If Microsoft, Nintendo, Or SONY No Longer Made Consoles What Would Happen

[sworddude]

Honestly, unless the XSeX is far more successful than the X1, I could see it being Microsoft's last console release. I think they realize it as well and that's why they are focusing more on Games as a Service and having almost everything on PC as well. They are making the move over a couple generations instead of having to react.

I understand Microsoft's path as the exact opposite: they're purposely moving toward a market without consoles. Simply put, there's more money in that kind of business model with the reach they'll be able to have. I can easily envision the Xbox Series X being Microsoft's final console, with subsequent generations being entirely digital across a wide spectrum of devices that consumers already own (PC, smart phone) instead of a dedicated device for playing games. However, this future is one that Microsoft themselves are actively working toward.

You're right in that Microsoft is moving ahead now instead of reacting. And this is the problem that Sony will be facing in the upcoming years. While the market moves toward being more and more digital, and, in turn, less reliant on consoles, Microsoft is going to have a huge advantage over Sony when they're the ones having to playing catch-up. Sure, Sony can sell more console units today, but the impact that Microsoft products such as Game Pass have shouldn't be overlooked. Game Pass already has 10 million subscribers alongside the 90 million Xbox Gold subscribers. Compare this to Sony's 42 million PlayStation subscribers. While people may believe that Microsoft is losing to Sony due to unit sales, it really isn't something to even compare. They're focusing on two completely different markets now.

And yes, I am fully saying this as someone who does not game on Xbox but instead PlayStation.

That might be the future but in the present day microsoft is kissing sony's feet for every game disc that they sell.

Sweet sweet royalties for blue ray to sony.

Also your ignoring game sales, both digital and physical. sony wins in that department by allot.

brand new game sales especially during release is where the money is at, those subscriptions are just a nice bonus. your overestimating this source of income. it's nice but at the end of the day it's for the older stuff that isn't at that sweet spot revenue like for new games. Can we btw not forget how ps4 has an insane amount of exclusives compared to microsoft including big triple AAA titles.. ps4 winning winning this war hard it's not even a competition.

Let's take GTA V for example

20 million copies sold on sony's ps4 red dead redemption 2 14 million

just 9 Million on xbox one red dead redemption 2 just 5.7 Million

Game sales is where it's at the stuff on release, subscriptions are just a method to earn money on older games past their release date, wich aren't that profitable anymore. and let's not forget those sweet royalties that microsft has to pay to sony while they earn money 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PlayStation_4_video_games

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Xbox_One_video_games

Also let's not forget current era is all about dlc and micro transactions. DLC alone is usually over 30$ per game, considering how sony has more than double the game sales for most games they have way more people spending good money on those.

What is gamepass compared to that.

Gamepass doesn't give you DLC (Maybe in rare cases) so throwing that out to discredit gamepass doesn't make sense. If you want the "complete: game on gamepass, you have to buy the DLC. You get like a 10% discount, but MS is making money hand over fist with GP (It's extremely popular and lucrative). i know sony has a gaming service as well, but it's not much more than a blip.

I don't care for gamepass myself at all, but it's a lot more significant than you seem to realize...and it will impact the future of gaming.

Sure maybe in the future but atm the more expensive game pass is a 60 to 70$ difference per year.

Just 1 retail game at full price.

Most consumers buy multiple games a year and allot of them get into micro transactions or dlc.

even games like GTA V have micro transactions. almost every big title has them these days.

DLC and microtransactions are a very large chunk of revenue in the current era, these should be included and absolutely do have a huge impact.  Dlc in pretty much all cases is over 30$ these days, or surpassing the retail price. and we all know how insane micro transactions can get in terms of spendings to some.

Not only do multi plat games sell more than double the amount compared to microsoft.

Ps4 actually has allot of exclusives, including big fish titles aswell. wich in a ton of cases are once again extra dlc and microtransaction revenue.

Don't forget that xbox especially atm lacks exclusives, it's so bad that it has become a meme.

So what does Sony have.

more than double amount the sales for multi platform games
More than double amount for dlc sales
more than double amount for micro transaction sales
Royalties for every physical game that microsft sells
Over double the console sales
Exclusive games, including heavy hitters.

What does microsoft have

Double the amount of gamepass users. wich is only 60 - 70$ difference compared to the normal option the price of a single retail game per year.
being a meme in the console world for almost having no exclusives at all. If it ain't broke don't fix it, lack of exclusives since Og xbox era 

In the future it might be relevant but atm microsoft is number 2.

Lack of exclusives, way less revenue plus paying royalties to sony for blue ray, how is this even a contest?



At this point xbox is the number 3 in the console world. with just 50 million console sales compared to the switch 62 million.

It has less console sales than the switch, and in terms of game sales switch even beats ps4 and has more big exclusives than sony. so microsoft is currently bottom of the barrel in terms of profits.

Let's not forget that The xbox one has been around for 4 extra years compared to the switch ouch

[bigbossman]

One idea I would have for a Sega console would be: the Sega Exodus - a disc based system with a similar design to the Genesis Model 1.

[dhaabi]

While I mentioned Xbox Game Pass, I completely overlooked Xbox's xCloud service properly launching in three weeks, which is more telling to what I've previously explained in that Microsoft and Sony are focusing on two separate markets.

With xCloud, Microsoft won't need to convince the gaming audience collectively that they need a dedicated console to play games. Instead, they'll offer a cloud-based service to allow their users to play games how and when they want to play. Meanwhile, Sony maintains their successful approach by securing high-quality exclusives to sell hardware. However, while the PlayStation 5 may sell tens of millions of units, xCloud and Game Pass can reach hundreds of millions of users. And with xCloud's pricing at $14.99/mo for those relying on their servers, Microsoft will have already secured the same sales figures as if they were focusing on consoles—except, unlike they and Sony now, Microsoft won't be experiencing almost break-even in hardware sales profits. I imagine that running dedicated cloud-based servers are highly more cost-effective in meeting their goals than the costs it requires for them to build units while maintaining their production lines, meaning that there will be more profit in Microsoft's pockets.

Another tidbit to mention is that, while Sony may end up selling more PlayStation 5 units than Microsoft will sell Xbox Series X units, xCloud's are hosted on physical Xbox hardware. And with the already huge difference in Xbox subscribers in pair with the ones Microsoft will certainly gain with xCloud compared to Sony's numbers, third-party developers will prioritize how games are built by optimizing development for Xbox consoles. So, not only is the idea that developers will flock to Microsoft over Sony more to be expected, but third-party games will almost certainly be experienced better with Microsoft's services.

Again, Microsoft is paving an entirely new way for how people play games. On a personal level, yes, I'm sad about the decline of the physical aspect to gaming, but it certainly is a direction that still calls for excitement. So many more people—both non-gamers and casual gamers alike—will find greater ease and accessibility in playing games with the direction Microsoft is moving toward.

[sworddude]

While I mentioned Xbox Game Pass, I completely overlooked Xbox's xCloud service properly launching in three weeks, which is more telling to what I've previously explained in that Microsoft and Sony are focusing on two separate markets.

With xCloud, Microsoft won't need to convince the gaming audience collectively that they need a dedicated console to play games. Instead, they'll offer a cloud-based service to allow their users to play games how and when they want to play. Meanwhile, Sony maintains their successful approach by securing high-quality exclusives to sell hardware. However, while the PlayStation 5 may sell tens of millions of units, xCloud and Game Pass can reach hundreds of millions of users. And with xCloud's pricing at $14.99/mo for those relying on their servers, Microsoft will have already secured the same sales figures as if they were focusing on consoles—except, unlike they and Sony now, Microsoft won't be experiencing almost break-even in hardware sales profits. I imagine that running dedicated cloud-based servers are highly more cost-effective in meeting their goals than the costs it requires for them to build units while maintaining their production lines, meaning that there will be more profit in Microsoft's pockets.

Another tidbit to mention is that, while Sony may end up selling more PlayStation 5 units than Microsoft will sell Xbox Series X units, xCloud's are hosted on physical Xbox hardware. And with the already huge difference in Xbox subscribers in pair with the ones Microsoft will certainly gain with xCloud compared to Sony's numbers, third-party developers will prioritize how games are built by optimizing development for Xbox consoles. So, not only is the idea that developers will flock to Microsoft over Sony more to be expected, but third-party games will almost certainly be experienced better with Microsoft's services.

Again, Microsoft is paving an entirely new way for how people play games. On a personal level, yes, I'm sad about the decline of the physical aspect to gaming, but it certainly is a direction that still calls for excitement. So many more people—both non-gamers and casual gamers alike—will find greater ease and accessibility in playing games with the direction Microsoft is moving toward.

Gamepass is interesting, but don't forget only 10 million people have the more expensive gamepass.

Also the difference is just 1 retail priced game per year

so in terms of revenue it's so much less than just way more game sales aside from all the DLC and micro transactions

Who cares about consistent revenue, if sony consistenly pumps out more games per year surpassing those earnings easily. Sure if sony stopped producing new games xbox had the edge, but that isn't the case here. and again not just sony, also the switch.

The more people buy gamepass on XBOX the less game sales they will have, so while for xbox it might be more profitable their seperate game sales will be less and less. so it's not even full on extra bonus revenue here.

also in terms of gamepass sales microsoft gives it away at 1$ for the first 3 months, but how many people will actually stay if the normal prices return wich yet again another question to consider. just 1$ for the first 3 months is nothing. only the people that stick after those 3 months will give them some decent revenue.

Xbox in terms of revenue is not coming out on top any time soon, In the future maybe, but atm and probably with the upcoming generation I really don't see it. your really overestimating it, let alone that most people just have the way cheaper xbox online wich is comparable price to sony's online service.

It's an interesting new way but in terms of revenue sony's gold mountain is way higher than microsoft.

Let's not forget atm it ain't even comparable to sony's mountain of gold, xbox one is even less profitable than the switch wich had 4 less years on the market.

we'll see what happens in the next generation, but It's pretty hard to deny that xbox one is less profitable than both the ps4 and switch in the current generation.

A bronze medal for microsoft in generation 8.

[Cartagia]

Microsoft would be the same pretty much.
Sony would pretty much cease to exist.
Nintendo would keep making games for other platforms.

Sony was making electronics and media formats long before they got into video games. The best electronics are Sony electronics. They were already a business giant before the first PlayStation released. I seriously doubt that would make them cease to exist.

Yeah, Sony is a multi-billion dollar corporation without the video game market.  They developed Blu-Ray technology.  They wouldn't go anywhere.

[burningdoom]

Could you imagine if only sega and nintendo where in the console market like them olden days but in the current era. A console market withouth sony or microsoft or them being tiny at best like 3d0 or jaguar.

Yakuza would have been the mainstream GTA series.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=-NYVZnDuQAc&feature=emb_logo

GTA is a 3rd-party series. So couldn't it still be around?

[dhaabi]

Gamepass is interesting, but don't forget only 10 million people have the more expensive gamepass.

Also the difference is just 1 retail priced game per year

so in terms of revenue it's so much less than just way more game sales aside from all the DLC and micro transactions

Who cares about consistent revenue, if sony consistenly pumps out more games per year surpassing those earnings easily. Sure if sony stopped producing new games xbox had the edge, but that isn't the case here. and again not just sony, also the switch.

The more people buy gamepass on XBOX the less game sales they will have, so while for xbox it might be more profitable their seperate game sales will be less and less. so it's not even full on extra bonus revenue here.

also in terms of gamepass sales microsoft gives it away at 1$ for the first 3 months, but how many people will actually stay if the normal prices return wich yet again another question to consider. just 1$ for the first 3 months is nothing. only the people that stick after those 3 months will give them some decent revenue.

Xbox in terms of revenue is not coming out on top any time soon, In the future maybe, but atm and probably with the upcoming generation I really don't see it. your really overestimating it, let alone that most people just have the way cheaper xbox online wich is comparable price to sony's online service.

It's an interesting new way but in terms of revenue sony's gold mountain is way higher than microsoft.

Let's not forget atm it ain't even comparable to sony's mountain of gold, xbox one is even less profitable than the switch wich had 4 less years on the market.

we'll see what happens in the next generation, but It's pretty hard to deny that xbox one is less profitable than both the ps4 and switch in the current generation.

A bronze medal for microsoft in generation 8.

That's the point. Microsoft is moving toward a subscription-sevice model for gaming. Their priority isn't to sell individual games. They can earn more profit from a large pool of subscription users alongside the smaller percentage of those same users who purchase DLC and micro-transactions. By adopting this much cheaper and up-front model, they hope to attract more and more people to their appealing offerings, which will almost certainly sway a noticeable percentage of gamers away from Sony and toward Microsoft.

Again, I'm arguing that their focuses don't make them as much of the direct competitors as you believe them to be—each are at the top to what they're striving to achieve. Sony is still taking the tried-and-true path of selling individual console units and games. But this is something that other mediums have proved to be a dying trend. And as such, Microsoft has preemptively adopted the highly successful subscription-based model at its core. Microsoft has studied the wide success of other mediums adopting this model, and they know it's effective and pays off in the long-run. Offering audiences a premium product or service at significantly much affordable price yields consumer loyalty in addition to these same adopters now making their additional purchases toward DLC and micro-transactions with Microsoft.

Alongside development for new third-party releases being prioritized for Xbox products, consistent backwards compatibility, a cheap alternative to the traditional business model that allows for players to play over 100 (and this number will exponentially grow) games cheaply, and offering much greater accessibility as to when, where, and how gamers play, Microsoft is doing a fantastic job at what they're setting out to accomplish. And honestly, when your business excels to this degree, I don't necessarily believe that they would even need consistent exclusive titles. I can easily envision Microsoft changing their entire identity to be instead a platform where games are offered—just like Steam. Meanwhile, Sony has attempted to break into this model with PlayStation Now, but it's been largely unsuccessful. So, they continue their focus with what they've been successful at. But as it stands for the immediate future, the business models for each company vary dramatically. And it very well may end in Microsoft's favor.

[sworddude]

Gamepass is interesting, but don't forget only 10 million people have the more expensive gamepass.

Also the difference is just 1 retail priced game per year

so in terms of revenue it's so much less than just way more game sales aside from all the DLC and micro transactions

Who cares about consistent revenue, if sony consistenly pumps out more games per year surpassing those earnings easily. Sure if sony stopped producing new games xbox had the edge, but that isn't the case here. and again not just sony, also the switch.

The more people buy gamepass on XBOX the less game sales they will have, so while for xbox it might be more profitable their seperate game sales will be less and less. so it's not even full on extra bonus revenue here.

also in terms of gamepass sales microsoft gives it away at 1$ for the first 3 months, but how many people will actually stay if the normal prices return wich yet again another question to consider. just 1$ for the first 3 months is nothing. only the people that stick after those 3 months will give them some decent revenue.

Xbox in terms of revenue is not coming out on top any time soon, In the future maybe, but atm and probably with the upcoming generation I really don't see it. your really overestimating it, let alone that most people just have the way cheaper xbox online wich is comparable price to sony's online service.

It's an interesting new way but in terms of revenue sony's gold mountain is way higher than microsoft.

Let's not forget atm it ain't even comparable to sony's mountain of gold, xbox one is even less profitable than the switch wich had 4 less years on the market.

we'll see what happens in the next generation, but It's pretty hard to deny that xbox one is less profitable than both the ps4 and switch in the current generation.

A bronze medal for microsoft in generation 8.

That's the point. Microsoft is moving toward a subscription-sevice model for gaming. Their priority isn't to sell individual games. They can earn more profit from a large pool of subscription users alongside the smaller percentage of those same users who purchase DLC and micro-transactions. By adopting this much cheaper and up-front model, they hope to attract more and more people to their appealing offerings, which will almost certainly sway a noticeable percentage of gamers away from Sony and toward Microsoft.

Again, I'm arguing that their focuses don't make them as much of the direct competitors as you believe them to be—each are at the top to what they're striving to achieve. Sony is still taking the tried-and-true path of selling individual console units and games. But this is something that other mediums have proved to be a dying trend. And as such, Microsoft has preemptively adopted the highly successful subscription-based model at its core. Microsoft has studied the wide success of other mediums adopting this model, and they know it's effective and pays off in the long-run. Offering audiences a premium product or service at significantly much affordable price yields consumer loyalty in addition to these same adopters now making their additional purchases toward DLC and micro-transactions with Microsoft.

Alongside development for new third-party releases being prioritized for Xbox products, consistent backwards compatibility, a cheap alternative to the traditional business model that allows for players to play over 100 (and this number will exponentially grow) games cheaply, and offering much greater accessibility as to when, where, and how gamers play, Microsoft is doing a fantastic job at what they're setting out to accomplish. And honestly, when your business excels to this degree, I don't necessarily believe that they would even need consistent exclusive titles. I can easily envision Microsoft changing their entire identity to be instead a platform where games are offered—just like Steam. Meanwhile, Sony has attempted to break into this model with PlayStation Now, but it's been largely unsuccessful. So, they continue their focus with what they've been successful at. But as it stands for the immediate future, the business models for each company vary dramatically. And it very well may end in Microsoft's favor.

A subscription based model might not always be profitable

Look at netflix, it's not even certain if that company finally makes a profit. if your giving that much content at such a low price you need huge numbers, and in the case of netflix it still ain't enough. and I'm not that suprised, in the past people would pay for cinema tickets buy blue ray's or dvd,s literally renting single movies as online rentals surpassing the netflix monthly fees with just 1 single movie. How is 10 - 15 $ for thousands of movies enough when in the past people paid that + more per movie.

Sure volume is king but it's not an easy road.

Their costs are so high and the subscription price per person is actually to low. it's an investment that might pay off in the long run.

So in microsoft's case especially when they need to add new games to keep it interesting them profits might not be to high in those beginning years, maybe even losses in the hopes that it might pay off in the future just like with netflix or the lesser streaming sites that might actually end up bankrupped.

Also speaking of steam, it's mostly individual purchases per game, it's just digital game sales not a subscription as their main source of income.

Could you imagine if only sega and nintendo where in the console market like them olden days but in the current era. A console market withouth sony or microsoft or them being tiny at best like 3d0 or jaguar.

Yakuza would have been the mainstream GTA series.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=-NYVZnDuQAc&feature=emb_logo

GTA is a 3rd-party series. So couldn't it still be around?

True, that being said if only nintendo and sega where on the market as the main consoles surely yakuza would be much more popular than GTA. that's what I would like to think at least.

[98dgreen]

Microsoft would be the same pretty much.
Sony would pretty much cease to exist.
Nintendo would keep making games for other platforms.

Sony was making electronics and media formats long before they got into video games. The best electronics are Sony electronics. They were already a business giant before the first PlayStation released. I seriously doubt that would make them cease to exist.

Yeah, Sony is a multi-billion dollar corporation without the video game market.  They developed Blu-Ray technology.  They wouldn't go anywhere.

You guys are acting like this is 20 years ago.  Sony no longer is a big player in electronics and Blu-Ray was nowhere near as successful as DVD was and is on its way out anyway.  The Playstation brand is what is keeping them afloat.  They are a legacy corporation on their way out.

[sworddude]

Microsoft would be the same pretty much.
Sony would pretty much cease to exist.
Nintendo would keep making games for other platforms.

Sony was making electronics and media formats long before they got into video games. The best electronics are Sony electronics. They were already a business giant before the first PlayStation released. I seriously doubt that would make them cease to exist.

Yeah, Sony is a multi-billion dollar corporation without the video game market.  They developed Blu-Ray technology.  They wouldn't go anywhere.

You guys are acting like this is 20 years ago.  Sony no longer is a big player in electronics and Blu-Ray was nowhere near as successful as DVD was and is on its way out anyway.  The Playstation brand is what is keeping them afloat.  They are a legacy corporation on their way out.

It's not just blue ray.

Are you literally forgetting that both samsung and sony are the biggest in terms of tv screens the big 2. what do you need to actually use a console? That's right a tv screen, consoles are just one part compared to the people who just get a tv watch movies and series. not everyone plays videogames it's still the minority.

Are you also ignoring sony in terms of audio, also being one of the biggest brands in terms of camera's. smart phones aswell I can go on.

This is current era, not 20 years ago

videogames are only a chunk of sony's revenue.

Have you been living under a rock?

[98dgreen]

The camera market has been shrinking steadily the past 10 years.  Sony only controls 4% of the flatscreen tv down from a high of 14% 12 years ago.  Thats a drop from second to 6th and they have been trending down that whole time.  What else do you got?

[Cartagia]

The camera market has been shrinking steadily the past 10 years.  Sony only controls 4% of the flatscreen tv down from a high of 14% 12 years ago.  Thats a drop from second to 6th and they have been trending down that whole time.  What else do you got?

Any piece of technology - player, game device, or otherwise that uses Blu-Ray discs has to pay Sony a licensing fee.  That alone keeps them alive as a company - not mention their remaining market share of phones or Movie and Television production.  What else you got?

[sworddude]

The camera market has been shrinking steadily the past 10 years.  Sony only controls 4% of the flatscreen tv down from a high of 14% 12 years ago.  Thats a drop from second to 6th and they have been trending down that whole time.  What else do you got?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/297533/sony-sales-worldwide-by-business-segment/

asuming the number are correct withouth the sony console and games.

They would still keep 75 to 80% of their total revenue in other stuff if where looking at the data of 2019, wich isn't that big of a deal considering you'll lose the costs of that segment aswell, more resources to put into the other sectors.

 I don't see sony going extinct any time soon.

[98dgreen]

The camera market has been shrinking steadily the past 10 years.  Sony only controls 4% of the flatscreen tv down from a high of 14% 12 years ago.  Thats a drop from second to 6th and they have been trending down that whole time.  What else do you got?

Any piece of technology - player, game device, or otherwise that uses Blu-Ray discs has to pay Sony a licensing fee.  That alone keeps them alive as a company - not mention their remaining market share of phones or Movie and Television production.  What else you got?

See death of physical media.  I didn't even know Sony made phones but after reading a little bit they cost them over 800 million in losses last year.  Sony Pictures almost made half that back last year.

Ok I admit Sony won't cease to exist.  Their corpse will shamble on for 20ish years while bits and pieces fall off until there is nothing left.

[oldgamerz]

One idea I would have for a Sega console would be: the Sega Exodus - a disc based system with a similar design to the Genesis Model 1.

That would be really cool the Sega Exodus

The camera market has been shrinking steadily the past 10 years.  Sony only controls 4% of the flatscreen tv down from a high of 14% 12 years ago.  Thats a drop from second to 6th and they have been trending down that whole time.  What else do you got?

Any piece of technology - player, game device, or otherwise that uses Blu-Ray discs has to pay Sony a licensing fee.  That alone keeps them alive as a company - not mention their remaining market share of phones or Movie and Television production.  What else you got?

See death of physical media.  I didn't even know Sony made phones but after reading a little bit they cost them over 800 million in losses last year.  Sony Pictures almost made half that back last year.

Ok I admit Sony won't cease to exist.  Their corpse will shamble on for 20ish years while bits and pieces fall off until there is nothing left.

I've noticed a lot of discussion about SONY and Microsoft, but few are talking about Nintendo. does anyone think Nintendo would survive? personally I've heard of some of their past and I think Nintendo would have the most loss from not making tv consoles. I highly doubt Nintendo could make ends meet on just playing cards and games alone.

Of course I don't know anything about Nintendo except maybe if they continue to make toys will that fill the gap?