The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What's all the crap I hear about Microsoft trying to monopolise the gaming market. They're "buying all the other companies" and "using their money to get what they want"... aparantly. I beg to differ.
To begin with, let's have a look at the above quotes.
Contrary to popular belief, MS have not bought any big games companies. They bought Bungie- who are so small the MS relocated every single person in the company- and more recently Rare- the tiny midlands developer. No sign of any big publishers yet. And what have they done with these companies? Microsoft allowed Bungie so many resources that Halo has been nominated for "Game of the Year" awards numerous times. Is this a bad thing?
At the same time, MS are throwing money at other publishers for exclusives. Which is exactly what Sony did with the PS1. In both situations the companies gave wods of cash, development tools and premade libraries to third party developers to produce exclusive games. This is how Sony wooed Konami, Square and Namco away from Nintendo.
And this all adds up towards a great thing for gamers. If the Xbox's successor gets nearer to Sony's sales figures then we will once more find ourselves in a console wars where it is the games that determine the outcome, and not company branding. Let's face it, the PS2 had no competition when it came out, and the quality of games was nowhere near as paramount as it had been in, say, the SNES vs Mega Drive days.
So, to those who curse the Xbox, think before you speak. MS have not bought out many companies, made any more third party deals than any other manufacturer (including Sega!), and are certainly not dominating the market. Competition is good.
Sonic
To begin with, let's have a look at the above quotes.
Contrary to popular belief, MS have not bought any big games companies. They bought Bungie- who are so small the MS relocated every single person in the company- and more recently Rare- the tiny midlands developer. No sign of any big publishers yet. And what have they done with these companies? Microsoft allowed Bungie so many resources that Halo has been nominated for "Game of the Year" awards numerous times. Is this a bad thing?
At the same time, MS are throwing money at other publishers for exclusives. Which is exactly what Sony did with the PS1. In both situations the companies gave wods of cash, development tools and premade libraries to third party developers to produce exclusive games. This is how Sony wooed Konami, Square and Namco away from Nintendo.
And this all adds up towards a great thing for gamers. If the Xbox's successor gets nearer to Sony's sales figures then we will once more find ourselves in a console wars where it is the games that determine the outcome, and not company branding. Let's face it, the PS2 had no competition when it came out, and the quality of games was nowhere near as paramount as it had been in, say, the SNES vs Mega Drive days.
So, to those who curse the Xbox, think before you speak. MS have not bought out many companies, made any more third party deals than any other manufacturer (including Sega!), and are certainly not dominating the market. Competition is good.
Sonic
Page:
The Playstation's processor wasn't as fast as 100mhz.
Even the N64's wasn't... (it was 93 or something...)
Even the N64's wasn't... (it was 93 or something...)
er-no wrote:
> Macintosh should release a console.
>
> And shut you all up. Including me.
They almost did. It was called the Pippin. A low cost PowerPC 603e chip (75 or 100Mhz I think). But that was around 1995 - just as Sony stormed the market with the original PS. Think they axed the idea when Sony got stuck in.
> Macintosh should release a console.
>
> And shut you all up. Including me.
They almost did. It was called the Pippin. A low cost PowerPC 603e chip (75 or 100Mhz I think). But that was around 1995 - just as Sony stormed the market with the original PS. Think they axed the idea when Sony got stuck in.
Macintosh should release a console.
And shut you all up. Including me.
And shut you all up. Including me.
1) Shenmue was the most linear game I have ever played. You run arround like a chicken for hours to find person A, who tells you to see B (again, big search), who tells you to go to C. To make matters worse, often C points you back to A who suddenly remembers something new. The game has no flexibility to it.
That said, the sequel is meant to be technically impressive.
2) Microsoft got the deal with IBM originally because, when IBM turned up at Jobs' house (Apple Mac creator), they were having a party and told IBM to come back later. Idiots indeed.
3) Update, long term, had MS NOT joined the market, Sony would have done what you say MS will - ie "owned the market". Of course, Nintendo is aimed at a different audience, so would survive, but with a market share many times smaller than Sony's (think N64 vs PS1 but worse).
So Now MS enters and targets the same market as Sony. Worst that will happen is that massmaket gaming will be run by MS and not Sony. Big difference.
However, this will simply not matter. The biggest developers all side with Sony because: (A) This is where the biggest market is, and also where they have released their games so far, so where THEIR market is (B) Sony own lots of the big developers.
So, for your idea to come true, MS would have to buy out some of the worlds biggest publishers, including some owned/in contract with Sony. Now, seeing as NONE of the big publishers are doing too badly, they are not for sale (except perhaps Sega, but that's as much to do with CSK's positition as Sega's owner).
So Sony is not going to sell its publishers to MS. Tell me, why would other publishers, who are making loads by targetting some games at some platforms and porting other game, let MS buy them and become tied to one platform? If anything, the exact OPPOSITE of this is happening! Sega are the obvious examples, but many publishers who used to be PS1 only now port/make games for the Xbox and, in many cases, the Xbox also. They're making huge amounts from this.
Sonic
That said, the sequel is meant to be technically impressive.
2) Microsoft got the deal with IBM originally because, when IBM turned up at Jobs' house (Apple Mac creator), they were having a party and told IBM to come back later. Idiots indeed.
3) Update, long term, had MS NOT joined the market, Sony would have done what you say MS will - ie "owned the market". Of course, Nintendo is aimed at a different audience, so would survive, but with a market share many times smaller than Sony's (think N64 vs PS1 but worse).
So Now MS enters and targets the same market as Sony. Worst that will happen is that massmaket gaming will be run by MS and not Sony. Big difference.
However, this will simply not matter. The biggest developers all side with Sony because: (A) This is where the biggest market is, and also where they have released their games so far, so where THEIR market is (B) Sony own lots of the big developers.
So, for your idea to come true, MS would have to buy out some of the worlds biggest publishers, including some owned/in contract with Sony. Now, seeing as NONE of the big publishers are doing too badly, they are not for sale (except perhaps Sega, but that's as much to do with CSK's positition as Sega's owner).
So Sony is not going to sell its publishers to MS. Tell me, why would other publishers, who are making loads by targetting some games at some platforms and porting other game, let MS buy them and become tied to one platform? If anything, the exact OPPOSITE of this is happening! Sega are the obvious examples, but many publishers who used to be PS1 only now port/make games for the Xbox and, in many cases, the Xbox also. They're making huge amounts from this.
Sonic
Update2.01 wrote:
> Not many (if any)! Compare this
> with PS and PS2, and you can see the Big M engine is already ticking
> over locked into it's own little world.
So you're comparing a console that has been out around a year with one that has been out since 1995 and another that has been out for a fairly long time?
In it's short life the Xbox has got quite a few add-ons, some that the PS2 hasn't even got, such as the game headset. I can't even believe you are using this as a reason for saying the xbox is failing then talk about MS wanting to take over the games industry?!
Now if Microsoft succeeded in being the only company with a game platform they would
a)be the first in history
b)risk the rest of the industry turning against them and
c)risk the wrath of the US legal system on monopolies.
It is not simply a case for any one of the console manufacturers to become the sole platform creators, there are a lot of good marketing reasons why any of the major companies would want competition, but they all want a large enough market share to make money, which is a businesses ultimate goal. There is a difference in trying to outsell the competition and ousting the competition.
Likewise Sony, they are outselling the other consoles and want to keep it that way, but they do not want a situation where PS2 is the only console platform either.
> Not many (if any)! Compare this
> with PS and PS2, and you can see the Big M engine is already ticking
> over locked into it's own little world.
So you're comparing a console that has been out around a year with one that has been out since 1995 and another that has been out for a fairly long time?
In it's short life the Xbox has got quite a few add-ons, some that the PS2 hasn't even got, such as the game headset. I can't even believe you are using this as a reason for saying the xbox is failing then talk about MS wanting to take over the games industry?!
Now if Microsoft succeeded in being the only company with a game platform they would
a)be the first in history
b)risk the rest of the industry turning against them and
c)risk the wrath of the US legal system on monopolies.
It is not simply a case for any one of the console manufacturers to become the sole platform creators, there are a lot of good marketing reasons why any of the major companies would want competition, but they all want a large enough market share to make money, which is a businesses ultimate goal. There is a difference in trying to outsell the competition and ousting the competition.
Likewise Sony, they are outselling the other consoles and want to keep it that way, but they do not want a situation where PS2 is the only console platform either.
Update2.01 wrote:
> No, I think they would love to "own" the games market. If we
> (MS) own all the hardware and software, they (us, the public) will
> have no option but to buy it (unless you give up games) from us (MS).
> How many add on's for XBox is there? Not many (if any)! Compare this
> with PS and PS2, and you can see the Big M engine is already ticking
> over locked into it's own little world.
Console addons = badness
> No, I think they would love to "own" the games market. If we
> (MS) own all the hardware and software, they (us, the public) will
> have no option but to buy it (unless you give up games) from us (MS).
> How many add on's for XBox is there? Not many (if any)! Compare this
> with PS and PS2, and you can see the Big M engine is already ticking
> over locked into it's own little world.
Console addons = badness
pb wrote:
> In the games market, Microsoft have a much harder fight to become the
> sole supplier, and to be honest they probably don't want to be in that
> situation, partly as it would draw too much attention and criticism
> from the legal world and partly because Microsoft realise the benefits
> of competition in this area. Though MS are buying up other companies,
> it's more of a case of ensuring their place in the market than
> dominance of it.
No, I think they would love to "own" the games market. If we (MS) own all the hardware and software, they (us, the public) will have no option but to buy it (unless you give up games) from us (MS). How many add on's for XBox is there? Not many (if any)! Compare this with PS and PS2, and you can see the Big M engine is already ticking over locked into it's own little world.
> In the games market, Microsoft have a much harder fight to become the
> sole supplier, and to be honest they probably don't want to be in that
> situation, partly as it would draw too much attention and criticism
> from the legal world and partly because Microsoft realise the benefits
> of competition in this area. Though MS are buying up other companies,
> it's more of a case of ensuring their place in the market than
> dominance of it.
No, I think they would love to "own" the games market. If we (MS) own all the hardware and software, they (us, the public) will have no option but to buy it (unless you give up games) from us (MS). How many add on's for XBox is there? Not many (if any)! Compare this with PS and PS2, and you can see the Big M engine is already ticking over locked into it's own little world.
Update2.01 wrote:
> Point is, right now, Sony has the market, but there's just enough room
> to fit all 3 in. But in the future - this may change due to the way MS
> behaves, etc. Like the OS market,
The situation that MS got themselves into with the OS market is entirely different. Remember that Microsoft were there almost at the beginning of the PC OS movement, along with IBM, there really wasn't that much choice for OS suppliers of DOS, then later on Windows. Microsoft didn't need to fight for OS domination, they were in the right place at the right time. The fact that they were the only ones to see the Mac OS and think 'ooh, I'd like a bit of that..' was part luck and part good marketing. Pity it wasn't as stable or as good as the Mac OS though.
In the games market, Microsoft have a much harder fight to become the sole supplier, and to be honest they probably don't want to be in that situation, partly as it would draw too much attention and criticism from the legal world and partly because Microsoft realise the benefits of competition in this area. Though MS are buying up other companies, it's more of a case of ensuring their place in the market than dominance of it.
> Point is, right now, Sony has the market, but there's just enough room
> to fit all 3 in. But in the future - this may change due to the way MS
> behaves, etc. Like the OS market,
The situation that MS got themselves into with the OS market is entirely different. Remember that Microsoft were there almost at the beginning of the PC OS movement, along with IBM, there really wasn't that much choice for OS suppliers of DOS, then later on Windows. Microsoft didn't need to fight for OS domination, they were in the right place at the right time. The fact that they were the only ones to see the Mac OS and think 'ooh, I'd like a bit of that..' was part luck and part good marketing. Pity it wasn't as stable or as good as the Mac OS though.
In the games market, Microsoft have a much harder fight to become the sole supplier, and to be honest they probably don't want to be in that situation, partly as it would draw too much attention and criticism from the legal world and partly because Microsoft realise the benefits of competition in this area. Though MS are buying up other companies, it's more of a case of ensuring their place in the market than dominance of it.
The thing with MS is that they are incredibly devious marketing wizards. They won't make you want the next XBOX, they'll make you NEED it.
Point is, right now, Sony has the market, but there's just enough room to fit all 3 in. But in the future - this may change due to the way MS behaves, etc. Like the OS market, and the IE issue. It doesn't own everything right now (as everyone has pointed out), but what about over the next few years, especially if MS do buy up lots of software, and makes it XBox only? Then you would see a market transformation locking us all into one format, one set of software tools (even less variety in game's), etc.
Add in the possibility that each new XBox will just be a *cheap to produce* hardware tune up (like many pc's), and we will be forking out dosh at a rapid pace, because games will quickly migrate to the *updated* XBox, thus requiring us to upgrade (just like running upto date software on the pc).
It just depends on what MS does, and/or what the courts let them get away with!
Add in the possibility that each new XBox will just be a *cheap to produce* hardware tune up (like many pc's), and we will be forking out dosh at a rapid pace, because games will quickly migrate to the *updated* XBox, thus requiring us to upgrade (just like running upto date software on the pc).
It just depends on what MS does, and/or what the courts let them get away with!
Page: