The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Linking To the Past wrote:
> > This is what I think but What was the point for this topic when we
> already know that microsoft is wrecking games.
Please tell me you weren't serious there?
Firstly, the point of the topic was that Microsoft wasn't monopolising the games market and using its marketing force to muscle all the competition out of the way, which has pretty much been discussed.
Secondly, Microsoft haven't actually made that many games, can you give a list of all these terrible ones that you refer to? They created the Flight Sim series, they own Bungie and therefore technically made Halo, I'm just trying to think of one bad title at the moment, but yes, I'm sure there are one or two.
No, Microsoft haven't wrecked the games industry and even if they had made really bad games (which I have not seen the evidence for) then surely they would only be as guilty as 3DO? I can't see anything they've done as actually wrecking any part of the games industry.
Not that Microsoft are saints, as with Sony and Nintendo they all want to make a buck at the end of the day and their market researchers will always be on the lookout for the latest trends, but nothing so drastic as buying up the games industry, it's far too large and they already know the benefits of competition.
> > This is what I think but What was the point for this topic when we
> already know that microsoft is wrecking games.
Please tell me you weren't serious there?
Firstly, the point of the topic was that Microsoft wasn't monopolising the games market and using its marketing force to muscle all the competition out of the way, which has pretty much been discussed.
Secondly, Microsoft haven't actually made that many games, can you give a list of all these terrible ones that you refer to? They created the Flight Sim series, they own Bungie and therefore technically made Halo, I'm just trying to think of one bad title at the moment, but yes, I'm sure there are one or two.
No, Microsoft haven't wrecked the games industry and even if they had made really bad games (which I have not seen the evidence for) then surely they would only be as guilty as 3DO? I can't see anything they've done as actually wrecking any part of the games industry.
Not that Microsoft are saints, as with Sony and Nintendo they all want to make a buck at the end of the day and their market researchers will always be on the lookout for the latest trends, but nothing so drastic as buying up the games industry, it's far too large and they already know the benefits of competition.
How can they wreck games when they cant create many decent games in the first place? Tell me why microsoft is even producing games? The only decent games they have produced are the MIDTOWN MADNESS searies and the AGE OF EMPIRES searies. They are really the only decent games they have done.
I bet no one else can say a nother good title that microsoft has created. Basicly I think they should just stick to creating programs like Microsft word and Excell and stuff like that! You know buisness programs.
You cant really get VERY good p.c games any way but Microsoft are in my book the SECOND worst game producing company. The First worst is Rage. Now they really are really crap. They are the worst in the buisness But microsoft arn't much better.
This is what I think but What was the point for this topic when we already know that microsoft is wrecking games. Even I knew microsoft was wrecking games YEARS ago. Can you see my point? If you can you are VERY SMART! If you dont then you are VERY VERY IDIOTIC and VERY VERY VERY Dumb indeed!
I bet no one else can say a nother good title that microsoft has created. Basicly I think they should just stick to creating programs like Microsft word and Excell and stuff like that! You know buisness programs.
You cant really get VERY good p.c games any way but Microsoft are in my book the SECOND worst game producing company. The First worst is Rage. Now they really are really crap. They are the worst in the buisness But microsoft arn't much better.
This is what I think but What was the point for this topic when we already know that microsoft is wrecking games. Even I knew microsoft was wrecking games YEARS ago. Can you see my point? If you can you are VERY SMART! If you dont then you are VERY VERY IDIOTIC and VERY VERY VERY Dumb indeed!
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> Update2.01 wrote:
> Interesting to see that a few outlets now supply a copy of Linux
> along
> side Windows with their pc's. Based on the fact that MS have been
> forced to make IE more easy to remove (and replace with a non-MS
> option), shouldn't we expect the same of Windows its self?
>
> Offering Linux has nothing to do with being able to replace the web
> browser in Windows... its because of the increasing popularity of
> Linux
It has everything to do with the IE scenario. If people want to run just Linux on a pc, why should it be difficult to override the windows installation? In time, we may see a day when even the applications have to run on various OS options - from the same disc (or set of discs), with no extra cost involved.
> Update2.01 wrote:
> Interesting to see that a few outlets now supply a copy of Linux
> along
> side Windows with their pc's. Based on the fact that MS have been
> forced to make IE more easy to remove (and replace with a non-MS
> option), shouldn't we expect the same of Windows its self?
>
> Offering Linux has nothing to do with being able to replace the web
> browser in Windows... its because of the increasing popularity of
> Linux
It has everything to do with the IE scenario. If people want to run just Linux on a pc, why should it be difficult to override the windows installation? In time, we may see a day when even the applications have to run on various OS options - from the same disc (or set of discs), with no extra cost involved.
Update2.01 wrote:
> Interesting to see that a few outlets now supply a copy of Linux along
> side Windows with their pc's. Based on the fact that MS have been
> forced to make IE more easy to remove (and replace with a non-MS
> option), shouldn't we expect the same of Windows its self?
Offering Linux has nothing to do with being able to replace the web browser in Windows... its because of the increasing popularity of Linux
> Interesting to see that a few outlets now supply a copy of Linux along
> side Windows with their pc's. Based on the fact that MS have been
> forced to make IE more easy to remove (and replace with a non-MS
> option), shouldn't we expect the same of Windows its self?
Offering Linux has nothing to do with being able to replace the web browser in Windows... its because of the increasing popularity of Linux
Interesting to see that a few outlets now supply a copy of Linux along side Windows with their pc's. Based on the fact that MS have been forced to make IE more easy to remove (and replace with a non-MS option), shouldn't we expect the same of Windows its self?
Jimmy D wrote:
> Microsoft should not have been allowed to make a console that lets it
> abuse its monopoly. In the short term prices have dropped in the long
> term though games will suffer. Microsoft can make an Xbox 2 in no
> time by simply bundleing a few PC comonents in a Box, Cost of
> Development = next to nothing, benefits to console gamers = very few.
What utter crap.
Microsoft has not abused it's monopoly, because unless you're dumb you've noticed that the PS2 still leads in sales by a massive margin. As for the rest of you're statement it's so stupid it's unbelievable, come back when you actually know something ! The benefits have been huge, Sony now has competition, prices of consoles are dropping, more and better games are coming on all formats.
You forget that without Microsoft Sony would have a virtual monopoly with the PS2 as the GC has not really challeneged Sony, the Xbox does by offering similar game styles, a better (technically) consoles, similar online model e.t.c. Xbox 2 is coming, but so is PS3 as well, and essentially all electroics are made from componenents found in a PC to some degree.
~~Belldandy~~
> Microsoft should not have been allowed to make a console that lets it
> abuse its monopoly. In the short term prices have dropped in the long
> term though games will suffer. Microsoft can make an Xbox 2 in no
> time by simply bundleing a few PC comonents in a Box, Cost of
> Development = next to nothing, benefits to console gamers = very few.
What utter crap.
Microsoft has not abused it's monopoly, because unless you're dumb you've noticed that the PS2 still leads in sales by a massive margin. As for the rest of you're statement it's so stupid it's unbelievable, come back when you actually know something ! The benefits have been huge, Sony now has competition, prices of consoles are dropping, more and better games are coming on all formats.
You forget that without Microsoft Sony would have a virtual monopoly with the PS2 as the GC has not really challeneged Sony, the Xbox does by offering similar game styles, a better (technically) consoles, similar online model e.t.c. Xbox 2 is coming, but so is PS3 as well, and essentially all electroics are made from componenents found in a PC to some degree.
~~Belldandy~~
Update2.01 wrote:
> Nothing to do with Microsoft - o dear, o dear. Windows 1 and 2 were
> around early on (mid to late 80's), and any way arn't we forgetting
> about Microsoft DOS? It's MS DOS that MADE the PC for gods sake.
> Gate's got it to run on the early 086 Intel cpu, without MS DOS, there
> would be no Microsoft today.
Microsoft betted on the open format of the IBM compatible versus the closed proprietary systems offered by the likes of Sinclair, Amstrad, Commodore and Atari and won big. Gates established an OS monopoly on the PC, and the PC established a computing monopoly in the home and office. Microsoft win. To say that Microsoft lock us to the PC is stating that you would actually prefer a closed, proprietary system over a set of open standards. Granted, Microsoft software is very proprietary, but the PCs they run on give us ample choice over how we set up our machines.
> Nothing to do with Microsoft - o dear, o dear. Windows 1 and 2 were
> around early on (mid to late 80's), and any way arn't we forgetting
> about Microsoft DOS? It's MS DOS that MADE the PC for gods sake.
> Gate's got it to run on the early 086 Intel cpu, without MS DOS, there
> would be no Microsoft today.
Microsoft betted on the open format of the IBM compatible versus the closed proprietary systems offered by the likes of Sinclair, Amstrad, Commodore and Atari and won big. Gates established an OS monopoly on the PC, and the PC established a computing monopoly in the home and office. Microsoft win. To say that Microsoft lock us to the PC is stating that you would actually prefer a closed, proprietary system over a set of open standards. Granted, Microsoft software is very proprietary, but the PCs they run on give us ample choice over how we set up our machines.
lol - wods
In the US PCs now ship with Linux at some retail outlets. Eg Lindows (Linux based OS) PCs at Walmart, however new PCs with Windows are still the norm. In the UK the same is true, this is the real reason why Microsoft has a monopoly, and as owners of OEM versions of Windows cant Sue Microsoft in the US Microsoft has got away with its abuse of its power.
I think the Xbox is a great machine, but I also believe that it has used Microsofts market position (Of owning Windows and the Direct X-8 software) to get itself into the console market.
Microsoft should not have been allowed to make a console that lets it abuse its monopoly. In the short term prices have dropped in the long term though games will suffer. Microsoft can make an Xbox 2 in no time by simply bundleing a few PC comonents in a Box, Cost of Development = next to nothing, benefits to console gamers = very few.
I think the Xbox is a great machine, but I also believe that it has used Microsofts market position (Of owning Windows and the Direct X-8 software) to get itself into the console market.
Microsoft should not have been allowed to make a console that lets it abuse its monopoly. In the short term prices have dropped in the long term though games will suffer. Microsoft can make an Xbox 2 in no time by simply bundleing a few PC comonents in a Box, Cost of Development = next to nothing, benefits to console gamers = very few.
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> Thats got nothing to do with Microsoft... IBM PC's have been avalible
> since 1982, that they took over 10 years to become a standard consumer
> platform doesnt really display any attempt to stifle the home
> entertainment market.
Nothing to do with Microsoft - o dear, o dear. Windows 1 and 2 were around early on (mid to late 80's), and any way arn't we forgetting about Microsoft DOS? It's MS DOS that MADE the PC for gods sake. Gate's got it to run on the early 086 Intel cpu, without MS DOS, there would be no Microsoft today.
BTW, I don't see many of the PC's in the shops shipping with Linux as standard. They just come with Windows XP, and that's it.
> Thats got nothing to do with Microsoft... IBM PC's have been avalible
> since 1982, that they took over 10 years to become a standard consumer
> platform doesnt really display any attempt to stifle the home
> entertainment market.
Nothing to do with Microsoft - o dear, o dear. Windows 1 and 2 were around early on (mid to late 80's), and any way arn't we forgetting about Microsoft DOS? It's MS DOS that MADE the PC for gods sake. Gate's got it to run on the early 086 Intel cpu, without MS DOS, there would be no Microsoft today.
BTW, I don't see many of the PC's in the shops shipping with Linux as standard. They just come with Windows XP, and that's it.
Page: