MS plans to stay but what would happen to Xbox

No this is not another bash thread cause honestly if you say anything pro/con, every other mofo would call you a fanboy.  If I am a fanboy it would be for Nintendo cause I always respected their strategies and their first party games, yet I own a PS2. So call me a fanboy, but you make no sense.

I do hate Xbox, partly cause I hate Gates and partly cause I got pissed of renting games when I went to my friend\'s place (Motherfuker gave away PS2 as a present and got Xbox) and then end up playing them for no more than an hour since they sucked big hairy Osama Bin Laden balls.  We ended up using it more to watch DVDs.  Then it dropped 100 bucks and he was pissed and I was laughing at him and saying "Told you so"

But MS has said that they will stay in the console business 10-20 years if they have to.  Why, god knows.  It\'s already obvious that profit from Xbox project is not going to appear for a long long while.  But what would happen to the actual Xbox console.  I mean they could force it to stay but will game developers keep on making games?  MS could start paying and buying up game developers and making more games themselves.

If anyone here remembers Neo Geo, well, I could see Xbox 2 being smth like that cause it obviously cant compete vs the standard consoles.  Neo Geo was like the rich kids console with some pretty awesome games, almost all first party.  It was also like 600-700 bucks with games at 100 bucks.

But in general, I\'m just wondering what the hell is MS thinking.  They made obvious mistakes so far and are still making stupid mistakes.  Not suprising cause they have no idea anymore how run a real business in a real business enviroment.  Running a monopoly, especially one established with illiegal practices, does not take any real skill.

BTW, I hear MS real goal with all their side projects, is to have everyone in the world connected to Microsoft everywhere.  Now anyone else think that doing it through a console is a really stupid plan?  I mean they are also trying to break into mobile PC/phone market which makes more sense (although they are doubtful to succeed there as well).  But through a gaming console?  WTF?

MS is a smart company.  They enter a field and eventually dominate or become very very profitable.

Look at the browser wars.  IE was utter garbage when it first came out, but MS stuck with that.

Xbox is doing well relatively speaking.  I for one wouldn\'t bet against MS.  They\'ve got more money than brains (and that is substancial).

The video game market is emerging as a huge player right now and it is only going to get bigger.  MS wants part of the cake and their not going to give up.

did you ever wonder why Ie became so popular?

hmmm, i wonder

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by mm
did you ever wonder why Ie became so popular?

hmmm, i wonder

:rolleyes:

Ohhh! I know! I know! Pick me pick me!

Originally posted by 420blunt
BTW, I hear MS real goal with all their side projects, is to have everyone in the world connected to Microsoft everywhere.

You been in a cave?  That bug has been in Gates\' butt long before X-box.  Look up .NET and Passport.

[Bobs_Hardware]

Originally posted by Watchdog
MS is a smart company.  They enter a field and eventually dominate or become very very profitable.

Look at the browser wars. IE was utter garbage when it first came out, but MS stuck with that.

Xbox is doing well relatively speaking. I for one wouldn\'t bet against MS. They\'ve got more money than brains (and that is substancial).

The video game market is emerging as a huge player right now and it is only going to get bigger. MS wants part of the cake and their not going to give up.

And I\'d be willing to bet that Microsoft is never going to dominate the videogame market.. they have an outside chance of dominating in America in the next 10 - 15 years (very oustide chance).  But on a global scale they will never achieve \'dominance\', or be "very very" profitable.  Not unless they buy out every developer and have every large franchise.  Sony were lucky, Microsoft will have no such luck.

but then again.. you never know

Well the browser wars always puzzled me.  Yeah the first IE was absolute crap.  Now Netscape is just old and outdated.  But I never truly figured out what the deal was.  I\'m pretty sure MS did a lot of shady stuff with that.  Besides the money issue, being that Windows and IE went hand in hand, it was not hard to make Netscape to have problems with Windows.  I do remember that Netscape started running slower than IE and having funny problems.  Thats when I switched to IE which was finally good.

But here is the thing.  Software is cheap and it cost nothing for MS to put IE onto Windows.  It was more marketing costs.  But we are talking about hardware, no windows to support their grip, and losing 200 for every console sold (and 400 not sold).  Also this is a cut-throat industry which is unforgiving for failed consoles (Dreamcast and Sega is a prime example)  Another problem is that with 3 consoles competing closely, profits will be very slim.

Plus MS has made a number of bad mistakes already.  Bad timing, bad selection of games, bad & inefficient design, bad forecasting, no cost control whatsoever, bad confidence sign with price drop.  I do not see the current Xbox succeeding but the next console has another chance.

Plus in general, I do not consider Microsoft to be smart when it comes to running a business fairly.  Not to say that Bill Gates is not smart man, but if you learn the history of Microsoft, you will notice that their real key to success was manipulating/stealing/cheating.

I mean what does Microsoft know about games, hardware, and electronics?

Originally posted by 420blunt


I do hate Xbox, partly cause I hate Gates and partly cause I got  

I have givin a lot of thought into why i hated Bill Gates.  

I have come up with a few reasons.  First of all his business crimes are commonplace in big business.  Not many companies get called on them... for example big oil, or food like nestle.  

The CEOs of those companies are kept out of the lime light.  And I have a theory about that.

Bill Gates isn\'t a free mason.. he doesn\'t come from a powerful family.. but he is the richest man in the world.  I am sure that makes some people sore.  He is justa normal "joe" who happened to get a hell of an opurtunity... (shady or not).

so now he gets constant problems from political fronts which are traditionaly controlled by the old legacy families.

So why did I hate him.. because I was told to.... just thought.

Originally posted by PahnCrD




I have givin a lot of thought into why i hated Bill Gates.  

I have come up with a few reasons.  First of all his business crimes are commonplace in big business.  Not many companies get called on them... for example big oil, or food like nestle.  

The CEOs of those companies are kept out of the lime light.  And I have a theory about that.

Bill Gates isn\'t a free mason.. he doesn\'t come from a powerful family.. but he is the richest man in the world.  I am sure that makes some people sore.  He is justa normal "joe" who happened to get a hell of an opurtunity... (shady or not).

so now he gets constant problems from political fronts which are traditionaly controlled by the old legacy families.

So why did I hate him.. because I was told to.... just thought.

If you cannot figure it out, lemme spell it out.

Monopoly:  Bad for consumers.  Very bad.  Microsoft make crappy Windows that crashes too much, takes over your PC, causes "non-intended" conflicts and problems with certain Microsoft competitors in other application fields.  Very bad.  Microsoft customer service = oxymoron.  Not good.

Competition:  Good for consumer.  Innovation, price battles, customer service.  Gooooood.  Me like when companies compete for my money.


On that note, thank you Microsoft for letting me get my PS2 for 199

420, what OS you running on yer PC?  oh yeah, :rolleyes:

actually, m$ makes some of the best PC periphials (mice, keyboards, gamepads, etc)

OMG!  im sticking up for m$?
aCK!  GRRRRRRRRRRR!
*head explodes*

The only thing wrong with the xbox is a lack of quality games.I thought MS said they knew what gamers wanted?Gamers want great games,and right now even at 200 dollars the xbox doesn\'t have enough games to compel me to buy their system.And all the great textures and bump mapping in the world is\'nt going to make up for that.
     
       As far as your theory that MS wants everyone everywhere using their apps.,well what company would\'nt?Sony and AOl are in bed together already.Clearly in the next few years more and more people will be surfing the net through their consoles,some people may even end up going online for the first time through a console.If your online through a console in your living room that\'s one less P.C. in your house.Where does this leave windows and IE?This is the only reason MS even got involved in the console market,and not for this life cycle of consoles either.Their getting ready for the next round when online function of a console is going to factor into your decision on wich game system you buy.

       But who can blame them for trying to stay on top?

AOL is crap, Sony can have them.

As mm has stated, MS makes great hardware.

The xbox does have great games out now, and it\'s only getting better if E3 is any indication.

IE dominated because IE is much better.  There is no comparison.

I think MS would be happy dominating in US.  From that solid base they can expand into Europe.  They got into the console market because there is a ton of money their and Windows has reached market saturation.

And MS is running their business fairly it\'s only the whiners that can\'t compete that think differently.  I don\'t want to get into the economics debate again, but take a course or read a book then tell me if they\'re playing fairly.  It\'s this joe public, anti-MS misconception that MS is evil and it\'s just not true.  Their only fault is playing by the rules and playing much tougher and better then their competition

Originally posted by 420blunt


If you cannot figure it out, lemme spell it out.

Monopoly:  Bad for consumers.  Very bad.  Microsoft make crappy Windows that crashes too much, takes over your PC, causes "non-intended" conflicts and problems with certain Microsoft competitors in other application fields.  Very bad.  Microsoft customer service = oxymoron.  Not good.

Competition:  Good for consumer.  Innovation, price battles, customer service.  Gooooood.  Me like when companies compete for my money.


On that note, thank you Microsoft for letting me get my PS2 for 199

Lemme spell something out for YOU... first of all I at no time take an insulting tone with anyone on the board.  If you could extend the same respect I would be grateful.

Now if you think that Microsoft is the only company with a monopoly... think again.

MS is just the most publicised.... becuase of my above reasons...  

If there was a better OS it would be out by now.  You can\'t keep that sort of thing under wraps forever.  It\'s hard for OS compitition, becuase the software would most likely run into compatability problems.  The only way around it is to release windows source code.... which seems fair to me, being as how MS stole Windows in the first place, it needs to be givin back to the people.

And on that note... if Billy hadn\'t stolen it, we would just be under the thumb of Xerox, or Apple.  All that changed was who would get rich offa it.

AOL utterly dominates the online market, hands down

If there was a better OS it would be out by now.

there are several

AOL is crap, Sony can have them.

AOL is the worlds biggest internet service provider - which indicates that there are A LOT of people who obviously don\'t quite share your opinion. To get AOL as a teamplayer was a very smart thing to do by Sony.

As mm has stated, MS makes great hardware.

Great hardware? Yeah in the least sense. I\'d rather say that they make great periphials.

IE dominated because IE is much better. There is no comparison.

No, IE did not dominate because it was better, but because Microsoft integrated it into its OS. IE might be better today, but it certainly didn\'t get there because it was better.