Microsoft floated the idea of giving away Xbox
"we think you've got something that competes in that Mario space and we think Mario's the thing to kill " typical Microsoft! Especially in the Gates era. Most companies "We want to compete in that space", Microsoft: "We want to kill all competitors in that space and own it for ourselves!"
"everybody and their brother who saw the new project starting tried to come in and say it should be free, say it should be forced to run Windows after some period of time," This is where J. Allard came in and convinced Gates to drop that MS OS inclusion, make a broadband connection mandatory and other stuff.
Which is why I don't like them. Sure, they can make some good products, but they don't seem to join any industry for love of that industry. Edit: Sure, make money. Not saying they should be a charity. But they aren't even interested in the markets they often enter. Only in the money they can make from it. To that end, they'll do things that aren't exactly good for the industry at large, so long as they can profit from it. Not gonna get into a debate with you over why Sony's done what they've done. That's been argued to death, so if you're still ignorant, that's your choice.
Business is mostly about the love of money for game companies. "For the gamers" my ass. "For the wallet." Otherwise why charge for online, strip out backwards compatibility and sell remasters? I think valve is the best online company for gamers. But valve just wants money. Money is delaying hl3! Sony should really allow EA access on ps4 though. It's a good value. I rathe support pc open platform than a closed and controlled platform. Still MS is awsome for the free xbl and Windows 10! Thanks MS! To be honest if sony or ms showed amazing content and marketing it as "for the wallet" ads I would trust them more for not lying to me lol It would be funny actually. Bloodborne, Lost Ark and tomb raider can hump my wallet any day. Edit: if u guys can keep the agrees and disagrees even that would be awsome!
You dont think Phil, who owns a PS4 and i believe Wii U, who brings back obscure cult classics like Crackdown and Phantom Dust, doesn't love games? Or the numerous studios they have, don't they love games? What part of MS is "in it for the money they can make"? The corporate part? Lol... People were against MS from day one, you can go to any forum pre-launch of the original Xbox and people were already hating on them. People can complain about the things that MS have been introducing to the industry, but did they not introduce the favorable PC architecture that has become standard even to Sony who used to be infamous for bizarre architecture? Did they not introduce party chat, or the first decent online infrastructure with XBL? Sony has learned the good and the bad from MS, the mandatory subscriptions, paid dlc, along with the party chat, pc architecture, etc...
Phil plays everything and he actually takes the time to answer almost any question that comes to him on XBL, Twitter, or Email. He has a serious love for industry and he is the reason we are getting games like Phantom Dust, Crackdown, hopefully BK, and several other titles in the works. He values every fans input and pushed for the inclusions of a feedback system for their OS.
The problem with some of you is that your connection with a company is more than just a business transaction. I have no emotional attachment. I don't even have to like them, but if I like their product, I'll buy it. If they make something I don't like, I won't. The problem with a lot of you gamers is that you have to have sugar coated PR statements that makes you think the company cares about you. They don't. I'm fine with companies going after my wallet, that's not a bad thing. Makes them work harder for it. They're a company. They're trying to make money. But still, if they make something I don't like they don't get near my wallet until they do.
@NuggetsOfGod "Business is mostly about the love of money for game companies" No, just no. First of all they are supposed to keep their consumers happy, that's where the money is coming from. Microsoft never was a consumer-oriented Company(ex, all IE versions and DRM on xbox). Microsoft has been hit with anti-consumer/trust lawsuits, by a whole continent. Can you believe they find Open Source software as a THREAT??? Free stuff is a threat for them, hmm.. They ultimately want to limit the users choice to Microsoft (buggy and full of back-doors) products only. That's not so consumer friendly. That's why the EU Commission fined them over $600 million. "Sony should really allow EA access on ps4 though." For what? pay 5$ extra so you can play the game 5 days earlier? This doesn't make no sense. I can see if you guys got the game 2 weeks earlier, that would make a lot more sense, but 5 days? The EA game was supposed to come out that day ANYWAY, they just pushed the release 5 days up for the general public, which is BS for the rest of us 99.5%. Sony understands its fan base is smart.
I have to agree with Spotie as it relates to MS in the gaming industry. They don't play fair, and don't see the consumer and little developer's welfare as all that integral to MS's success so long as they can just get away with dragging them along by doing what makes money sense to MS and using publicity to counter whatever good faith is lost in the consumers. Recently the Director of [email protected] was asked about the parity clause by an Xbox interviewer who asked what do you say about when a developer sites the "parity clause" for the reason why they will not bring a game to Xbox? and he responded "I can't comment too much on corporate side of things." then went on to basically play down the fact that the clause was/is a bully tactic to force small developers to release either simultaneously on xbox or else loose xbox consumers. (it worked well for them when 360 had a huge marketshare, not so much now which is why they are now playing down the clause while still refusing to remove it). All in all the mentality of MS seems to be one of scorched earth, and total market domination. Personally I do not like that idea.
It's ignorant at best to think Sony is in it for anything other than money. Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony are businesses. They are in gaming to make a profit. To think Sony "cares" or is any different is based on fantasy. Sony bought their way into gaming and strong armed Sega out. They tried the same with Nintendo when they started buying up their third party exclusives, but Nintendo was much more financially stable than Sega was. Microsoft, Sony and Apple are trying to diversify as the markets they were once strong in have shifted.
First it they wanted to kill Sony... http://ca.ign.com/articles/... ...now they wanted to kill Mario? "We think Mario's the thing to kill " ... what a noble way to get into the home console gaming business,eh? Bill"Kill Em All" Gates? "The idea there essentially would have been to use Xbox as a trojan horse for Windows. It's probably smart that they didn't attempt that, however. As Lanning observed to us, the entertainment industry didn't share any love for the operating system." ....and M$ fans here on N4G are stoked for Windows 10 integration...LOL! ""At the time, Xbox thought that the core market was going to be casual. They were going to be the casual gamers' machine. Now, that's why they approached us because they said 'we think you've got something that competes in that Mario space and we think Mario's the thing to kill ... We see that space. We want that audience. We love Oddworld so why don't you get on this bandwagon? And we might give the box away'," Lanning explained to GamesIndustry.biz." ....M$ is like the Unicron of gaming! They want to gobble up Sega, Sony and Nintendo for the love of money but not to grow the video game industry these little ones nurtured through the years. Its so obvious as they do not have the passion to create new IPs of their own. This is why those who see resent them and the blind worship them. M$ is like a lumber company who loves to cut trees but never wanted to plant new ones. Considering how Sega (Service Games) started out as an arcade company for the entertainment of US soldiers stationed in Japan, and PlayStation started out as Ken Kutaragi's vision of home digital entertainment using then fresh and new CD-ROM technology are far cries from how M$ is just a big company wanting to steal market share to emerging markets with no intention of nurturing that said industry (personal computers, console gaming, PDA's, smartphones, tablets) but to suck it dry. M$ is in it just for their bottom line.
I'm not under any illusion that any company truly "cares". But some companies are clearly better at generating goodwill than others. Ideally, it's a symbiotic relationship. A company delivers a great product that consumers want, consumers buy it in droves. It's win-win, company profits, consumer gets something they wanted. Of course it doesn't always work that way. For instance, MS has a reputation of instead of delivering what the consumers want, they try to force consumers to buy what they sell, by attempting to kill competition or locking competitors out of the marketplace, or locking the customer into their product. That tends to generate the opposite of goodwill and it's exactly why there is so much hate for the company.
"What part of MS is "in it for the money they can make"?" The part that charged for online. The part that talked about Kinect more as an intrusive tool for market research that a game accessory and planned to make it mandatory.
NuggetsOfPoo, It can be both, you know. It's entirely possible to be passionate and believe in the thing you are selling. In fact, most of the time that translates directly into better sales. -The Real World
@Spotie "..but they don't seem to join any industry for love of that industry." And who does? Every company joins when they see money to be made and a chance for their business to grow. You see Amazon, Google and Facebook now jumping in to the video game industry because they see money to be made. I hate this way of thinking from some on here, it's deluded and gives off an impression that one company is better than another because supposedly they have more "love". "But they aren't even interested in the markets they often enter." Who is Spotie? Give us an example or a name of who entered just for the love of it, intead of constantly blaming MS. Do you think Sony? Who's sole purpose was to push their hardware and media formats with every iteration of their Playstation? The closest you could probably say is Nintendo and I'm sure even they have a past beginnings of just in it for business. You blame MS for entering markets that you personally think they have no love in but yet even when they had many opportunities to pull out they still keep trying. They could have easily dropped the console market after the first Xbox but chose to continue with 360, they even chose to reinvigorate their gaming API, invest billions in servers, create and buy 1st party studios and focus on gaming for PC. So how is that not love or interest? "Not gonna get into a debate with you over why Sony's done what they've done." Of course you won't and can't, it's easier to just blame everything on MS.
Gotta love the nationalism of Tsubasa-Oozora and Miyamoto. Here in America you get made fun of for having national pride and wanting your country to succeed. Instead, it's trendy to join other countries in America-bashing, hence the agrees. Sony has done just as much backhanded shit as Microsoft (and please, enough with the immature M$ stuff.) You'd have to be incredibly naive or an all out idiot to believe otherwise.
they don't seem to join any industry for love of that industry. Yes... Everyone is in it for pleasure, not motivated by money at all..... Sony got in the game because they saw what Nintendo and Sega were making..... You have earned the fanboy statement of the week Spotie.
First of all, Microsoft and Sony are not some faceless business monstrosity with some type of personality. They are ran by a board. Not a single person on any executive board sits there and says, "I am willing to lose money for my customers satisfaction." Yes, they need to please their customer but the bottom line is money. Period. Please customers affects that, the competition affects it. No one goes in to a saturated market to float in the middle and break even. Microsoft looks for open doors, and tries to turn a profit. Taking out a competitor means more profit. It's business. I really think it is just the younger gamers on this website that can't grasp this, they haven't had heir cherries popped by the world yet. The world wants your money and they will cut each others throats for your wallet. It never has anything to do with how much they like you. Ever. That being said, the more you think they like you he more you will spend with them, so that is their strategy. But don't ever think that sony made the ps4 because they wanted you to be their friend. They just didn't want you to buy a X1 and they want you to buy a PS5.
@Concertoine Back when the OG Xbox released, MS was not loved at all in the tech industry. They had just come off a couple anti-trust suits, and Windows had spent over a decade being complete crap(XP didn't even get good until SP1). On top of that, MS was buying up other tech companies to simply put them out of business so their own business wouldn't be threatened by competition, or to use the stuff they brought as their own. MS was very much deserving of the criticisms and skepticism that it was receiving when the OG Xbox was announced, particularly since MS living room ambitions were already known, and they openly admitted that the Xbox was the way to achieve that. Gamers didn't see them as in it for the games, but to expand their own mindshare, and as I said above, people were sick of MS. Can you blame people for being skeptical when MS goal was to be a part of people's living room, and not being about games? Did MS introduce the PC architecture being used today? No. They did not. They capitalized on Windows early on, and became dominate in the market because they decided to make Windows compatible with the 286, whereas Steve Jobs wanted to require the 386 to use their OS. Since the 386 was very expensive at the time, the mainstream opted for the less capable windows, and the rest is history. If you were speaking of consoles PC architecture, then yeah, they were the first to use a x86 processor in a home console. But they did this at a time when x86 wasn't nowhere near as efficient as the more common RISC based chips being used at the time. They went RISC and non PC based for the 360 though. I think their architecture choice is likely based more on finance than it is on making things convienant for the devs. I think that trend came around last gen since both consoles required special coding to get the most out of them. MS has done good things in the gaming industry, but I still don't think they are a company that does stuff with the consumer in mind. Their first and only goal is how to maximize profit and control the customer to have a steady revenue stream. Other companies obviously want to do this, but some do it in different ways, such as giving the customer what they want, and maybe taking a bit of a hit on profit to keep the customer happy for the long term.
@Concertoine - no, MS did not introduce the PC architecture. IBM and Intel did. MS just weaseled their way into being the defacto OS vendor for the platform. They weren't even an OS company at the time, they simply bought something called "Quick and Dirty OS" and passed it off as their own.
You need a history lesson. MS pretty much made computing a thing you could do at home. But I guess its hard to see that when you have those PS fan-goggles on, huh? stick to propping up your console instead of speaking BS on things you have no clue about. Ill just leave this here. You can read it and understand why MS are the giant that they are in the computing space. or you can carry on living in PS-lala land. Either way, the option to learn some facts has been presented to you. Get informed and enlightened. http://www.techhive.com/art...
http://www.historyofinforma... I know the history, I lived through it. I work in the industry. Apple, Atari and Tandy all had home computers before the PC was released. Commodore is the company that really put computers in the home by making them affordable and starting a price war. Very few people owned PCs back then because they were very expensive- they were business oriented, not home oriented. They were also very underpowered at first. That didn't change until about 10 years later when they became cheaper and more powerful than the competition.
I mean the implementation of PC architecture into a game console. Something they helped Sega with on the DC and popularized with the 360.
Not going to get involved in a debate on the purpose of business. But, what I will say is that I tend to dislike Microsoft's attitude and approach to things. I really hate their ads where they directly compare themselves to a competitor. Example are the Surface vs iPad ads. This does give them an impression of, instead of showing us why they are warranted, instead trying to tell us why the competitor isn't with specific attacks on specific things. It just rubs me wrong and I prefer companies that stand on their own merits rather than attack their competitors. Felt the same way when Sony was doing the whole "used games" thing at E3. All they had to say was the used game stuff on stage. But, then they made that video with Shu showing how easy it was to trade a game. Was unnecessary and was kicking a man when he's down. Didn't add anything to what Sony had already done. Just mud flinging.
What about the MAC vs PC commercials?
@DLCConspiracy: Exact same stuff. I brought up specific to the conversation, but I could say the same about a ton of companies.
thats just how compettition works, Lol have you even seen how sega agressivile advertised theyr console against nintendo. it was hilarious and those ads are only stating the fact.
***thats just how compettition works*** That's not "how it works" that's just one avenue. I respect those people who stand on their own without drawing comparisons. Google is one of those such types typically. They just say what they have and sell themselves regardless of others.
It's what I've always said, Microsoft doesn't know its own identity, it's riding along the trends of which the other competition has done to see if they can just 'Do it better and beat them'. Which is why we saw Xbox Classic interestingly was the first attempt and it was, I'd say, either like a PS2 but stronger, or it was the first and most unique of their consoles. When 360 came out it was pulling the Sony type of strategy of Power + Games and Hardcore market focus and were doing well, but they also were envious of Nintendos massive Wii, casual market that they did not dip into at all, with all those Wii's sold, they saw a potential market to get more money in - so they got Kinect and made 360 more 'Casualized' at the end of its lifespan and failed in that regard, I say identity crisis because Xbox consoles either mimic Sony, or Nintendo, and if Microsoft tries to make 'Xbox' its 'Own thing', then they have NO IDEA what players want unless they look at what their competition is doing again. Xbox One reveal shows what Microsoft wanted to do under their Own plans that were their own direction - the backlash made them take the easy route of continuing with the 'Against Sony, do everything Sony has been doing and beat them to the punch' and went back to being Hardcore.
Companies dont need identity.They adapt to the market to live up to consumer expectations, who the hell wants to stay behind behind this "identity"
@Dr_K "Companies don't need identity" And this is why you shouldn't pursue business or marketing as a profession my friend. They also, clearly can't adapt properly if they have to Flip a Switch multiple times. Damage control is not 'Adapting'.
I think that's the goal of all corporations to be successful. To beat out the competition isn't it? Its weird to think people would think otherwise. This day and age it feels like people root for corporations greed like a sports team. That goes for MS, Sony and any other corporation that has built its empire on profit. Seems like people think one is Robin Hood even if Robin Hood charges the poor for his services to steal from his rich self.
MS didn't want to just beat them though, they wanted to do a complete takeover, kill everything. (and likely draw everyone back to the bread and butter that was PC). This was already stated a couple years ago. http://au.ign.com/articles/... MS is seen as the bad guy cause they are. They aren't interested in gaming, they want to secure the Windows platform by any means necessary. Its weird to think people would think otherwise.
@bitby Well that seems to be the popular vibe from people online. Fanboys alike. Hate or Love. There is no in between. I just don't understand why anyone would think a corporation cares. Seems weird to think that a corporation really cares without the motivation of profits don't you think? Its not like corporations are Santa Clause handing out free gifts to children. We pay them to deliver and make entertainment for us. You think Sony wouldn't enjoy taking out their competition for financial gain? You would be wrong if your answer is no. These corporations paint pretty pictures and smile so they can make money. Just the way it works. I pay them. They don't pay me to play their games and consoles. Some corps are more obvious others aren't. MS will always be the bad guy as long as they are making more money. Not saying they are angels BTW. Its a corporation.
@tsubasa-oozora That is NOT the only feature of EA plus. You get discounts, early access, trails, and free games. Stop talking about what you don't know.
touchy touchy. You think anyone goes into a monster business with Billins and Billions of dollars R&D invested to "earn an equal share of the market?" Thats just not how it works. But how can you take that one quote and interpret it that way? He said that they wanted to go after Nintendo and be the main "casual" box. How does that imply they want to "kill all competitors in that space and own it for ourselves!" They released in November of 2001. It was first mentioned as in development in 1999. So right around the release of the Dreamcast. Meaning theyre was already 3 huge consoles out while this was in development(sony, nintendo, sega) with PS2 on the way as well. So if their aim was to be the Casual box, and take Nintendo's ENTIRE market share, that is faaarrr away from wanting to eliminate all competition and be a monopoly
Reminds me of when they said they would kill Sony at E3. :I I really don't like that type of attitude.
Kill Mario? Thats not possible.
Yeah, if the Super Mario Bros. movie couldn't do it, I don't think anyone can. ;)
Isn't it interesting, after reading that article, that XBO will be installing Win10? "The idea there essentially would have been to use Xbox as a trojan horse for Windows."
Microsoft did not I repeat did not make computing assessable in peoples homes Atari Commadore Apple Texas Instruments all Bill Gates did was con some kid out of his dos program showed it to IBM and that kid was probably a genius because IBM shipped it on all their computers Microsoft just copied Apple and Atari and made a visual extension of dos called windows and road the coat tails of IBM and Intel since the systems architecture used dos Windows was put on every computer as big blue crushed the competition it inadvertently created an evil incarnate of themselves.
Punctuation is your friend.
Microsoft and I'm sure any other company would either sell off their product or try to reinvent the product/presentation if the business it was making wasn't yielding them any sort of profit over an extended period of time. On an unrelated fun fact Nintendo has enough money banked that they could run a 250 million deficit every year and still survive until 2052.
MS truly are the politicians of the industry, everything is about the money and damning the competition.
You forgot deception and misleading the public. I love watching that Xbox One TV commercial that shows quick 4 second clips of Rise of the Tomb Raider, Halo 5, Battlefield Hardline, and Batman Arkham Knight. Two exclusives and two multi-platform games, and yet at the end of the commercial it clearly says "The best Exclusives of 2015 are live on Xbox One" Clearly only half of those games they showed in that commercial were really Xbox One exclusives. I guess Microsoft is hoping that all the casual gaming consumers see commercials like that and just automatically believe that Battlefield Hardline and the next Batman game are only available on Xbox One so they'll go out and buy an Xbox One.
Tomb Raider is not even a true exclusive, so all they really have this year is Halo 5 and a handful of smaller titles. Who honestly benefitted from the Tomb Raider exclusivity aside from the shareholders? Not even XBO players were thrilled about PS4 players missing out on it.
I saw the commercial for the halo bundle and they said get 4 free halo games and showed 4 pictures shaped like boxes acting like you get 4 separate retail games. Trying to Trick the average consumer into thinking that they are giving them more than what they actually are.
I have seen Phil Spencer praise PS and say its a great time to be a gamer. While I have only hear PS make fun of their competition every chance they can. Pitting gamers against each other by splitting us up into groups. I prefer the first way rather than last. I enjoy both of the consoles.
Yeah...Sony started the console wars./s The pitting against one another you speak of is perpetuated more by the media making sensationalist articles to stir things up. Phil is quite vocal, and I think he's quite respectful. But Sony execs have done this kind of stuff too. Sony just doesn't spend every day making comments or giving out PR statements like Phil does. While i hate to say that other companies do things as well, at least admit that last gen MS was all about downplaying Sony at every turn. They aren't exactly innocent in the console wars....and no, Phil didn't do that stuff that I can recall. That's one reason I always liked him, but I do think that he's getting all the credit for what is likely a corporate direction.
@rainslacker I meant it from a sincere place. I didn't say it because I hate PS and only play on Xbox. I just get tired of hearing everyone's spin on how one greedy corporation is flawless and kinder than the other greedy corporation. I am a little hesitant to hand over the consumer minded appreciation award to a company that hasn't always been perfect. Especially since last gen the blu ray and price was more important than gaming until the end of the gen. They fought to get that back. I was genuinely excited for ps3. Then the price dropped and I felt like how most people feel now about MS and Xbox. I was a huge PS2 fan. My entire point is that people overlook things on both sides. Online its its even harder to discern between demonizing and glorifying.
Shu has a WiiU troll harder next time
Well that would have been interesting. Obviously they didnt do it. So how can they take credit for something they never did?
At this rate... giving them away is the only way they can defeat Sony. :)
Not going to involve myself, with the debate going on, alot of X1 fans in denial up there and no amount of logic is going to fix that. What I will say is nothing in this article surprises me, do some meaningful research on MS as a company and you will see that this stuff is just the tip of the ice burg, they have no business ethics whatsoever.
You should do your research on Sony too. Search Nintendo while you're at it. Maybe even Charmin. What's even more delusional is people who feel like their company is better because they have prettier words to get in your wallet with. None, not one of these companies care about you. So I rather not have them lie in my face. My method: 1:Show me what your selling 2:If it interests me, I open my wallet 3:If not, I don't And that's the end. I don't need to be persuaded that a company cares. I want the product to speak for itself.
Who the hell starts a company to loose money.....no one
Happy April fools guys ;-)
I think that they should have tried harder to buy Sega. Sega was badly in need of money after all the costs of the Dreamcast. Microsoft possibly undervalued Sega as a result. If they'd bought Sega, Sonic could have been exclusive to Xbox. It was a once in an ages opportunity to get a company mascot and to get 10 million or more Sega fans staying with the Xbox brand in the long term rather than eventually going to Sony. I know Sonic isn't particularly cool but neither is Mario a lot of the time. It's more a case of having a universally recognisable family mascot. I know the Xbox doesn't 'need' it but I still think they'd have a few more sales. On the other hand, such a 'what if' doesn't take in to account that the games would have been no better and would have resulted in less overall income. And extra focus on Sega games could have taken away focus from other studios. The Western studios were often able to adopt the best parts of a Japanese style anyway. On the PS3, I could have got through the whole of last generation without playing a Japanese game, apart from Catherine.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.