Im actually ok with it too. Gotta pay sometimes to get games. Like them sending devs to Larian for BG3. You make it back on the flip side. Have to have the narrative that "We have X games too"
What sells well in Japan? Just look at what is selling in Japan. Nintendo software.
MS is incompetent at managing their studios. We can see it with the delays and substandard releases. Yes, Flight Simulator, Forza and probably Starfield are good (and can't really attribute Starfield to MS all things considered).
).
MS is incompetent at managing their studios. We can see it with the delays and substandard releases. Yes, Flight Simulator, Forza and probably Starfield are good (and can't really attribute Starfield to MS all things considered).
Japan? Capcom, From, even SE are making pretty good games. And that's not counting plenty of other studios like Atlus, Falcom, Sega (ok, this one is iffy
For sub services, GamePass appears to be stagnating in sub numbers, and most to the growth is on PC side.
MS is locking up gaming studios and they are producing crap. That's not certainly beneficial.
Absolutely, my dad is 71 and still scours the green sheets looking for old Sony stereo revivers (1970s - 1980s) and record players.Sony is a very difficult business to go against…
Remember when bill said this?
Using an Android phone was what made me an IPhone fan.
Sony is a very difficult business to go against…
Remember when bill said this?
Eh, I will agree to disagree, don't think console gaming would have died if not for Halo. Porting shooters to consoles was logical next tsteo. Halo was certainly influential but it was not the savior of the industry.
Throw in Sony's mobile phone efforts or portable music players. Or their ebook readers. Sony as a brand is not a sure way to sales success.
We all know GoldenEye 64 saved the industry even more and before that the NES, after the console crash in the 80s! Nintendo our savior
And nothing has changed in those 16 years. They're all the same.
The Sony EX line in the 80's early 90's had no equal..
You clearly don’t understand what Sony did with those studios.
No, all those studios were independent from sony and were bought later because of the quality of their games. And of course they had exclusive games, because sony had the absolute dominance of the market during PSX and PS2, which was when these studios emerged. And at that time is when sony was consolidated a large part of the industry and its studios.
And CRT Tvs...it was an era where Sony was the king on home electronics...also brands like Hitachit , Pionner , RCA where well.know...but Sony had a special place so no doubt older people see the brand as top noch.
PSX sold 100 million consoles and ps2 155 million. Evidently it was the ideal platform to be known since they had the monopoly of the market, if you wanted to be known in the market (and more being new) you had to go through playstation. If the market had been divided, these games from these studios would have been multiplatform. And besides, the price of making games at that time was not absurd figures of millions as it's now, they didn't need to be financed as today, so these studios could have released their games and succeeded equally for their quality
I didn’t say founded, I said funded. Massive difference.
these studios could have chosen to work with any other publisher to create their games and release them on the Playstation platform. but they decided to work directly for Sony and prospered thanks to Sony's money and technology.. the studios that Sony has today were NOTHING until Sony came in and supported them, so even though they weren't created by Sony it was thanks to Sony that They became what they are now, so nobody lost anything when Sony decided to formalize their relationship by buying them.
"Compete" literally means, they are trying to establish Microsoft in the living room.
So, they wanted to compete in the living room. But you told me in the documentary they mentioned they will delete their competition or Xbox is a failure. You still have not timestamped where in documentary they said that.
www.gamesindustry.biz
....He's right though. Just because one company can afford to go balls out on acquisitions and the other can't isn't some kind of "cheat". One is just way more successful than the other. Thus, more money, more perks. etc, etc, etc...
This has less to do with Sony and more about where Japan was at in the 1970s and 80s.
But they are doing their own thing, they don't peek at what the others doing, it's the right thing to do, there's nothing to be ashamed of doing that.
The bit that got my back up about that FTC trail was Spencer claiming that Xbox is operated as its own division with profit and loss heavily scrutinised.
Cheques to expect something creative out of this, never gonna happen, they don't understand art, it's earned.
While Xbox gets its ass handed to it by PlayStation.
Buying up everything is monopoly like which is "cheating".
Yet way less people buy or care about there products
I think that's Sony outside of PlayStation. They make great products that don't sell. Oh well. Let them fight.Yet way less people buy or care about there products
?
anyway, everyone should give that interview a listen on ironlords podcast there's a reason why 360 was and will forever be Xbox’s golden age Peter Moore is just different man he brings the type of energy that a company needs if they are really trying to compete Phil competes but just quietly he's trying to look like the good guy politician Xbox should bring Moore back because if he had Phil's budget...wow
I do wonder if Microsoft's jealousy (for lack of better word) stems from the fact that Apple and Sony can get away with stuff like "making bricks" and people will buy them but MS has to force people to their products.Sony is a very difficult business to go against…
Remember when bill said this?
Ah yes, Moore and Spencer are definitely the same in terms of strategy, communication style and market situation.
I thought you just misread the article but it seems the problem runs a bit deeper than that.
