Rob Enderle debates whether it was ever worth it for Microsoft to build the Xbox 360.
I’m having an ongoing debate with a number of folks on whether Microsoft should have ever made the Xbox. I’m arguing against it, and the best argument so far for the Xbox can be found here where there are links to all of the posts so far. What started all of this hullabaloo was a snarky comment I made on Twitter after seeing a chart that showcased that the vast majority of Microsoft’s profit came from Windows and that the Xbox wasn’t contributing much at all to the bottom line. That comment was something to the effect of “Does anyone want to debate Microsoft’s Xbox now?” And evidently a bunch did. Now realize that this is in hindsight and we are doing this for fun, so neither side is using any language that would embarrass our mothers. Still, I feel it’s a debate worth having.
Arguments for the Xbox 360
PRJ, who posted the latest position, argues seven points in favor of why the venture makes sense. I’ll cover each briefly here, but it generally is best to bring up his site and see his original words.
His first point is that PC gaming isn’t going anyplace. MMOs own the space and there really hasn’t been an innovative game for the PC for some time. Even when a game does come out it is buggy and needs significant patching.
His second point, which dovetails to the first, is that the Xbox 360 is Microsoft’s only stable platform. It is too easy for everyone from manufacturers to users to screw up the PC and destroy the gaming experience.
The third point made is that by owning the hardware, Microsoft can assure quality for both the hardware and the game. This guarantees that the game experience is top-notch, and that the system also works for products like the Zune and Windows Extender.
The fourth point presented here is that Microsoft is driving the Xbox 360 into the home as the core product, not Windows or the PC. It is more likely to be in your media cabinet and it does more media functions.
His next and fifth point is that, with the Xbox platform, Microsoft has executed better customer support and satisfaction than it has with Windows. The company has had problems, but addressed them more quickly and effectively then with its Windows line of products.
As for the sixth point, he says that it’s a great platform for developers and much better than the painful PS3 platform or the limited Wii. Investment is minimal and the Xbox Marketplace is effective and successful at moving indie titles.
The seventh point presented is that profit isn’t important, with popularity and market share more crucial. The Xbox 360 sold nearly 5 million units in 2009 and eclipsed the PS3. With Project Natal, it stands poised to dominate gaming with the possible exception of the Wii, which is really a different kind of gaming system with less interesting games for heavy game players.
In short, Microsoft stands alone when it comes to providing amazing games like Halo 3 and seamless, solid experiences.
Showing 76 comments
RSSobv resistance 3 is comin, killzone 3 is comming… n
1…ssx – ps3 exclusive o dere…the best game in the world epic epic savage gameplay wiked game
2…ace combat 7 – ps3 exclusive – afetr xbox paying namco for 6 exclusive, and all the framework for xbox, 7 is completely re-done for ps3 bluray tech.
3…the mark or kri – check youtube for footage of the first
ps3 exclusive obv….. ahha keeps getting better
4… twisted metal 5. check youtube again, for number 4, or the ps2 vrsions, but the psone versions were the classics.
5…grantheft auto 5, ps3 exclusive, 2 or 3 weeks till unveiling
not long to go people
6. AGENT – need i say more>? wel, actually , i cant say more, as this is the most secretive ps3 exclusive ever. or infact any game, ever, there is nothing on this game, and i bet thats jus how rockstarr want it. those sik scottish basterds.. kill it every time, they cant fail.. people like siknes
7. motorstorm 3. ps3 exclusive…getting tired yet>?
8. modnation racers, june 1st release… yes….ps3 exclusi…
9. do you need a number 9>? afer all that..really..
ok
syphon filter 5, ps3 exclusive
naughty dogs immense uncharted 3 is a surefire fact
and to finish infamous 2,…….
okay one more ‘the last guardian’ and ico collosus double pack
that makes 12, one a month my babies,,,,start saving,,, ps3’s got you covered.
peace . …out…..follow twitter mrpurple101
This is not what I'd consider to be good QA for their hardware. It's more like a fundamental design flaw that the designers either didn't spot or couldn't fix.
MS did a lot of market research and focus groups before launching GfW. Time and again the word came back that PC gamers would not pay for things that had been free to them for years. Throw in piracy and the ability for anyone with the know how to make free updates and where is the platform holder. Look at Falcon 4.0, how old is the core game and what company that generates an income updates it. In fact, who is the platform holder. With the PC, the holder is all of the people that make the parts. None of which receives royalties. And no developer is paying MS anything to make a game on their OS. With Xbox, everyone pays $10 per game just to be on the system. Everyone pays for the right to play multi-player online. You can be the publisher for the sure fire hit, wave or half the royalty, provide the advertising budget or pay part of the development cost to a dev to gain exclusivity. Or loan the dev money for exclusivity.
Once consoles move to a direct download model, they will own every part of the games movement. The game, the ability to re-sell, the DLC. No more Gamestop or online exchanges., the game is tied to a specific account and only that user can use that copy. He will have the right to download again and again so that he doesn't have to worry about having a physical copy. This will lead to millions more in sales. And since the 360 design is basically a PC, what if they allowed PC owners to devlop mods that would then be ported to the Xbox with XNA. And sold as DLC for a share of that money. You can't force a share with a PC mod.
The PC is wide open and there is no guaranteed control for any company. Consoles are closed and you can develop ways to assure that you get a piece of everything sold for it. When you own the parts of your console, you can make sure that the architecture follows a certain path which guarantees backward comparability.
Imagine a $100 360 two years from now that can act as a mod kit for a new Xbox console that consist of a modified Xenon and Xenos. Mods submitted to MS for approval and then placed on Live. It seems to be their thinking. XNA Indie games appear on Live. Make those tools more robust and there will be a PC like mod community on the XBox. MS made the right decision for them. Consoles are where the money is because of control and royalties. And when someone buys a console you know it's for games. When someone buys a PC, it could be for 10 other reasons.
PC gaming is not for the masses. You need expensive hardware and computer know how well beyond the average consumer. PC can be better but not to the point where a casual gamer would care.
Microsoft never abandoned PC gaming or under invested in it. It invested at the level to justify the expected return. It also invested in the console market with an expected return.
You can fault Microsoft's execution if you want but probably not their reasoning for want to get into a profitable market segment. Fact is they have a lot of capital to invest and diversifying their revenue stream makes perfect sense as long as those investments on average will pay off in reasonable profits.
You and obviously the author are missing MS and Sony's point. Your second paragraph is all about how open the PC is. That's not what Sony and MS want. They are like the mob. They want a piece of everything done. If an Indie game is sold to a kid on the corner, they want in. And the way to do that is by controlling the territory, that being the thing it's played on. You can't do that with the PC. Like you said it's the most open. You can with a console, to a certain extent. And that is exactly what they want. And that is where the real money is made. And pirating is far worst on the PC. See, Crysis.
Where do you get numbers from. Buddy, there are companies for that. Have you ever heard of NPD? There are others. For each region of the world. ChartTrack in Europe. Major corporations use these companies to gauge the success of products in the market place and to help them understand trends. Other companies use them to understand their bargaining position and what products actually move. The console makers release this information each month. Just check the Wall Street Journal. There are also these things called annual reports that each company has to file. Most companies try to hide certain things, like Sony and the cost of the PS3 or MS and the loses of the original Xbox. But these numbers are available to the public(http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/default.mspx). This doesn't give actual numbers, but it gives you and idea. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/23183/Weekly.... Do you really believe Braid is pulling in 10 million a week. And Steam usually sells at bargain prices. And that info is directly from Valve. Here's a article about one of the rare PC games that competes with console sales. And that is always very temporary. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php.... This one really breaks down the European positions.http://www.mcvuk.com/features/624/UK-Monthly-Charts-December. Like I said, PC doesn't compare. DD or not.
So your year old machine can play Crysis at how many frames a second? And it does DX11 right? And it can play every game too at the highest setting. I know more than you think. Are you hitting the specs for all of your games or the recommended specs? Are you really playing everything with all of the bells and whistles? I mean 4x AA, 90 frames at 1680x1050? Are you really? I kinda doubt it. And when I mentioned WoW, it was because your current most successful game is NOT a graphical powerhouse. So for all of your talk of graphical power, it doesn't really seem to matter when the money comes in. And you do know that you are comparing your year old PC to a Almost 6 year old console? Compare your 5 year old PC to it. Was that DX10 too. And the next generation of console will only cost $399. Even Sony understands that is the starting point. So once you add DDR5 RAM and a new mid-range Graphics card, it will be behind the new consoles that comes out a year later.
The new Xbox or PS4(if Sony decides to participate so soon), will be at least DX10 with components of DX11 if not full DX11. It will have 4 Gbs of RAM. It will have a proprietary Graphics card that will be on par with the best available in the PC market at the time of release or better. It will have every water or physics or lighting that will be available at that time and it might even be upgradable. It will have a large HD for DD, since it is being called for by the devs to cut off re-sellers like Gamestop(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249378212700025.html) or DLC will be attached to accounts linked to your Live account like on ME2. That will add billions to the devs sales.
Your problem is that you're stuck in the past. What you believe was once true. Read some recent news. Read some annual reports. Look at how the Entertainment and Devices Division of MS that contains the Xbox made a profit last fiscal year despite the fact that it contains many items that are nothing but a money drain. Things like Zune(which should have changes recently), Surface, Internet TV and advertising for Mac Office(how'd that get in there, especially at over 400 million some years with none of the resulting profits from that product coming back to the division). How about the R & D for all of those none income generating products.Or for products like Natal. I actually read things like that and know a little bit about where those numbers come from. They are released constantly. I still have a lot to learn about them. I may not be the genius that your are(that's called sarcasm, not trolling), but I do know a little bit about this stuff. So just keep clicking those heels and repeating that PC games rule the roost, and one day your dreams may come true.
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/05/e3-predic...
http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/games-of-2010/
what a dumb statment pc gaming will never die,, why because there are millions of game devs making games for the pc.
I own wii and xbox. xbox is broken and not consistent, it is not reliable.
Don't want to pay for something that is free elsewhere, I'd have PSN rather than a subscription based xboxLive. No matter how good Xbox live is, you can get that same service on your PC for free. Not to mention playing games online requires a harddrive, which is free with the ps3, but overpriced in a 360.
From what I saw on the PSN network there doesn't seem to be much missing from the experience, what is it about the PSN network that's "painful"?
The wii system online is painful; very, very painful (lag). But even then you could work around other shortcomings.
The xbox services are nice, but not worth extra money.
As for free stuff in their garages, you're absolutely right, there's a ton of free IP out there for people on PC. There's also a virtual cornucopia of tiny to large games out there. The reason being, it doesn't cost a couple thousand dollars for a dev kit for a PC. Because you have the dev kit, when you have a PC. In that regard, the PC is the most open and versatile system to utilize for small developers, as it hits the biggest audience possible, for the least amount of money. Whereas, with the 360/PS3/Wii they have to purchase the dev kits, and then work their way through Sony/MS' red-tape to get the game onto the PSN/XBL. All that costs money to a tiny developer. So, while creating a closed GfW system would probably result in some kind of fee of use from MS, the tiny devs would still be able to dodge the costs of the dev kits for consoles.
Now, PC games never hit console levels, really? You have this data? Where? I'd really like to see it, because currently, there's not a single entity on this planet, that tracks every digital/retail sale of PC games. There are just too many outlets that control their statistical data (sort of like tracking PSN sales...can't do it without getting Sony's data...ain't happening, likewise with XBLA...they only really announce milestones, not weekly statistics in numbers people can track), the only real source we can get (but still, not 100% itemized), is the pc gaming alliance, which states PC Gaming was a 12.7 billion dollar industry in 2008. Console gaming wished it was that big in 2008.
Now, I'm going to suggest you stop right where you are with your comments on graphics cards and upgrading PC's, because you are clearly, not knowledgeable about such this. Needless to say, this PC I have right now, was built January of 2009. And since I actually have motivation and intelligence to research my purchase, I actually put together a machine that will be quite competitive for some time to come. I won't need a new part for at least another year. And even then, the price for upgrade is miniscule compared to what's needed for swapping to a new console. (Think about it, sure, my GPU was $290 when I bought it, but since then, it's come down 70, in another year it'll be below 200, the next gen of consoles will most certainly cost more than that, and have nowhere near the horsepower of my pc, still).
Now, what's with the idiotic and obvious attempt at trolling with the WoW comment? You can't be that stupid as to think WoW has anything graphically, that'd be like Valve claiming their Half-life Engine that they won't put a bullet in, is still competitive. Seriously, you're not that dumb, are you? Because, you know, I clearly said that your 'Mass Effects' hit PC...are you insinuating somehow that Mass Effect has WoW-like graphics? Because, no, that just doesn't add up. How about this though, ever see a game in DX10 on your 360. No, you haven't.
I however, have volumetric water, physx, every form of lighting you can possibly imagine, FSAA up to 16x, and I run most DX10 games in excess of 100fps, and I rarely ever...ever...have loading screens. What's so great about all that? Because it tells me, for todays set of games, and for the foreseeable future, my PC is far far superior to current needs. Meaning, it'll stay relevant allot longer than current consoles, and be cheaper to upgrade than it will be to buy into a whole new generation of consoles whenever the 720 or whatever comes out.
PC Gaming's not even close to dead, you're just too complacent about your ignorance to actually look into real statistical data that isn't spoon-fed to you buy the console makers. It's just amusing how many people just like you are out there, who think they know what they're talking about, but really just don't know squat, because all they do is read one headline, then take regurgitate it verbatim, like it's facts. Yeah, fyi, just cause you read it on the internet, doesn't make it so. Try double-checking your sources from time to time, and maybe, just maybe, you won't come to discussions such as these, with so very many unsubstantiated claims.
Some PC gamers, like you, are delusional. PC game sales never hit console levels. Most of the money made on PC games is from WOW. While consoles have several games each year that hit the 5 million sold mark, PC games rarely have a title come close to that nowadays. And the numbers are falling. And speaking of WOW, is that one of those graphical powerhouses you were speaking of? You're part of that 30% that cares that much. And since technology has moved so far ahead of what it was, the next generation of consoles will have more than enough power to make the graphics well enough for 85% of the public. Eventually there won't be anywhere to go graphically. Most people would prefer to have a console that is stable and you know you'll be able to play that new game instead of the upgrade your graphics card game every 6 months. And games appearing on the PC means that MS is just hitting more money while still having their console advantage over Sony.
Just get over the PC gaming thing. Let it die with some dignity.
Obviously, I was stating that if Microsoft had invested the same amount of time and effort into GfW that they have XBL, they would have a robust closed network, capable of offering a great great many bits/pieces of DLC etc.. basically everything that's offered on XBL now, but on PC. Which has, as I stated, a vastly, vastly higher install base. Ooh, 1 billion for XBL gold subscriptions? Try 228 million x $15 x 12/mo. I'm pretty sure that annihilates any number you can come up with.
As I said, it's about what would've made MS more money, clearly Games for Windows is a better option (as it also helps reinforce Windows Vista/7 sales), rather than taking away from them. Think about it, DX10-11 is only capable on Vista+ OS'. The 360 can't even do it. So, there's a ridiculous amount of gaming tech, being purposefully ignored...just so MS can make...less money?
As for Sony's internal devs? Um, they've had them for a hell of alot longer than MS has been in the console race. SCEA/SCEE/SCEJ have been making games for over a decade. None of which, ever have a chance of showing up on my PC, whereas, your 'Mass Effects' are, and will always...always, look, perform, and control better on my PC. (Most kids can't afford a gaming PC, I, however, am not a kid, nor is a self-built $2300 machine out of my price range). Of course, your whole argument there is pretty pointless, console makers have internal devs for 1 reason, and 1 reason only. To give you a reason to buy their console. Problem is, Microsoft keeps letting their '360 exclusives' hit PC half a year later, and most people have begun to realize this by now. To say nothing of the 360's chances of ever being able to claim 'exclusivity' and have it be believed.
Natal should help MS boost their lead too. The other thing about Sony starting to break even on the PS3 cost is that it's too little, too late. We will most likely see new consoles next year or the year after. That would relegate the PS3 to budget console status and it will be sold at break even prices again and competing with a Natal equipped 360. And that will also kill off the PS2. And Sony would have to release a new console and they have to realize that it needs to be $399 at launch. If they don't, MS brings out a far superior Xbox(than the PS3) that is backwards compatible and priced at $399 that will force them to budget price the PS3 just to move it. Realistically if anyone should be considering leaving the gaming business as a console manufacturer, it's Sony.
But yeah, if Microsoft had worked towards making PC gaming more attractive to the public, think about how far the Games for Windows service could've come by now. As I said, I think they probably would've done better, simply because PC's are already a mainstay in households, and creating a closed, controllable network like that (that people will pay for..), well, we're talking easily the kind of money WoW pulls in monthly for Activision/Blizzard.
and the last 5 months? So what--the last 12 months before that the 360 outsold the PS3. These things shift. The PS3 is as far behind the 360 as it was when it launched--and really outside of Japan, they are farther behind than when they started.
MS doens't wish they had never built the thing--Sony fans wish they hadn't so that the PS brand might not have went from dominant to 3rd place in a single generation while costing Sony over $6B. The PS3 has been a collosal failure for Sony and there is no end in sight.
When you see your console constantly coming in last every single week in hardware sales.........you couldn't blame Microsoft for wishing they'd never built the darn thing. The 360 is basically what you get if you cross a Sega Dreamcast with a hilariously high failure rate and then forget to release any exclusive games for it.
With those figures, and given Microsoft's domination in the OS market, they already have a monopoly on the largest gaming base in the world (PC Gaming made 12.7 billion in 2008), so, had Microsoft not completely abandoned the GfW network, in favor of XBL...isn't it possible that they'd be making more money and games, through GfW? The answer's obviously yes.
Still, MS has made money, and made some pretty stiff competition for Sony. But, as a PC Gamer first, and PS3 gamer 2nd. I particularly wish they'd stayed outta the console business. While I will wait for games like GTAIV, CoD, Prototype, Dragon Age etc... for PC, it's annoying that MS takes such great efforts to temporarily block me access to their games. When you've got badass gaming rig...there's really no point to getting a 360.
Also, unlike Microsoft, Sony's games division actually CONTRIBUTES to their income margins. Microsoft's income comes from Windows and it's a good thing too, had Microsoft relied as heavily on their games division as Sony and Nintendo do, they would've gone bankrupt long ago. The original Xbox was a disaster for Microsoft - it lost them $4 billion and the 360 hasn't done a whole lot better. OK, they've penetrated a larger share of the market, however they still lost MORE billions on the RROD fiasco.
I love it when exclusive games sell upwards of 15 million, oh wait, no 360 game ever has because they're all crap with terrible graphics. 360 fanboys need to accept the blame here - you idiots obviously aren't buying any 360 games when they come out, so why should Microsoft keep making them?
PSN is superior to XBL.
From my experience in the hardcore gaming community on the PC, dedicated servers will always be superior. Which 360 doesn't deliver.
360 just doesn't deliver anything more than a casual gaming experience directed at people for all ages and all sorts of gamers and just doesn't satisfy my needs as a hardcore PC gamer.
I don't want lag, I don't want to have to pay for something that's free elsewhere, I do not want my experience simplified for casuals either.
PSN delivers more than XBL for me, and PS3 is superior as a multimedia device too.
I found the person that was defending the 360 in this article biased, he talks as though PC games aren't going any where... but where has the 360 gone? Almost every single one of their "exclusives" are superior on the PC.
1. was not owning the hardware on the first Xbox.
2. RRoD.
Take away those two things and the Xbox has been profitable for years. Take away RRoD and the 360 would most likely have sold 15-20% more units. And since when does any company come into a totally new market and not take losses to establish themselves. If gaming does turn into a 60billion a year business and MS can claim even a third, it will boost the revenue of an already extremely profitable company by a third.
Also, if the amount of money you believe MS is losing is enough for it to be a mistake for them(and they have far more than Sony), then considering the PS3 has lost close to 6Billion, shouldn't they be leaving the VG business.
Were you replying to me or the person above me. I am agree with you 100%, I was telling him he was wrong as well.
Again, this feeds the misconception that PC gaming is on the decline, one simply needs to peruse the PCGA's website (PC Gaming Alliance), to get some real numbers regarding the health of the PC Market.
http://www.pcgamingalliance.org/
I definitely agree after reading this article, that from a monetary standpoint, Microsoft's more lucrative option would've been to apply the monies and knowledge into Games for Windows, building a far more robust GfW system, and ultimately creating a vastly more popular and stable closed-network than Steam currently enjoys. Not to mention the monopoly they'd have with GfW royalties et al.
I can't imagine why Microsoft would ever do this. They don't control hardware on the PC. That's one of the biggest challenges for games on the PC is testing all the different hardware combinations that might exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXUDTnoXYXE
I think they los millions intead of doing billions to make trillions in the future, they are trying to get into your house and have a media center conected to your tv so you start using Silverlight more and more and they would love to dominate that. The same way PS3 has blue ray and Sony will make much more money with the movies than with the PS3 it self, so who cares if I lose 3.8 billion dollars on the PS3 if I'll own the new standard movie format that 5 years from now will represent maybe 5 billion a year. Blu Ray won thank to PS3 and MS is trying to get streaming content and downloadable content the next format trough the xbox.
Cheers
Microsoft has been working for years with third party vendors to get gaming support, but the market for PC gaming is significantly smaller than the console market. Those third party vendors are taking a hard look at the PC and wondering if it's really worth spending the millions of dollars needed to make a top notch PC game. And even if they take the plunge, they aren't going to make nearly as much money as they would with a console.
The very smart move that Microsoft made with the 360 is in the development tools. Third party devs can make a game for the 360, and fairly easily port it over to the PC if they feel they want to. This lowers the cost of having to develop for one platform, and increases profitability for the third party.
Another smart move that Microsoft has made is in the media integration. By integrating with a Home Theatre PC equipped with Windows Media Player, as well as the Zune Software, you can now stream TV content (from a TV card in the PC), Music, Pictures, Movies and TV shows in Hi-Def (From the Zune Service) to make it a really complete experience.
I personally subscribe to both the Zune and Xbox Live services. And I've started purchasing most of my TV shows direct from Zune, and getting movies (In DVD) that include Digital Downloads. I've gotten to the point where I've started to consider nixing my cable bill because frankly, I don't watch cable TV anymore. And the relative cost of my TV shows is about $40 a month purchasing points through Zune or XBL.
The addition of Last.fm, Twitter, and Facebook have brought the console closer to being a social device over the web. And while I think there are significant improvements to be made with the social aspect of the Xbox, I believe they're headed in the right direction.
Microsoft took a black eye when they nixed support for the original Xbox so quick after it came out, and I think that Microsoft is paying for that dearly with the 360. However, I think that the 360 is proving that Microsoft can in fact put out a quality product. I think that their next gen console, whenever it comes out, will move to profitability far quicker than the 360 because of the reputation that Microsoft is rebuilding with this current gen of consoles.
And don't forget, "Entertainment and Devices" includes not only the Xbox but also WinMo and Zune, which aren't exactly money-makers right now. (I know Zune is losing money, not sure about WinMo, so that is pulling those profit number down)
1) Sony was making bold claims of "winning the living room" and making it where people didn't need to own a home computer. This strikes right to the heart of MS--Windows. One of xbox's goals was to protect Windows.
2) Their markets are largely tapped out--Windows can't grow--it is 95% already. Gaming is $20B or more market--go for that.
3) Putting effort into Window's gaming doesn't really make them much money unless they make the game themselves. COD:MW2 made them ~$10-15 for every copy sold on 360 and $0 for ever copy sold for Windows.
4) They lost money getting into the market, but are now being profitable.
5) If they become the dominant console this gen, next gen, or next-next gen, potential profits are in the multi-billions.
6) xbox/360 also helps windows by being a media center extender.
7) xbox can very much be a media center all by itself and is very good at it. Music, movies, netflix, gaming, etc.
8) The opportunity cost is important--but no one has put forth a better thing to do.
9) The division was losing $1B a year before the xbox ever started, xbox turned division into a profitable one. Saving $1B a year is the same as making it.
If the box wasn't made, then we most likely would not be enjoying the high quality gaming we are right now.
1. We all know that competition fosters creativity and innovation. That is what typically sets differences between products and performance.
Commenting on what the dude above me has posted i'd like to point out that if the Xbox wasn't made wouldn't the competition be just as high and full of innovation and crativity with console vs PC the same as it has been with The Xbox vs PS3 vs Wii? What i mean is that if the money was being put into PC gaming wouldn't the console have a greater struggle competing with PC games especially because PC's can be upgraded with new hardware year by year whereas with the consoles its the same hardware for its 5+ year life period? Surely the gives consoles more of a reason to be competing at a higher level than they would be competing against each other... In my opinion Microsoft has just push its main competitor out of the competition.
If the box wasn't made, then we most likely would not be enjoying the high quality gaming we are right now.
No offense, but I find your article title pretty stupid.
1. We all know that competition fosters creativity and innovation. That is what typically sets differences between products and performance.
2. You could argue that Microsoft lost a lot of money during this whole process. but guess what? They reap the benefits from the software royalties. Not just that, but if you know anything about business then you would know that it takes money to make money. It takes time. That is business.
Breath because having wider amount of consoles out will increase the chance of success for developers who may not have the money, experience, or time to make a game on X console can make it on Y with better results in respect to their dilemma. Or, if they do have the above, they can make a superior game on X console because Y console does not suit their goals. Furthermore, they can make money off of one console to fund work on another. Rockstar did it, Ninja Theory did it, and so will/are others.
Rivalry is different than competition: Competition is beating all groups involved in respect to a goal; a rivalry is one group trying to one-up another group. Which is better than competition. Everyone is looking at
Halo vs. Killzone
Gran Turismo vs Forza Motorsport
Gears of War vs. Resistance
Metal Gear Solid vs. Splinter Cell
Motorstorm vs DiRT
MAG vs SOCOM, probably
...and so on.
These games will strive to out-do their rival and will be more focused on completing that task then worrying about the run-of the mill shooter, making it a very splendid environment to grow within.
RROD says hi
Crapbox will be remembered for being the most unreliable console ever
Jump Out, Play B3yond
Check it out. Microsoft seems to have been struggling with their gaming division. This was posted last year, so no clue whether things have picked up or not.
PC is an open platform and with it is the bad and the good.
- MS reaps no benefits when a game sold on the PC platform (the OS is frequently pirated)
- Customers (like me) are sick of upgrading our pc's
- The console is a different gaming experience than the PC
- Piracy is rampant on PC both for the OS and the games
The bottom line, MS could support the PC and become the next Steam or, they could try and invade the living room. I see the living room being the much larger market. If MS continues to push what they have so far, it is no doubt that MS will be in every living room just like the Wii.
microsoft saw a potential in the market that i believe sega left when they stopped making consoles and with such a allready domination in pretty much every other digital market microsoft realised it would be best to join in the game market and i am trully gratefull they have as if you look at what they have achieved in such a short amount of time since joining the game market then you will realise that they have propelled the market into what is now one of the fastest if not the fastest growing markets in the world.
the xbox 360 i felt was allways going to be held back a bit by the fact that it still runs on the same live that the original xbox ran on but since that will soon no longer be the issue i can see xbox live going beyond the normal online experience and trully becoming something every home would be better off with then without like the home pc is in this modern age.
The PC gaming market is too fragmented with its laundry list of system requirements that leave the gamer's experience potentially decreased by 1) having a lacking system, or 2) having a lesser internet connection to bog down other players. They needed to have interated hardware and software to control the experience. It would be like saying Apple should never have made the iPhone and instead license the OS out to OEMs. Apple would have a Windows Mobile issue.
OK... that's it... just sayin...
As for the arguments against, you don't make sense. You argue about synergy between platforms, yet that's the goal of MS right now! The whole "Connected Entertainment" vision where Xbox, Zune, and even Windows and WP7S will all integrate tighter and tighter as time goes on. I can tell you from experience, as a Zune owner, now that I see Zune going to the other platforms, I'm going to start hopping onto these other platforms.
While it may seem it's fragmented (to be honest, it is) at the moment, it has been long known and coming that MS plans to (read: Will) integrate its fragmented ecosystem more and more... Just wait
You could make a special version of Windows 7 that says "Xbox 360 Certified" or something which means the machine it was installed on met the hardware requirements for playing the games on it. That would have been a genius move.