys with Euros and speaks in English. MS typically target the US and then release whatever US products they create to the rest of the world. The non-English library for Lips is a handful of songs, versus a much bigger (if still tiddly compared to English) range for SingStar. MS released Kinect that plain doesn't fits great in the large US living rooms but doesn't work in a lot of small European homes, and with no support for languages outside of their NA languages. They have developed products like Zune that they've never launched outside of America.
I don't think either deserves credit for supporting Europe fairly.
This is a statement I could get behind and one of which I concur. Of course I'm biased, but, there is simply no reason that for MSFT at least the Spanish speaking countries couldn't be better represented given the very large population within the states that speaks Spanish. I couldn't find a Lips in Spanish version in any store here in Chicago I KNOW we have a huge population. Hell, there is at least one spanglish song on the radio during every rotation! SingStar is a couple orders of magnitude better than that...at a minimum...
I don't disagree with that but that wasn't the premise of your statement unless you want to separate their dev arm from their publishing/parent company arm.
Who exactly do you view as a strong Japanese publisher or maybe my question is better asked as, which Japanese publisher has more pull than someone like an Ubisoft?
You are missing the point. The Japanese publisher is selling you a culture, as a collective unit. Games like Metal Gear, Resident Evil, Fantasy Fantasy etc have history that Microsoft wants to be apart of. The perception Microsoft has is they need this 'property' to be successful. There is not an "European" culture indigenity in gaming that's recognizable separately from what they are doing in North America, that they are willing to sink money into the market like Japan. They reality is for Europeans: they view it as extension of the North American market. My suggestion to Europeans is to get over it and assimilate or develop your own cultural indigenity.
Last edited by a moderator:
No point in that. Only reason for rrod was because ms wanted to launch in xmas. Things got rushed without proper testing.
Using Jpn engineers for the hardware would not change anything, Outside of getting a much weaker gpu and a pointlessly strong CPU.
Regarding bang for the buck, xbox360 was better designed. Easier to develop, much cheaper to produce, and graphically more or less on par (at least from casual eyes) .
It's not like Japanese products don't crap up also and are perfect...
I can see how you misinterpreted my statement.
What I meant was have them design the outer shell, and the layout of the guts of the xbox720.
The actual GPU, CPU, Ram etc should still be handled here (IBM/AMD). They had no problem in executing rather well in that regard with xb360 and I suspect xb720 will be a repeat. However, when putting these components together in a box, that's where MS ran into trouble.
Seriously, the engineers that decided to put the cpu & gpu under the dvd drive in the first gen design should be shot.
Let a Toshiba/Panasonic/Samsung go ahead and design the board layout, cooling solution and outer-shell - and then brand accordingly.
Speaking of design and outer shell form factors etc:
http://betanews.com/2011/10/05/live-tv-on-xbox-360-launching-in-20-countries-with-40-content-partners/
Pure mathematics say they may be spending more in Europe. I mean, Europe is like 5 or 6 times the size of Japan and twice the size of the US. Though, even if I don't have any numbers in front of me to suggest on a per capita basis they are spending more in Japan - it's likely.
