The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I remember hearing hearing that MS were making a $70 loss on each Xbox (I think it was in one of the forums) and that was back when it was selling at $300. I know economies of scale will have reduced the cost of making the Xbox by now but with further pice cuts and now the new deal with the games they must be losing loads of money on each of the consoles.
And with what er-no said about there being a projected break even point after the Xbox's successor is released, is this just the deep pockets of MS waiting until the Xbox 2 (or whatever it will be called) to make its money?
(by now someones probably made this point, but because of my slow typing I'll probably be behind a little bit)
And with what er-no said about there being a projected break even point after the Xbox's successor is released, is this just the deep pockets of MS waiting until the Xbox 2 (or whatever it will be called) to make its money?
(by now someones probably made this point, but because of my slow typing I'll probably be behind a little bit)
Miserableman, I agree completely. However, Sony are also interested in the home entertainment market, and have put just as much into research of it as MS have. Both companies have the goal of "ruling the front room" through multifunctional set top boxes. Meanwhile Ninty have concentrated on games.
The point is that we are a long way off the set top box becoming reality, and when it does you can expect people like Pace to get in on the act
The point is that we are a long way off the set top box becoming reality, and when it does you can expect people like Pace to get in on the act
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> er-no, your points are biased to the point of absurdity. You have not
> yet said anything about what is wrong with the Xbox, simply about what
> is wrong with Microsoft.
>
> Suppose the Xbox was mde by Sega. Sega get some huge financial
> backing, and enter the console market with a quality piece of kit. No
> one would care that Sega are back to try to make the market theirs
> and, perhaps, monopolise it. The games market has almost always been a
> monopoly. Sony had it for years, and before that it was Nintendo.
Your topic was "Microsoft wrecking gaming". You cannot differentiate Microsoft from the Home Entertainment (Xbox) division - it makes a staggering loss, only offset by the even more staggering profits of the OS and Office divisions. The Home Entertainment serves the whims of the company as a whole.
Having said that, I quite like the Xbox. I also quite like Windows, despite what Microsoft are planning to do to it.
> er-no, your points are biased to the point of absurdity. You have not
> yet said anything about what is wrong with the Xbox, simply about what
> is wrong with Microsoft.
>
> Suppose the Xbox was mde by Sega. Sega get some huge financial
> backing, and enter the console market with a quality piece of kit. No
> one would care that Sega are back to try to make the market theirs
> and, perhaps, monopolise it. The games market has almost always been a
> monopoly. Sony had it for years, and before that it was Nintendo.
Your topic was "Microsoft wrecking gaming". You cannot differentiate Microsoft from the Home Entertainment (Xbox) division - it makes a staggering loss, only offset by the even more staggering profits of the OS and Office divisions. The Home Entertainment serves the whims of the company as a whole.
Having said that, I quite like the Xbox. I also quite like Windows, despite what Microsoft are planning to do to it.
Miserableman wrote:
> The console under your
> TV has the potential to drag in a lot of multimedia functionality from
> devices across the home, and it's that market that Microsoft are truly
> interested in.
That how they Get most of their Money. not by The games produced.
> The console under your
> TV has the potential to drag in a lot of multimedia functionality from
> devices across the home, and it's that market that Microsoft are truly
> interested in.
That how they Get most of their Money. not by The games produced.
The big, looming problem for Sony and Nintendo is that Microsoft are approaching the future of console gaming from multiple directions. The PS2 and Xbox are already stealing sales from the DVD player market - as technologies such as bluetooth, broadband and TCPA become commonplace, it is anticipated that all entertainment in the home will be controlled from one point, much like the set-top box of old. This is likely to be the common PC, a market Microsoft control.
When Microsoft have the technology to seamlessly stream movies, television, music and games from the internet directly to your Xbox3 or PC, what reply will Sony and Nintendo have? The console under your TV has the potential to drag in a lot of multimedia functionality from devices across the home, and it's that market that Microsoft are truly interested in.
When Microsoft have the technology to seamlessly stream movies, television, music and games from the internet directly to your Xbox3 or PC, what reply will Sony and Nintendo have? The console under your TV has the potential to drag in a lot of multimedia functionality from devices across the home, and it's that market that Microsoft are truly interested in.
Ok i'm shutting up. Bye.
"How many tabloids sell a day? 50million... how many actual decent broadsheets sell a day (with USEFUL information in), about 3million. "
Actually, the Times and Telegraph are the biggest selling papers in the country. Tabloid sales are quite low in comparisson.
As for the rest of the post that quote was in, MS own 700 other companies. How many companies does the GAMING part of MS actually own? Far far less than Sony, Nintendo or any big publsiher (SEga, Namco etc)
Actually, the Times and Telegraph are the biggest selling papers in the country. Tabloid sales are quite low in comparisson.
As for the rest of the post that quote was in, MS own 700 other companies. How many companies does the GAMING part of MS actually own? Far far less than Sony, Nintendo or any big publsiher (SEga, Namco etc)
But as MicroSoft Increases their Size all they are doing is Wasting Valuable Money The Gamecube Could have done to Increase their production of gaming and Also be connected to Mor egaming Companies to Get many more Idea for Games.
er-no wrote:
> Sonic is surely thinking of another way to argue.
>
> He is taking a long time, and I know he is typing a reply....
Of course you know! You've been interupting me on MSN constantly!
> Sonic is surely thinking of another way to argue.
>
> He is taking a long time, and I know he is typing a reply....
Of course you know! You've been interupting me on MSN constantly!
er-no, your points are biased to the point of absurdity. You have not yet said anything about what is wrong with the Xbox, simply about what is wrong with Microsoft.
Suppose the Xbox was mde by Sega. Sega get some huge financial backing, and enter the console market with a quality piece of kit. No one would care that Sega are back to try to make the market theirs and, perhaps, monopolise it. The games market has almost always been a monopoly. Sony had it for years, and before that it was Nintendo.
Every point in your last post was talking about Microsoft's exploits in other markets... which I agree is quite poor. However, the arm that makes the Xbox is a completely different company who are managed by people who have been in gaming longer than the Playstation brand has been arround. To say that this arm will reduce the market to a bleak place like the PC market is absurd - everything I've seen from them has been very positive: far more so than Sony's badly thought out strategy for the PS2.
Sonic
Suppose the Xbox was mde by Sega. Sega get some huge financial backing, and enter the console market with a quality piece of kit. No one would care that Sega are back to try to make the market theirs and, perhaps, monopolise it. The games market has almost always been a monopoly. Sony had it for years, and before that it was Nintendo.
Every point in your last post was talking about Microsoft's exploits in other markets... which I agree is quite poor. However, the arm that makes the Xbox is a completely different company who are managed by people who have been in gaming longer than the Playstation brand has been arround. To say that this arm will reduce the market to a bleak place like the PC market is absurd - everything I've seen from them has been very positive: far more so than Sony's badly thought out strategy for the PS2.
Sonic
Page: