Analyzing Current Decisions of Microsoft and Sony and Looking to the future.

I am eagerly anticipating Sony's rise from this proverbial slump that they have been in.  The PS3 slim is going to be a breath of fresh air after all of this negativity.  I criticized Sony for their arrogance in the past, but what can I say?  When you're the Kobe Bryant of game consoles, maybe you deserve to get a little cocky once in a while.  I am also eagerly expecting to see what Microsoft does in response to this.  They pretty much dug a hole for themselves, and maybe they will pay their way out of it.  Next generation I am expecting Microsoft to address several of the problems that have plagued their console - not only the reliability issues but also the price of their accessories, and their lack of first party studios.  Sony is going to prove that it's okay to be in the red for an extended period of time as long as you have the hardware to back you up.  Microsoft did the reverse of that.  They cut down quality to cut down costs and it led them down a dark path.

I see this whole thing like Star Wars.  In the end, Darth Vader...cough.. um, I mean Microsoft, will hopefully be redeemed by it's recognition of its good intentions.  And together both Sony and Microsoft will throw Nintendo down a shaft, jk.  What I really want Microsoft to do is buckle down and research the best and most reliable tech possible for their next console.  As they say, the third time is the charm, so maybe the Xbox3 will be the console that the 360 failed to be.  With all the money that Microsoft is throwing around to secure timed exclusives, a humble man like myself wonders why Microsoft didn't shop around for studios to buy.  Why didn't Microsoft purchase Bioware when it had the chance?   Why hasn't Microsoft announced anything from Rare, the fabled company that has left their best days in the past?  These are the things that I think about.

Why does Microsoft seem so desperate to have their fingers in everything?  What the hell is Bing?  Look at Bing for a second and you can see why Microsoft fails.  Google still remains the most popular search engine on the face of the earth.  And it's just a plain search bar with a simple interface.  It doesn't pretend to be a "decision engine."  In the end, only the person can make the decision.

Let's get back to the Xbox brand.  Microsoft's intentions with this console are very short-sighted.  Project Natal to me seems like an interesting idea but I am very certain that Microsoft did not head into this generation with motion controls in mind.  Neither did Sony, I assume.  Both companies are looking at Nintendo's success in sheer disbelief, and they are trying to get in on Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy.  Microsoft's lack of foresight is ever-present in their ADD-like stance with their console.  We have no idea why they have remained in this position for so long.  The position of which I speak is the one where Microsoft always seems to have one of it's feet inside the door and the other one outside the door.   Obviously it means that Microsoft is always prepared to bail itself out of any venture that it ventures into.  That is the main problem with Microsoft.  Everyone here is saying that no matter what we think of the Xbox brand, we must admit that it's here to stay and it's not going anywhere.

I say nay to that.  My thoughts on the matter are clear.  If Microsoft was in this for the long haul I think they would have bought up several first party studios to build the muscle behind the Xbox brand, yet they have not.  If Microsoft was in this for the long haul, they would have invested more money into creating a more substantial "true" exclusive library than they have.  I also expect that if Microsoft was in it for the long haul they would have taken some risks with the tech of the console.  Yet they always have one of their feet out of the door in those kinds of situations.  Rather than including HD-DVD into the console they kept it distant as an accessory.  That, to me, speaks volumes about Microsoft's lack of commitment in their console.

I have no stake in either Microsoft's or Sony's success.  The only thing I want is a console to play games on.  Both consoles afford gamers that ability but one of them is more dedicated, at least in my opinion.  Microsoft has, of course, made some great innovations this gen.  The achievements feature is greatly appreciated at times, and other times I hate it, but still, it's their idea.  The procedural synthesis method of compressing video games is a clever idea, regardless of how people feel about it.  And Microsoft pioneered online communities for consoles.  Yes, Dreamcast had it, but the Xbox made it a cohesive part of gaming.

Still, it's sad to see Microsoft's short agenda of goals for its console.  The main objective was to make it popular amongst third party developers by making the architecture easy to work with.  They succeeded.  The next step was to up the ante in online play by making Xbox LIVE a major network for gaming.  They succeeded.  But where they succeeded with these bulletpoints they also failed.  By making the architecture easy to work with, third party developers were and are able to get most of the power of the 360 up front without much effort.  Giving a guy 100 dollars up front means he is going to spend the whole shebang on one or two things.  The 360 isn't being pushed efficiently.  The problem with LIVE is that it costs money.  Some people say it is worth the money.  Their perception of value is right for them, but a PS3 fan once asked, "If playing online was free for Xbox LIVE silver, and everything else cost the five bucks per month, would you pay the fee?"  My answer is no.  I would be content with playing online for free rather than paying cash so I could get superfluous glitzy features that are not essential to my gaming experience.

Microsoft needs to head into the next generation with a very clear set of goals in mind.  Rather than play the game of "follow the money," which also got them into the console industry, they need decide who they want their audience to be.  They need to decide how they are going to meet the demands of gamers.  They need to use their monetary resources wisely to come up with a strategy on what they are going to release each year their console is on the market.  They need to buy a bunch of first party studios because if Microsoft wants to contend with Sony, they need to have the resources to churn out a large variety of games.  They need to create an integrated community within their studios, much like Sony has done.  By this I mean, they need to have their studios constantly exploring the console with the tools available to them and share their ideas and technology with each other.  No more reliance on middleware engines.  Microsoft needs to decide what their console needs to include to be future-proof.  They cannot make every basic component a ridiculously priced accessory.  Finally, they need to take that foot that they have outside the door, and move it inside, because that is the only way that Microsoft will commit itself to doing things right.  No more back doors and exit strategies.  No more cutting corners, no more "me toos."  Microsoft needs to create unique properties that cannot be matched by the competition.  They need to stop looking at games like God of War and coming up with cheap clones.  Instead, they need to make a list of all the things Sony has and come up with ideas that Sony doesn't have.  That is the key.

I guess I will end this long piece of work here and maybe continue my discussion with people if they decide to comment.  But before I cease writing I just want to say that I don't hate Microsoft or love Sony.  I am not that kind of person.  I don't care deeply about any of this, but I do care about games and am excited to see how much cooler they will get.  To me, seeing Microsoft create a solid console that everyone will love would be great because it would then push Sony even further to strive to do better.

[Saaking]

I agree. MS rushed into this gen without much thought other than "let's beat Sony." Through this they ended up with a plethora of hardware failures and lawsuits. They lost over a billion due to RROD not to mention the billions lost for the original Xbox. MS closed studios and decided to depend on third party something Sony learned not to do. MS is now trying to grasp the casual market with Natal and again I don't think they'll succeed.

Whether you agree or not I don't care. Sony has been doing this for longer than MS and they know what they're doing. If you look at what's been happening with the PS3 it seems Sony has mapped out their trajectory for 2009 and 2010. MS on the other hand really has no where to go. They can't drop the price anymore, Halo won't save them, and they have all their hopes on Natal. I'm sure this generation will serve as a lesson to MS so that if they decide to continue the third xbox will be a lot better.

[Sonyslave3]

Please tell why MS can't drop 360 prices anymore but sony can GTFO with that BS.

[Cold 2000]

I completely disagrre with your blog and I think it has huge flaws in it so my post is going to b pretty long.

1: "Sony is going to prove that it's okay to be in the red for an extended period of time as long as you have the hardware to back you up." ---> hardware doesnt get you out of the red, software does. You can have the best hardware on planet earth but if it doesnt sell as much as u expect it to you will stay in the red. Good hardware helps sell the console, and the more consoles you sell the more software
you sell and thats where MS and Sony get there money from: software and not hardware.

2: "Why hasn't Microsoft announced anything from Rare, the fabled company that has left their best days in the past?": ---> MS are 1000 times better than Sony at keeping secrets. E3 proved that again with Crackdown 2, lfd2 and Forza 3 announced in June and out in October. So don't worry about that. MS simply work in different way than Sony

3: "Why does Microsoft seem so desperate to have their fingers in everything? What the hell is Bing? Look at Bing for a second and you can see why Microsoft fails": ---> What the heck ?! MS are a software company that have always had a major role in everything PC so OF COURSE they'll be in the internet business too. Its their domain !!! I cant believe you actually said that. Funny how its fine for Sony to be in the PC business, TV, MP3, Hi-Fi, Videogame, Digital camera and you think thats ok but for MS to invest in the internet business is weird for you...though its tigthly linked to the PC and software business ?? And I dont think Bing has failed simply because they arent 1st, in that case Sony fails in 80% of the business's theyre in since they arent 1st in everything. I mean look they arent even 2nd this gen let alone 1st.

4: "Microsoft's intentions with this console are very short-sighted. Project Natal to me seems like an interesting idea but I am very certain that Microsoft did not head into this generation with motion controls in mind" ---> MS have repeated a 1000 times that the 360 will last till 2015 at least. Now how is that short sighted ??

5: "If Microsoft was in this for the long haul I think they would have bought up several first party studios to build the muscle behind the Xbox brand, yet they have not. If Microsoft was in this for the long haul, they would have invested more money into creating a more substantial "true" exclusive library than they have.": ---> once again the 360 is to last at least till 2015, so yr "long hail" argument fails. Moreover console and PC are NOT the same category hence 360 versions of games have 0 impact on there PC versions. Its a business decision from MS. It allows them to cover more potential buyers than if it were on 360 alone. The 360 now has a bigger install base hence MS not doing that anymore: Fable 2, Gears 2, Halo 3, Crackdown 2, Alan Wake etc etc arent coming to PC ever.

5:"Rather than including HD-DVD into the console they kept it distant as an accessory. That, to me, speaks volumes about Microsoft's lack of commitment in their console.": ---> That is because MS CHOSE DVD and NOT HD DVD as their format. The very important word right there is "CHOSE" Hence why they didnt add HD DVD to the 360. Its a tech and business decision. Price has been a key factor in the 360's success, adding HD DVD would have destroyed the price advantage and the 360 would NEVER have been where it is now. So you see, by not adding HD DVD is shows how committed they are to making the 360 a success.

6: "Microsoft needs to head into the next generation with a very clear set of goals in mind. Rather than play the game of "follow the money," which also got them into the console industry": ---> And you call yourself unbiased ?? What the heck do you think got Sony into this business ??? I repeat: WHAT DO YOU THINK GOT SONY INTO THIS BUSINESS ???

7: "They need to stop looking at games like God of War and coming up with cheap clones." Which cheap clone has MS came up with by looking at GOW3 ??? Man its clear what you're trying to do. You're a lot more stealthy than others but the farther you get in your blog the more obvious it is that you aren't unbiased like you try to show but heavily PS3 biased. If that isnt the case then that simply means you have a very weird way of seeing things. How on planet earth did u get to that assmuption ?
What about the new ip's they bring in this gen, just to name a few: ME, Gears, Crackdown, Blue Dragon, Alan Wake, Viva Pinata, Lost Odyssey, Kameo etc etc. Funny how you DO NOT see that but DO see imaginary GOW3 clones...

There you have it my opinion. And there's ONE thing you musn't forget: MS know A LOT more and A LOT better than you what they're doing with the 360 and where they're going with it hence why the 360 is STILL 8 million ahead of the PS3 when people like you thought the gap would be closed by the PS3 in a very short time and still selling well.

[Sonyslave3]

Damn you just own that ps3fanboy lol he said Ms need to stop with cheap God of War clones. Which doesn't existed but he failed to mention Sony cheap Halo clones.

[kaveti6616]

"hardware doesnt get you out of the red, software does. You can have the best hardware on planet earth but if it doesnt sell as much as u expect it to you will stay in the red. Good hardware helps sell the console, and the more consoles you sell the more software
you sell and thats where MS and Sony get there money from: software and not hardware."

I was referring to a number of things when I commented about the hardware issue. Microsoft, as you well know, did make an unreliable machine with the xbox 360. The Xbox 360 had a very high failure rate when it launched. Microsoft launched the Xbox 360 in a rush to gain marketshare quickly. Microsoft also decided to keep the price of the Xbox 360 reasonable at launch by doing two things. First, they used inexpensive materials to construct the 360. For example, the Nyko fan, the one that makes a considerable amount of noise, is one example of cheap hardware materials that the 360 had. Its ineffectiveness was also one of the reasons why launch 360s had overheating issues. Microsoft decided to make the 360 out of cheaper materialis because they wanted to incur as little a loss as possible. They were already planning on selling at a loss in order keep the price reasonable. Here is the issue I was getting at with my comment.

Microsoft decided to launch the Xbox 360 very quickly when it learned that Sony had delayed the launch of the PS3. Sony launched the PS3 in November 2006 in NA at the infamous "599 American Dollars." But Sony made their hardware reliable. They used high quality products to make the PS3. Their hardware was very expensive to make, as you may have heard. They were incurring a much larger loss for every console sold that Microsoft had been with their console. But here's the kicker.

The Xbox 360's high failure rate forced Microsoft to issue an extension on the warranty, and that has cost them upwards of a billion dollars. Sony made their hardware reliable but very costly. Both of them have software, so I have no idea what your point is about software. Microsoft has 300 more games than Sony, yes, but there are a number of reasons for that. The first reason is that Microsoft went straight to the third party developers at launch and promoted the 360's familiar architecture. The PS3 was and still is more difficult to develop games for than the 360. Also, Sony was a bit arrogant about their hardware. They deliberately made the PS3 harder to develop for because they thought that the PS3's marketshare would trump the 360 very quickly. They thought that they could force third party developers to spend so much time with the PS3 that they would abandon the 360 hardware. Many third party developers didn't bite. One notable example is Valve, which has chosen not to support the PS3 because they don't want to work with an unnecessarily complicated architecture.

But I didn't say anything about the software. We are talking specifically about the hardware. Sony's decision to make their hardware reliable has earned them a better reputation, while Microsoft's decision to make the 360 unreliable has earned them a reputation for being a shady company with unscrupulous practices (at least on this website). Sony hasn't had to allocate money for PS3 repairs. They charge a great deal of money for each consumer that requires a PS3 repair. While this sounds mean (and it may be), Sony has limited the number of people that will need their PS3 repaired. With the PS3 slim revision, Sony has managed to cut the price of manufacturing by a great deal and is expecting to earn money on each unit sold. While you're correct in saying that the money is in software rather than hardware, you should at least appreciate the fact that most of the money that both Microsoft and Sony have lost has been because of hardware rather than software. Sony has ensured that their hardware's design is not going to bite them in the ass. Microsoft cannot say that same, considering that RROD is a widespread problem. While I have yet to have my 360 die on me, three of my friends who have 360s have all gotten the RROD. If you want to talk about software, I could bring up the fact that Sony makes most of their software investments in first party companies, whereas Microsoft relies mostly on third party companies to give them timed exclusives like Lost Planet 1&2. Microsoft also spent 50 million bucks to secure two DLC add-ons for Grand Theft Auto 4 rather than investing that money in something better for the long term, like buying a studio or developing a first party exclusive. Let's really not get into the whole software issue because it's a very subjective matter. Suffice it to say that both consoles have great games on them, but the way in which they get their games is going start making a difference. If Sony has the ability to churn out more console-exclusives, year after year, starting from 2009, then I have to admit that Sony will have something to brag about.

"MS are 1000 times better than Sony at keeping secrets. E3 proved that again with Crackdown 2, lfd2 and Forza 3 announced in June and out in October. So don't worry about that. MS simply work in different way than Sony"

What does keeping secrets have anything to do with it? If Rare has something to announce, then great, but it doesn't change the fact that it has yet to announce a game, but at the same time, the point of that comment was to say that Microsoft should be spending a lot more time with its first party studios rather than announcing timed third party exclusives. Obviously, Microsoft does keep stuff close to their chest, but you really shouldn't have picked out that one little bit of my argument and made a STRAW MAN out of it. My comment about first party studios is in a much more meaningful context if you take into account that Microsoft has closed several studios this generation and hasn't lunged at the opportunity to buy Bioware when it had that chance. Now Bioware is with EA, and all the PS3 fanboys can talk about is Mass Effect coming to the PS3.

If you still think I'm a fanboy in this regard, then you should check my comments and see if there ever was a time when I made such erroneous claims. I usually spend most of my time defending the 360. But since I am unbiased, I do have a wide range of opinions on the matter. If Microsoft wishes to keep its games exclusive, it should take more initiative. Even Bungie has left Microsoft. What does that tell you.

"What the heck ?! MS are a software company that have always had a major role in everything PC so OF COURSE they'll be in the internet business too. Its their domain !!! I cant believe you actually said that. Funny how its fine for Sony to be in the PC business, TV, MP3, Hi-Fi, Videogame, Digital camera and you think thats ok but for MS to invest in the internet business is weird for you...though its tigthly linked to the PC and software business ?? And I dont think Bing has failed simply because they arent 1st, in that case Sony fails in 80% of the business's theyre in since they arent 1st in everything. I mean look they arent even 2nd this gen let alone 1st."

What you said there is called the "Tu Quoque" fallacy, or the "you're doing it, too" fallacy. Yes, it's true, Sony has its hands in a lot of different markets. But I see you carefully chose to neglect my point about Microsoft always having one of its feet inside the door and the other one out of the door. I'm of the contention that Microsoft isn't making a very whole-hearted effort with the endeavors that it becomes involved in. The first Xbox, for example, is a clear indication of Microsoft's inclination to jump ship at the first sign of trouble. Same with Windows ME and Vista. Microsoft always has an exit strategy. When the PS3 first launched it was viewed as a complete failure. The media painted it as an awkward machine with no future prospects. Gabe Newell's initial comments about the PS3 are well-documented, and Microsoft criticized the Cell as "just a bunch of DSPs attached to an outdated GPU." Sony didn't drop the PS3. They have stuck with it through very harsh times. Look at Microsoft in comparison. Windows Vista is assuredly not as bad as the media has painted it. It is not a crap operating system that Apple fanboys say it is. But look at what Microsoft did. They did not stick through the hard times. They have chosen to launch a new OS just a few years since Vista. And now they're doing this whole Bing thing. Why? Don't you think they should commit themselves to the projects they've already signed on to? Obviously, now that they have Bing, they should commit to it. But you said probably one of the dumbest things. You said they don't have to be first place with it. True, they don't, but that confirms what I am saying. Microsoft has their hands in a whole bunch of things but they clearly are not trying to be the best in everything they do. On the other hand, Sony is trying to be the best. As you say, they aren't first place in 80 percent of the things that they are involved in. I take solace in the fact that Sony tries to be first place by making high quality products. Microsoft looks like they are trying to make a quick buck. Ultimately, they are both trying to make money.

Also, I like how willing you are to believe Microsoft's comments about the 360s life cycle. Do you know why it's funny? It's funny because when Sony said that the PS3 was going to have a 10 year life-cycle, Microsoft responded to that by saying it was ridiculous and stupid for a console to have a 10 year-life cycle. After Sony's promise was well-received amongst reviewers, Microsoft issued a comment stating that they would support the 360 one day longer than Sony would support the PS3. This, again, shows Microsoft's attitude. They want to beat Sony so bad but again they only want to do so at the minimum cost to them, hence their "one day longer than Sony" statement. Not one year, not one month, but only a single day. And on that day they would probably make a big deal of it. I honestly do not think Microsoft will support the 360 longer than 7 years but that's just me.

"That is because MS CHOSE DVD and NOT HD DVD as their format. The very important word right there is "CHOSE" Hence why they didnt add HD DVD to the 360. Its a tech and business decision. Price has been a key factor in the 360's success, adding HD DVD would have destroyed the price advantage and the 360 would NEVER have been where it is now. So you see, by not adding HD DVD is shows how committed they are to making the 360 a success."

Price HAS been a key factor, but it has also been a key detriment. Because Microsoft chose to use the bare minimum technology in the 360, their console has been unreliable. Yes, Microsoft did choose the DVD. They chose not to add the HD-DVD as a main feature and guess what. That's probably what killed the HD-DVD. If Microsoft had chosen to fully support the HD-DVD format, that may have spurred the popularity of the format. But they didn't I say "may" because I don't want to commit a fallacy. But the fact of the matter is that Microsoft had three choices that I can think of off the top of my head. Those choices were: DVD, Blu-Ray, or HD-DVD. Microsoft didn't want to support Sony by including Blu-Ray, and Microsoft didn't want to commit to supporting future technology for fear of it failing and them being stuck with it.

So guess what Microsoft chose? They chose the DVD9. They had two future-tech options and one outdated option, but rather than give Sony some royalty fees, they chose DVD9. And now developers like Rockstar are publicly stating that the DVD9 has limited the scope of their games. I will not deny that GTAIV is better on the 360 than on the PS3, but the potential to make a larger GTA is limited by the DVD9. There's just not enough memory capacity.

"And you call yourself unbiased ?? What the heck do you think got Sony into this business ??? I repeat: WHAT DO YOU THINK GOT SONY INTO THIS BUSINESS ???"

As I stated above and many times before, both companies got into the console business for the money. But the differences between them is their practices. Again, I am unbiased. I really don't care about either company. I know that neither company cares about me as a person. They don't care if I enjoy their games or not. They don't care if I die or starve or become afflicted with some disease. So, yes, I am unbiased. I have a 360. I do not have a PS3. I care about the games, and both consoles have a good share. I would really appreciate it if you didn't use little fragments of meaningless comments that I wrote as evidence of my alleged biases. I'm not like Saaking or Why Dis. Quite frankly, I'm also not like you, because I see that the manner in which you approached my blog post is what I would call, Aggressive Defense. You don't have to defend Microsoft. They pay people to do that. I don't say mean, false things like the Sony fanboys. I don't say that one console has better games than another.

"Which cheap clone has MS came up with by looking at GOW3 ??? Man its clear what you're trying to do. You're a lot more stealthy than others but the farther you get in your blog the more obvious it is that you aren't unbiased like you try to show but heavily PS3 biased. If that isnt the case then that simply means you have a very weird way of seeing things. How on planet earth did u get to that assmuption ?
What about the new ip's they bring in this gen, just to name a few: ME, Gears, Crackdown, Blue Dragon, Alan Wake, Viva Pinata, Lost Odyssey, Kameo etc etc. Funny how you DO NOT see that but DO see imaginary GOW3 clones..."

Ninja Blade. Okay, disregard this part of my blog. Obviously I was infected by the likes of HipHopGamer, whose enthusiasm I respect, but whose claims I do not. Both companies have made new IPs this generation.

"MS know A LOT more and A LOT better than you what they're doing with the 360 and where they're going with it hence why the 360 is STILL 8 million ahead of the PS3 when people like you thought the gap would be closed by the PS3 in a very short time and still selling well."

People like me really don't care about anything. People like are few and far between. With this last statement you have revealed yourself. It's amusing to see you, at least in your writing, display such offense at your perception of me as a biased Sony fan, when you do such a poor job of concealing your own biases.

[Cold 2000]

First of all I want to apologize for my unnecessarily aggressive post.
Its just that I disagree totally with almost everything you said and I'm someone who believes in what I say, so sorry if I came out all aggressive and stuff.

Moreover I was convinced you were just a little sony fanboy who behind his PC monitor thinks he knows everything and comes out with all the stupid assumptions without even thinking for a minute. I see that I was wrong and anyway everyone has a right to have his own opinion.

Second, I'm not unbiased and have never said that I was one. On the contrary I'm an open 360 fan, but do own a PS3 too though. And I'm not trying to defend MS or anything its just that I disagreed completely with your post. I could have said that you were trying to diss MS, but its just that you have a different opinion than mine. You see it just depends from what angle you decide to see it.
That's why I asked u why do you think Sony got into this business: I wanted to show you at what point neither MS nor Sony care for us. All they want is our money. I thought you were a PS3 fanboy, and they seem to believe that Sony is in this business out of love for them and generosity etc, while MS is in for the money...

That said thanks for your reply, game on ^^