Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Microsoft Embraced Gaming

Posted by Soulskill on from the something-about-extending-and-i-forget dept.

wjousts writes "A interesting take on the birth of the Xbox from Technology Review: 'When the original Xbox video-game console went on sale in 2001, it wasn't clear why Microsoft, known for staid workplace software, was branching out into fast-paced action games. But Microsoft decided that capitalizing on the popularity of gaming could help the company position itself for the coming wave of home digital entertainment. "Microsoft saw the writing on the wall," says David Dennis, a spokesman for Xbox. "It wanted to have a beachhead in the living room." ... Now Microsoft is linking Xbox 360, its most successful consumer-focused brand, with others that have not been as well received. It is integrating Bing, its search engine, into Xbox and Xbox Live to enable people to search for multimedia content. By the end of the year, Microsoft is expected to unveil an updated Xbox Live design that is more in line with the look of Windows phones and the forthcoming Windows 8.'"

103 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. needs more than that by g00mbasv · · Score: 1

    well even tho they succeeded on launching their gaming business, I believe they really REALLY need to start building brand loyalty, NOBODY likes microsoft as a company, you might like windows, xbox, and games for windows live (why like GFWL is beyond me but whatever),but if MS went crashing and burning down today, nobody would really care about the company, about the services, yes; but about the company.. not really.

    1. Re:needs more than that by jawtheshark · · Score: 2

      In the consumer market? Yes. In the business market, you're definitely mistaken. I don't know why, but once an organization becomes of a certain size, Microsoft is unavoidable and PHBs, CEOs and other three-letter-higher-ups absolutely want only to hear about Microsoft.

      As such, I'd wager to say that, yes, there are people who love Microsoft and have very high brand loyalty to it.

      Of course, it doesn't have the religious following Apple has, but there are some real Microsoft lovers[1]. Events like Vista, toned their vocality down, but with the advent of 7, they are back in full force. (I still think 7 is a polished Vista and made too much changes where not required. I still despise the interface. )

      [1] Like people shelling out good money for Windows Server for a home server...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    2. Re:needs more than that by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "NOBODY likes microsoft as a company" While this may be true in the tech world the average consumer could care less about the company they just want more games. Although today it seems that all corporations are under attack for one thing or another which is fine if they are forced to make changes in their business practices.

    3. Re:needs more than that by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I still think 7 is a polished Vista

      You say that like most others wouldn't agree with you. Of course that's all Win7 is: they polished the turd that is Vista, though they actually did a pretty good job of it, fixing most of the performance problems and such, so now people just don't have so much reason to complain like they did with Vista. But yes, the interface is definitely different (I don't like it either).

    4. Re:needs more than that by cavreader · · Score: 1

      MS is in a good spot when it comes to having companies use their products. Migrating from one OS and application stack to another is expensive and time consuming and this benefits MS. I have been involved with 2 of my customers who were making attempts to move from the MS stack to the Linux stack and it ended up being a fiasco in both cases. Their IT departments lacked the development and system administrative skills to make the change over and they ran into a couple of situations where they could not migrate some of their existing custom applications to the new platform.

    5. Re:needs more than that by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Meh. I like 7. I really disliked Vista.

      I relatively regularly use Ubuntu, RedHat, Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Android.

      now people just don't have so much reason to complain

      So in other words, it's not really that bad, but people still dislike it? out of principle, I guess?

      Sounds like the same thing that happens with Linux. People don't like it. Why? I dunno. It's "different" or it's not "supported" or it's "slow" or it's "communist" or who knows what else. Typically, there aren't really good answers by typical users. Actually, I'd say it's not quite ready due to video driver issues, but that's more nVidia and ATI's fault than anyone else, unfortunately.

      And until they get the driver thing worked out, I doubt many mainstream games will be ported or written for it, unfortunately.

      I love using Linux for work. Way nicer for me, since I do a lot of shell stuff, command line, python, perl, etc. But I use a Windows box for some things that just don't exist on Linux [yet]... like a good music notation program akin to Sibelius (or Finale, though I don't like Finale... at least not the version I tried in school a few years ago), games like The Elder Scrolls series or Neverwinter Nights type things, a relatively easy to use and cheap DAW like Reaper (yes, I know, it works in wine...), etc.

    6. Re:needs more than that by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      well even tho they succeeded on launching their gaming business, I believe they really REALLY need to start building brand loyalty, NOBODY likes microsoft as a company, you might like windows, xbox, and games for windows live (why like GFWL is beyond me but whatever),but if MS went crashing and burning down today, nobody would really care about the company, about the services, yes; but about the company.. not really.

      I would agree that they could use more brand loyalty. Microsoft has never been great at image; they constantly fail to look hip, cool, or caring.

      Look at at their competitors. Sony has repeatedly pissed on their customers left and right, but yet they still manage to have fanboys proclaiming how evil Microsoft is. Apple has managed to convince legions that missing a feature is a feature itself, and it's scary outside the walls of their garden. They even had a CEO that was viewed as a messiah.

      Then again, it's probably better for us for them to be square. Where would we be without these other players providing competition and pushing them to innovate?

    7. Re:needs more than that by SadButTrue · · Score: 1

      Even though it sounded like you were disagreeing with "Nobody likes microsft", what you said is 100% consistent. Indifference != like.

      --
      grape - the GNU free, open source rape
    8. Re:needs more than that by tepples · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the same thing that happens with Linux. People don't like it. Why? I dunno. It's "different" or it's not "supported" or it's "slow" or it's "communist" or who knows what else.

      How about "not compatible with the applications that I need to use" or "not compatible with the hardware that I own"? I've run into both at various times, as you mention with Sibelius, NWN, Reaper, etc. Or they disagree with the direction in which Unity and GNOME Shell are headed, such as Unity's mystery-meat menu bar that's often half a screen away from the focused window. Granted, Mac OS X likewise has a problem of the menu bar being far from the window, but at least its global menu isn't mystery meat hidden behind an application's title bar.

      but that's more nVidia and ATI's fault than anyone else

      Assigning blame is one step. But if the blameworthy party proves unwilling to work well with the maintainers of other components, then even though it's not Linux's fault, it's still Linux's problem to work around.

      But I use a Windows box for some things that just don't exist on Linux [yet]... like a good music notation program

      I can has LilyPond?

    9. Re:needs more than that by dskzero · · Score: 1

      I know plenty of people who like Microsoft, but, most important, they love the Xbox. THey don't really need to be liked by geeks and gamers, anyway: they have plenty of products that are widely used in business and that's what they need: I haven't RTFA but I really doubt the Xbox failing would be the end of them.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    10. Re:needs more than that by g00mbasv · · Score: 1

      of course I meant consumer market, its sad to see suits demand microsoft stuff because they dont know any better.

    11. Re:needs more than that by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Google didn't really detract from Apple's brand loyalty, and nobody has any brand loyalty to Facebook; they use it despite their near-universal irritation with the company.

      I think MS has been reforming their image, some. Their gaming consoles have helped... I don't think they're nearly as reviled now as they were in the days of windows '95. They're too big and slow and clumsy to be 'cool', but they can still manage 'adequate'.

  2. Sure... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    I bought my Sega because I believed it would lead me into a larger world.

    I bought my Playstation because I believed I would become more self actualised (whatever the heck that means.)

    Funny how they are in boxes, gathering dust, which I continue to use a desktop computer.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Sure... by El+Torico · · Score: 2

      I bought my Playstation because I believed I would become more self actualised (whatever the heck that means.)

      So, you were waiting for Maslow's Quest to be released too? I guess the developers just couldn't code "peak experiences".

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    2. Re:Sure... by tomstockmail · · Score: 1

      If you're not playing Uncharted 3 right now then you don't own a Playstation 3.

    3. Re:Sure... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I don' t buy games, I get them via blockbuster, much cheaper than buying.

    4. Re:Sure... by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      So are you using the same desktop you were when the Playstation was released or have you replaced that one with newer hardware?

    5. Re:Sure... by antdude · · Score: 1

      That is why I only had an Atari 2600. Computers are so much better than video game consoles. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:Sure... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      If you are talking about the Dreamcast you really need to check out some of the emulators and ROM collections for the DC. The fact that you didn't have to modchip it meant that while my boys have the original Xbox and PS2 gathering dust the DC stays hooked up loaded with SNES and Genesis games. Its cool to be able to bust out some Ikari warriors or General Chaos without having to blow on carts and if you hit some of the BT sites you can find pre-made ROM collections that are as simple as burn>>run for the DC. It was a great little machine.

      I have to agree about the PC though, my boys probably have just about every console and handheld (the youngest especially was into consoles and handhelds) but they are all for the most part just gathering dust. Instead they just play MMOs or whatever games they have gotten from the last Steam sale. The oldest when not studying is in LOTRO and L4D II while the youngest is playing Amnesia and something called Terraria?

      One thing I'll never regret though is getting the boys started at a young age on the PC, as while the other kids at the college needed lessons on managing online information and citing references the oldest is breezing through. Having computer skills really is required for modern life and I didn't realize how much I had taught the boys over the years until I started teaching a neighbor down the hall who had never before touched a computer or been online. In this day and age computer illiteracy is almost as bad as regular illiteracy and it was a real challenge to keep help from falling for scams until he was "net savvy" enough to function on his own. But with my help he was able to find a good second job through online advertisements and is even catching up with his long lost relatives back in Florida so at least it worked out alright.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  3. Re:Because by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Informative

    This short-hand history does little to explain anything. The XBox did not spring forth from Microsoft, like Athena from the head of Zeus, "because they saw the handwriting on the wall".

    Xbox was an extrapolation of work begun, at least, wit the introduction of DirectX in 1995. Equally, the history of MS Flight Simulator must be considered. This was rooted in a time when consoles were just a scroll and jump away from Pong.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  4. Re:Money. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    Originally, sure - but $billions in the hole with only a (very) slim hope of eventual ROI isn't much the way to do it. Then again, to be fair, maybe they think (hope/project/predict?) that their next console version will be the one that rakes in enough profit to pay all that off?

    TFA does have it right though - we're already seeing XBoxes that do movies, music, online social bits, and the like.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  5. Re:Money by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Not for them it ain't. They only make quarterly profits, Xbox is not paid for, 360 might pay that debt back but it is pretty doubtful.

  6. Re:Because by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

    I remember Microsoft Flight Simulator 5 on DOS. It was awesome, it even ran at 640x480 in 256 colours (I think). It was absolutely amazing for it's time. White is Flight Simulator now? As far as I know the last release was Microsoft Flight Simulator X, but that's eternities ago

    There is an open source flight simulator called "FlightGear", but I never got the hang of it.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  7. Reverse It by rwv · · Score: 1

    By the end of the year, Microsoft is expected to unveil an updated Xbox Live design that is more in line with the look of Windows phones and the forthcoming Windows 8.'

    If I were them, I'd unveil a new Windows 8 that looks more like XBox Live. I don't own an XBox, but from what I understand the online support from Microsoft for XBox is better than what is offered by Sony for PS3 and Nintendo for Wii. I do actually own those two systems and have generally found the online support to be pretty terrible.

    1. Re:Reverse It by ThinkWeak · · Score: 1

      I don't own an XBox, but from what I understand the online support from Microsoft for XBox is better than what is offered by Sony for PS3 and Nintendo for Wii. I do actually own those two systems and have generally found the online support to be pretty terrible.

      It's true, you get what you pay for. I've paid for the Live membership for over 5 years and I've been very happy with it. It's easy, they keep it fresh, and the added indie game section is a nice touch. I'll be interested to see what the live TV offering is going to be and I'm also hopeful they'll incorporate Skype with Kinect. The camera on the Kinect doesn't appear to capture the most crisp picture, but it's decent enough to get the point across.

    2. Re:Reverse It by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      The latest 360 systems have built-in wi-fi, incidentally (not that it makes that much difference in your point).

      If you think the online services of the other two consoles are anywhere close to Xbox Live, then you probably don't have enough experience contrasting the services to make a reasonable comparison. You'll have to trust me that most of my friends, while not exactly ecstatic about paying $60 a year for Live really don't consider it enough of a deterrent, considering how slick and seamless the service is to use (in fact, was just having fun with some 5-player GoW co-op with some co-workers last night).

      Lest you think me an MS fanboy, I own all three consoles, and really wish Sony (apparently completely incompetent at creating and managing a network) and Nintendo (who isn't really even trying online) would give Microsoft some serious competition in the console online space. Otherwise, it gives MS carte blanche to do whatever they want to in their little walled garden, such as not allowing Valve to give free DLC packs for owners of its games. Very short-sighted of them, IMO, because otherwise they could probably have worked out a deal to get a small piece of all the microtransactions that are flowing through Team Fortress 2 right now.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Reverse It by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The wii has sold more consoles yes, but that is in spite of, not because of, Nintendo's online offerings (which is what GP was talking about.) You can download some small games, you can through great effort play with some voiceless strangers online for a few games. Anything else that nintendo online offers your smartphone does better.

    4. Re:Reverse It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The 360 is all about milking the customer. No included wifi so you can buy a pricey adapter,

      Or use the built in ethernet port. Saves money for those of us that don't see the need for wireless.

      can't use a standard HD, got to buy a expensive proprietary add-on

      Oh yes, the expensive proprietary add-on otherwise known as a HDMI cable. Bought mine from a supermarket for 1.5GBP (under US$3). Only the first generation of Xbox360 consoles lacked a HDMI port, and you have to remember that when they were released very few people had a HD TV, and those that did mostly had component connections

      To play games online or do anything really it's $60 a year.

      Well I'd consider offline play, patch and game demo downloads as something, but XBox live does improve things. If you're paying retail price for your xbox live subscription, you didn't look hard enough, there are regular discounts right on the dashboard!

      The system has no browser to ensure your chances of getting anything for free are minimised and instead they expect you to pay to access facebook or twitter through their system.

      I bought my Xbox 360 to play games on. Browsing on the TV sucks, and as you make comment on owning a Wii and 3DS, you know how rubbish the browsers that they come with are. You may not know so I'll mention it, but the one on the PS3 is shit too.

      I'm completely happy with my free online services through the Wii and 3DS but for $60 a year the 360 damn well better have better online services.

      Xbox live does have better online services than the Wii and 3DS, and they regularly add more features. What Nintendo provide is great for a free service, but it can't compete with the money MS put behind Live.

      I'm not knocking Nintendo, I bought my Wii and DS on launch day and still use them (well, not the DS that much). You're right that the XBox is a much more expensive option, but get your facts straight on what you do get for the money.

    5. Re:Reverse It by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      That may very well be but what I have works well enough for me. The only issue with the Wii is the friends codes which are non-existant on the 3DS. You just jump online and find a match and network connectivity seems fine. Other than that I use the systems (minus the 3DS though) for web browsing which is quite nice to do away from the desktop sometimes and I just can't do that on the 360.

      Again I would hope it's infinitely better since it's not free but for what I want I don't think it is. I would assume that's the case for most people too as there are more people who own another system than own a 360. Oddly enough the one thing that MS does allow in their walled garden that probably puts a lot of people off from online gaming (which is an issue on the PS3 too) is the foul mouthed kids. I'm not terribly surprised a lot of people rather not spend their free time being 'pwned' by a 12 year old calling them nigger faggot.

    6. Re:Reverse It by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Arguably the voicelessness is a bonus. But I will agree that the Wii didn't sell because of it's lack of online capability. I think it shows more that people aren't that bothered about online play. If they want to browse the web or use netflix they can do that on the Wii and i do think most people rather not be verbally abused by young kids so they're put off by online gaming.

    7. Re:Reverse It by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The 360 is all about milking the customer. No included wifi so you can buy a pricey adapter, can't use a standard HD, got to buy a expensive proprietary add-on.

      The Arcade fixes the HDMI port issue and as tepples says the S adds WiFi. Let us not forget that the magical PS3 with WiFi was $600 at launch.

      To play games online or do anything really it's $60 a year.

      That does suck.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Reverse It by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I agree the PS3 had a higher base price but at the same time to get a similar experience (ie getting the wifi add-on, the HD-DVD add-on rechargeable battery pack, gold membership, etc) it wasn't cheaper. I believe in fact it was more expensive.

    9. Re:Reverse It by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Blu-Ray or no Blu-Ray, that is the question upon which PS3 purchases were justified or not. Me, I just got a BDP-S300 for five bucks, and as soon as I find a matching remote, I'll have a Blu-Ray player. I didn't have an HDTV until relatively recently (well after the PS3 launch anyway) and I'm still pretty much amazed at how good an upscaled DVD can look. So it comes down to which hardware you needed. For many people the 360 was significantly cheaper up front. I don't have Live Gold so I'm not paying for it - it wasn't until recently that I even had an internet connection that would support gaming.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Apple and Google by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    should consider working together on a home game unit. They have more in common than they think.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Apple and Google by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Yes they have their hatred of Microsoft in common. Something which is matched only by their hatred for each other. Steve Jobs would turn in his grave if Apple hooked up with Google again after the whole iPhone/Android thing.

    2. Re:Apple and Google by chromas · · Score: 1

      At least the casket will reorient itself when he turns.

  9. Re:Money. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    For money.

    Next!

    Definitely, but you need to say it in the "Mr. Krabs" voice.

  10. force bing on people (?) by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

    This would be the only way I would use bing, but honestly I probably wouldn't mind. Xboxes are for gaming. When they do other things fine. And ok I'll just use whatever search comes with it. Actual good move by M$.

  11. Windows by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Too bad Microsoft hasn't REALLY embraced gaming, they're just competing with Sony for console hardware.

    Windows 7 is still extremely naive about handling games. There should be options in the OS to disable the windows key when full-screen applications are running, windows should be MUCH better about recognizing games, Games For Windows Live is a JOKE (this I especially don't understand, Xbox Live is actually very impressive, and it should be EASIER to provide that kind of service on a PC. Gamespy has been doing it for FREE for years, but MS continually just releases a crap of DRM they call GFWL with no "features" a gamer would ever possibly use).

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    1. Re:Windows by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      It's not just games, although games are where it comes out most. Windows doesn't understand what to do with monitors and full-screen applications, up to and including its own desktop.

      I have a two-screen setup. They're cheap, but let's not get picky. The one on the left is 1024x768, a trashy little thing I've had for years. The one on the right is 1360x768, a repurposed LCD TV. (Don't get me started on its problems.) Let's say I'm playing some old game, which wants to run at 4:3. Windows, naively, puts that on my 16:9, because it doesn't think about what it's doing, and it's not configurable. Does it make intelligent use of the remaining screen real-estate? No, apparently Windows thinks the graphics card would be overtaxed adding, say, a widget bar to the side of a mis-scaled app.

      Let's say I want to switch contexts to the other monitor. I don't need to see the hidden desktop. Should be simple, right? No, as soon as the fullscreen app loses focus, Windows does the funky chicken. (I've seen at least one game that manages to display full-screen without this, so I assume it's bad or legacy programming, but let's be real--Windows could override this behavior if they'd thought about it.

      There's no reason why you couldn't generalize an application container (Desktop, fullscreen app, desktop with widgets, widget sidebar, etc) and divide up your screens to accomodate as many as possible, with special keys to control it and low-level compositing to help you control your GUI. But Windows doesn't innovate, and they don't think. Multiple-monitor setups have existed for ages, but they're not a commercially viable target demographic, I guess.

    2. Re:Windows by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      But Windows doesn't innovate, and they don't think.

      Amen, brother. I know M$-bashing gets some flak on /. for being everybody's favorite straw-man, but seriously, this OS is embarrassing. I can count the number of useful features they've added since 98SE on my left hand.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    3. Re:Windows by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 2

      It's not even about bashing the company. I get that they make a majority of their money on business instead of consumer machines. I don't even really mind that they tend to focus on those clients. However, you would think them capable of using that money to make the end-result better; you know, using it the way MS Research does (the ones who do things like the giant multitouch table, and other projects that never really made it to production, but were hella impressive). Only, you know, doing that for their main product, the one that is their forward-facing business, the one on whole idea of computing sinks or swims.

      I mean, imagine that everyone at Microsoft had the opportunity to, with no pressure, put together a huge communal project, which would re-factor, re-imagine, and re-build the kernel, windowing system, registry, and all else from scratch. No business pressure to get it done in a certain number of years; no backwards-compatibility-layer bullshit, because it's not an external project. Just a pristine, clean, perfect template, which may not be ever released, but which is just a grand experiment based on decades of experience and giant bags of cash with dollar signs on them. I wonder what would come out of it?

    4. Re:Windows by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Have you tried multiple monitors on any other OS? MacOS has been doing multiple monitors since time immemorial and it has all the same problems you attribute to Windows. And don't even get me started on how crappy multiple monitor support is on Linux. As bad as Windows is at handling it, it's one of the best.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Windows by Xest · · Score: 1

      "There should be options in the OS to disable the windows key when full-screen applications are running"

      What? any programmer worth his salt can do this.

      If it's not done in a game it's because the game's developers made the concious decision that people want to be able to get out of their games and jump to the start menu to do something else, we did after all change to multi-tasking operating systems for a reason.

      "but MS continually just releases a crap of DRM they call GFWL with no "features" a gamer would ever possibly use)."

      Other than an excellent system for inviting friends into games, managing voice chats and so forth? I agree it needs some work, but it's got some nice features without a doubt which they've carried over from XBL.

  12. Re:Money by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    And don't forget that the Xbox has helped to cripple PC gaming, which is one of the main reasons for people to upgrade their PC and buy a new version of Windows.

    All in all the Xbox has been a disaster; I'm amused to see Microsoft tying their loss-making search engine to their loss-maknig console and hoping it will suddenly make money.

  13. Capitalism? by pmgarvey · · Score: 1

    Because they want to make money, by selling people things? Bear with me, but my theory is they think they can make consoles at a cheaper price than people will be willing to pay for them. So crazy it just might be true.

    1. Re:Capitalism? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Bear with me, but my theory is they think they can make consoles at a cheaper price than people will be willing to pay for them. So crazy it just might be true.

      That would be more convincing if the Xbox hadn't been a financial boondoggle. They may 'make consoles at a cheaper price than people are willing to pay for them' right now, but they'll take a long time to pay off the debts incurred in reaching that point and will soon have to blow another truckload of cash developing the next generation.

    2. Re:Capitalism? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Yup, I'm not convinced they've actually turned a profit yet from the XBox line. If they're tying it to Bing and their long line of CE/Mobile abominations, I'm pretty sure they're in the red.

      OS and Office are still doing a good job of funding their delusions, mind.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:Capitalism? by MHolmesIV · · Score: 1

      Um, according to the financial statements for FY11, the E&D business (which includes the CE/Mobile "abominations") made $1.3billion in profit on revenue of $8.9billion. This puts it around 125 on the fortune 500 in terms of profit, and about 275 in terms of just revenue, and solidly in the black. If this were any other company it would be considered a ridiculous success. (Amazon took 8 years to make a profit of $73 million, and now, at 16 years old, is making a profit of a third of the E&D division)

  14. more people plug it into their TVs?? by Justtaint · · Score: 1

    The article states "Ten years later, the Xbox 360 is the best-selling video-game system of its generation in the United States, where more people plug it into their TVs than either Sony's PlayStation 3 or Nintendo's Wii (emphasis mine), and it's making Microsoft a contender in the fierce battle to serve up entertainment on demand, especially from Internet video services. "
     
      That makes for a nice story but the Wii has worldwide sales of almost 90M compared to the Xbox 360's 55-57M. If you take into account the poor reliability of the 360 relative to both the PS3 (which is neck and neck in total sales) and the Wii, it's easily third in consoles currently in use.

    1. Re:more people plug it into their TVs?? by cornface · · Score: 1

      The article said "plug into TVs" not "dump in box behind TV."

    2. Re:more people plug it into their TVs?? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      best-selling video-game system of its generation in the United States, where more people plug it into their TVs than either Sony's PlayStation 3 or Nintendo's Wii

      Emphasis mine. You listed worldwide numbers. It doesn't change your argument, based on wikipedia's source, but I thought it was important to look at the actual claim.

      wiki

    3. Re:more people plug it into their TVs?? by wjousts · · Score: 1

      It's a shame you didn't also bold the five words before the part you did bold. The part that said "in the United States". So your worldwide comparison is irrelevant compared to the part YOU decided to quote.

    4. Re:more people plug it into their TVs?? by wjousts · · Score: 1

      5. There are 5 words before the part they bolded to the word "in", "in the United States, which". Hence start your bolding 5 words earlier. I only bolded the 4 relevant words. Do try and keep up!

  15. Re:Money by Cragen · · Score: 1

    Interesting idea. Main reason I have a pc is gaming. (Well, I also have an xbox360 but wouldn't have bought if the kids were so adamant. Now that they are in college, I don't play it much.) Not a social fellow so the tablets and smartphones are useless. Fortunately, the wife agrees with all the above (or all bets would be off).

  16. Why? Consumer products are a threat to their core by CronoCloud · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The last thing Microsoft wants is for people to find out or realize that you can do "computery" things without a computer running one of their operating systems. It's why they had shills in the late 80's early 90's saying: "Hey, don't buy an Amiga or ST, because you'll need to bring home work from the office and those machines don't use the "industry standard" software".

    Or when Microsoft bought WebTV, which allowed people to send e-mail, use USENET, IRC chat, and view webpages on a consumer oriented piece of hardware that hooked up to the TV and didn't run Windows, and then let it languish.

    Sega, Sony and Nintendo probably scared Microsoft silly when their hardware became capable of running PC style games without being cut down so much Sega's netlink and Sony's prototype PSone modem probably gave them the impetus for entering the market. "If we don't enter their makret, they'll eventually enter ours and make game consoles that people can use to browse the net." Sony's use of Linux tools for developing probably gave them fits as well.

    And think of the PS2...acknowledged capable of running Linux from the start, with a slot for a hard drive and networking, and USB ports. Microsoft knew that Cony could do some kind of "web kiosk" software for the PS2 any time they wanted to, or worse, do a general release of the Linux kit. SCEE apparently had a "Live" version of the distro in the Linux kit that they tested out. Let's also not forget the Japan only release of the BBN software which let Japanese PS2 owners do a lot of stuff that we Americans only got to do upon release of the PS3.

    Then came the PS3...which at one time, ran Linux out of the box, all you needed was install media. And there was at one time a plan to install it by default on all PS3's alongside GameOS. The PS3 also does media, and has a built in web browser, and support for downloadable apps (though Sony didn't add an "app" section to the PSN store till recently). That thing was Microsoft's worst nightmare come to life. Who needs Windows to play complex games? Who needs Windows just to visit facebook.

    So Microsoft has to stay in the market just to keep Sony and/or Nintendo off balance enough to prevent them from getting any more ideas.

  17. Bob by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    Now Microsoft is linking Xbox 360, its most successful consumer-focused brand, with others that have not been as well received.

    Can't wait for MS Bob w/ avatars on XBox!

    --
    I8-D
  18. Re:Because by cybersaga · · Score: 1

    According to Wikipedia, the team was just laid off. But it's coming back as Microsoft Flight.

    --
    Web Design Tips
  19. Re:Because by wjousts · · Score: 1

    You are correct. Microsoft retired the whole team a couple of years ago.

  20. Re:DirectX by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Microsoft got into the console market because they wanted to maintain and increase the number of developers hooked on DirectX.

    End of story. Everything else was a "So, where do we go now" afterthought.

    Oh please. Do you expect me to believe that it was originally envisioned as the DriectXBox? Or that they didn't really have any other plan beyond buying off the shelf components and slapping them together in an ugly case? That the billions in losses that even today still haven't been made up weren't part of some grand scheme?

  21. Halo kept the Xbox from obscurity by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    Twas the game Halo that pulled the Xbox from a race to
    the bottom with the Game Cube. PS2'ers looking down waiting
    to see which one folded first.

    Being a PS2'er I remember when Xbox started being talked about
    in a positive way, just before the release of Halo 2.

    Now Xbox is manipulating game producers for perks, Being a PC
    "Call of Duty" player watching as microsoft claims CoD as their own.

    Seriously home media is fine but it's the games that sell the system.

    I have a PS3,, the last version that was backwards comparable with PS2.
    Right now I only use it for the occasional Netflix, but I bought it for the games.

  22. Re:Because by OakDragon · · Score: 1

    No, it was because of * Developers! * Developers! * Developers! * Developers! * Developers! * Developers! * Developers! * Developers! *

    --
    Dark Reflection
  23. Debian, Free download... by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

    www.debian.org

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  24. Failed Attempt at Establishing Another Monopoly by tbannist · · Score: 2

    I can tell you what Microsoft was telling business about the Xbox when they were rolling it out. I was at one of their "digital home" shows for businesses, where they were trying to convince the attendees that everyone would soon have 3 or 4 Xboxes in their houses which they could use a networked PVR/gaming systems.

    The presentation was pathetic with obvious Microsoft employee "shills" in the audience who lobbed softball questions to the presenters. Even worse the "networked" PVR demo was faked, they hid an extra computer to feed video to their "remote" TV in the "bedroom". It was, overall, a pretty disgusting bit of charlatanism.

    The point, of course, is that it was pretty obvious to anyone who cared to know exactly why Microsoft got into the Xbox business, they were hoping to shore up the Windows monopoly by producing a gaming console that they could eventually parlay into a monopoly on digital homes. They needed to do this to prevent anyone else from establishing domination in this arena, imagine if Linux became the standard for consumer appliances, it could potentially erode the Windows desktop monopoly.

    Unfortunately for Microsoft, all the digital home stuff was way too early, they didn't actually have viable products to back it up at the time, and Nintendo and then Apple stole their thunder with the Wii, and iPhone and the iPad respectively. They've been trying for a very long time to figure out how to use the Xbox 360 to expand the reach of their monopolies without tipping their hand to the regulators. Now that the regulatory period is over, they no longer have to worry about making blatantly anticompetitive moves.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
    1. Re:Failed Attempt at Establishing Another Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It must really piss you off that they actually did make a difference in the gaming industry. Xbox Live was (and to be honest still is) way better than any of the other attempts to embrace "online" by their competitors.

    2. Re:Failed Attempt at Establishing Another Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can tell you what Microsoft was telling business about the Xbox when they were rolling it out. I was at one of their "digital home" shows for businesses, where they were trying to convince the attendees that everyone would soon have 3 or 4 Xboxes in their houses which they could use a networked PVR/gaming systems.

      Find the presentation (video, website, powerpoint, pdf, anything) and post a link. Anybody can make garbage claims. Back it up so that it's believable.

      The presentation was pathetic with obvious Microsoft employee "shills" in the audience who lobbed softball questions to the presenters. Even worse the "networked" PVR demo was faked, they hid an extra computer to feed video to their "remote" TV in the "bedroom". It was, overall, a pretty disgusting bit of charlatanism.

      Sure.. whatever you say.. we believe you..

      The point, of course, is that it was pretty obvious to anyone who cared to know exactly why Microsoft got into the Xbox business, they were hoping to shore up the Windows monopoly by producing a gaming console that they could eventually parlay into a monopoly on digital homes. They needed to do this to prevent anyone else from establishing domination in this arena, imagine if Linux became the standard for consumer appliances, it could potentially erode the Windows desktop monopoly.

      Yes, how dare any company (much less Microsoft) try to protect their business, or branch out into a new area with the intent of making money? The audacity!

      Unfortunately for Microsoft, all the digital home stuff was way too early, they didn't actually have viable products to back it up at the time, and Nintendo and then Apple stole their thunder with the Wii, and iPhone and the iPad respectively. They've been trying for a very long time to figure out how to use the Xbox 360 to expand the reach of their monopolies without tipping their hand to the regulators. Now that the regulatory period is over, they no longer have to worry about making blatantly anticompetitive moves.

      The Wii stole what thunder? The iPhone and iPad did a number on everyone -- not just Microsoft (just ask Blackberry and anybody that made a Symbian phone). And neither the iPhone nor the iPad are in the least bit connected with the Xbox.

      As someone who has owned both Xboxes, and a PS2, PS3, multiple iPhones, multiple Android phones, a Windows Phone, let me tell you this -- the Xbox 360 + Xbox live was one of the best products / ecosystems to come out of Microsoft ever, and that's saying something.

      Last bit of advice -- you don't like the Xbox? Don't buy one. You don't like Windows? Don't buy it. Don't use it. You don't like Windows Phone? Don't use it. Nobody can force you. Nobody gives a damn anyway. Just don't get overly upset and start spreading FUD if poeple do like and use those products, okay?

    3. Re:Failed Attempt at Establishing Another Monopoly by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Find the presentation (video, website, powerpoint, pdf, anything) and post a link. Anybody can make garbage claims. Back it up so that it's believable.

      Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time trying to find evidence that you won't believe. I've told you the events I witnessed believe it or not, I don't really care. That part is merely exposition on where I got my information from, with some commentary on what they were showing and how they were able to do things that the Xbox was clearly not capable of.

      Yes, how dare any company (much less Microsoft) try to protect their business, or branch out into a new area with the intent of making money? The audacity!

      You seem to projecting your own anger at my revealing bad behavior on Microsoft part onto me. I'm not angry that Microsoft was trying grow their business, I'm merely telling you why they were getting into the console business. The business reasons made a lot of sense at the time and were obvious to anyone who had half a brain.

      The Wii stole what thunder?

      Obviously, the Xbox 360, it was supposed to be the dominant console world wide, but as soon as the Wii came out all anyone could talk about was the Wii. That was a significant blow to Microsoft's plans for the Xbox 360.

      The iPhone and iPad did a number on everyone -- not just Microsoft

      Obviously.

      And neither the iPhone nor the iPad are in the least bit connected with the Xbox.

      You don't seem to be able to follow a line of thought very well. The iPhone and the iPad have been the dominant tech story for the last couple of years, which has made it much more difficult for Microsoft to push the Xbox 360 as part of a home media system. Microsoft needs a functioning and slick tablet computer that is at least nearly equal to the iPad before they can go down the digital home road again or they'll just be laughed at by anyone with a clue. Tablets may end up being the future of home computing as opposed to say a box cabled to your TV.

      [T]he Xbox 360 + Xbox live was one of the best products / ecosystems to come out of Microsoft ever, and that's saying something.

      Irrelevant. I'm not talking about whether the Xbox 360 is good or not, just what Microsoft was trying to achieve.

      Last bit of advice -- you don't like the Xbox? Don't buy one. You don't like Windows? Don't buy it. Don't use it. You don't like Windows Phone? Don't use it. Nobody can force you. Nobody gives a damn anyway. Just don't get overly upset and start spreading FUD if poeple do like and use those products, okay?

      As is often the case with these types of posts, I'm much less upset than you. I have impugned the reputation of a company that you worship and you feel the need to defend it arduously. I'm not spreading FUD, no part of my post should inspire fear, uncertainty or doubt. Most people won't even get their hackles up over the allegations of faked product demos, it's not exactly a new criticism of Microsoft. They are, after all, the masters of FUD and have repeatedly used fake presentations to cripple competitors.

      The point of my post wasn't that "Micro$oft suxors" but that Microsoft had and probably still has, specific goals for the Xbox program. And it's two-fold protect the monopoly that makes most of the company's profits and trying to dominate a new potential market, both goals which are entirely rational for Microsoft to follow. It may not be in other people's best interest to allow them to achieve those goals but that is an entirely different post.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    4. Re:Failed Attempt at Establishing Another Monopoly by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for Microsoft, all the digital home stuff was way too early, they didn't actually have viable products to back it up at the time, and Nintendo and then Apple stole their thunder with the Wii, and iPhone and the iPad respectively.

      I think people underestimate how much the iPod screwed up Microsoft's plans. Microsoft developed media formats (WMA/WMV) and created DRM to go with it. They made deals to use their formats and DRM on online stores. They had the XBox ready to stream that media to your TV, and they had media empires ready to make their formats the default format. This would have given them a lock over the consumption of entertainment products.

      But there was one little problem: Apple absolutely refused to support WMA or PlaysForSure on the iPod. The iPod had already established a foothold, and it was *the* MP3 player, but if you bought WMAs, you couldn't play them on your iPod. Through that one little product, Microsoft was boned. They had to drop their play for entertainment dominance and instead support MPEG4 and AAC in their products, because those were the formats people were buying to play on their iPods.

  25. They already HAD a gaming business. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    seriously. ms sidewinder controllers and their forcefeedback controllers were _the_ best. they also dipped into game publishing before xbox - AND in the late '90s pc gaming became _the_ platform for high class gaming(which it still is) - on microsoft os, which despite everything made it possible to have pretty much random hardware and things would just work(compare that to early '90s pc gaming where if a game didn't support your soundcard you were fucked so you were better off just staying with blaster clones and other "standard" parts).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:They already HAD a gaming business. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      seriously. ms sidewinder controllers and their forcefeedback controllers were _the_ best.

      no, no they weren't. I have seen more MS FF sticks in the dumpster due to failure than I've ever seen in use. Logitech makes (and made) better pads, sticks, mice, keyboards, and indeed, all classes of hardware device that Microsoft has ever made. And the BEST joysticks came from Thrustmaster and Saitek (specifically the Cyborg.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:They already HAD a gaming business. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ms force feedback pro - the first one, it beat any thrustmaster I had used as a gaming joystick. it was pretty good for playing even mech warriors, which seriously you wouldn't want to do with anything spring loaded. it was better than flightsticks we had. the reason they went to dumpster is that they used midi as interface and they didn't port the drivers over to newer windows's. I don't think much of logitechs plastics, tbh, and their keyboards come from the same factories as ms's(and the one xbox logitech controller I had didn't have a big enough dead zone on the sticks and triggers, shoddy). sidewinders did pads better than previous pc pads had been, even if they experimented with unnecessary things like orientation control(gravis pads for the record suck, for example).

      if you want simulation controls, then sure, I guess thrustmaster is ok. but it's pretty bitchy to rig up that kind of control rig to your chair so that it's comfortable and ok for use with more than few realistic simulators. but seriously ff pro was a major improvement when it came over regular sticks, due to doing force feedback pretty well(mw3) and because it wasn't spring loaded, and because no pots to go fucked.

      for the record, the crappiest joysticks ever came from quickshot and ch flightsticks were easiest to fix(but really sucky at anything else than smooth flying).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:They already HAD a gaming business. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      if you want simulation controls, then sure, I guess thrustmaster is ok. but it's pretty bitchy to rig up that kind of control rig to your chair so that it's comfortable and ok for use with more than few realistic simulators.

      I have a rebuilt and stickworks-converted F22 Pro and it does not take long to set it up for Mechwarrior IV. And I guess my arm is just stronger than yours... a dubious honor at best.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:They already HAD a gaming business. by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Logitech makes (and made) better pads, sticks, mice, keyboards

      Funny you should say that, in the last 6 months I have had 2 out of 3 Logitech mice malfunctioning or DOA right out of the box.

    5. Re:They already HAD a gaming business. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say that, in the last 6 months I have had 2 out of 3 Logitech mice malfunctioning or DOA right out of the box.

      Are they the same model? You have have found a magical bad run. I've unboxed dozens of Logitech products and never repeat never had one even have a problem out of the box, or indeed, until years of abuse had gone by.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:They already HAD a gaming business. by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      seriously. ms sidewinder controllers and their forcefeedback controllers were _the_ best.

      no, no they weren't. I have seen more MS FF sticks in the dumpster due to failure than I've ever seen in use. Logitech makes (and made) better pads, sticks, mice, keyboards, and indeed, all classes of hardware device that Microsoft has ever made. And the BEST joysticks came from Thrustmaster and Saitek (specifically the Cyborg.)

      still have my sidewinder force feedback pro. still play mechwarrior 3 and 4 with it. I do have a brand spanking new logitech 550 wireless keyboard, though, that is about to go back to the vendor because it is the hands-down crappiest keyboard I've ever used. The tactile response is horrible, the keyboard will freeze for seconds at a time, and when it isn't freezing, it is randomly registering phantom keystrokes. I realize I'm offering only one datapoint here, but first impressions are lasting impressions. Logitech will not be getting any more of my money based on my experience with this keyboard. My FF Pro and Microsoft Natural Keyboard on my gaming rig are both pushing fifteen years old and are working fine.

    7. Re:They already HAD a gaming business. by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Three different models, only one of which worked out of box. One was a G500, one was a G9x (the one that worked) and one was an MX Anywhere.

      The G500 arrived DOA. Didn't get a replacement, just sent it back and bought a different one. As mentioned the G9x worked. The MX Anywhere kind of worked but the scroll wheel would quit at random times, then start working again (which suggests a software issue but I tried different drivers and different PCs and the problem prevailed. It is a wireless mouse, so possibly some weird comms problem or just a bad sensor.) I am awaiting a replacement from Amazon today, so we shall see if it was just a dud or if it is a common problem. Strange thing is, I cannot see many people on the web having the same error, so possibly I just got a lemon.

    8. Re:They already HAD a gaming business. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I *did* get a used trackman wheel with a weird problem... called up logitech and it was disco'd so they sent me a wireless model. Hard to complain.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:They already HAD a gaming business. by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Was just about to respond to you again. My replacement MX Anywhere arrived yesterday and it is working fine. So I guess I have just had very bad luck!

  26. Re:Contiki, Free download... by Blig · · Score: 1

    http://www.contiki-os.org/

  27. Re:Because by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

    According to Wikipedia, the team was just laid off. But it's coming back as Microsoft Flight.

    I might be wrong, but IIRC I heard somewhere that Flight is a different product and isn't necessarily compatible with the add-ons that Flight Simulator eventually accumulated a large number of(?)

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  28. Computers vs. consoles by tepples · · Score: 2

    Computers are so much better than video game consoles. :)

    I agree with you, except in one case: when you have friends over. Not a lot of PC game developers anticipate a situation with a gaming PC hooked up to a TV and four USB gamepads.

    1. Re:Computers vs. consoles by antdude · · Score: 1

      True, but that won't happen with me these days. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Computers vs. consoles by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      To be fair, most multiplayer happens online now anyway (except with the Wii of course), so your point is less relevant now.

      I miss those late nights playing Goldeneye on 4-player, on a tiny CRT TV.

    3. Re:Computers vs. consoles by tepples · · Score: 1

      Huh? Is a parent nowadays expected to buy two PS3 consoles or two Xbox 360 consoles and two copies of each game so that both kids in the household can play together?

    4. Re:Computers vs. consoles by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      No, at least I hope not. I was responding to the "having friends over" comment/situation. Having mates over for multiplayer gaming rarely happens anymore because online gaming is more popular (to me, both have their merits. I hated sharing the screen with 4 people in Goldeneye, and inevitably people would screen-look, but the social element was nice, something I miss when playing online).

    5. Re:Computers vs. consoles by tepples · · Score: 1

      But if everyone that comes over has their own laptop and a copy of the game being played

      Which is a highly uncommon scenario in my extended family. If I asked each invitee to buy their own computer and their own copy of each game that they plan to play, I would be considered a terribly over-demanding party host. A lot of these invitees are under 18 and thus have no way to earn the money to buy a computer; they have to save below-minimum-wage chore money for months just to afford games as it is.

  29. Xbox Live Indie Games by tepples · · Score: 1

    If you're a developer and want to give something away then forget about it.

    This is just as true on the other platforms. Neither Wii nor PS3 has promotional free games to my knowledge, or even any approved indie scene to speak of. At least Microsoft has Xbox Live Indie Games in select markets.

    No included wifi so you can buy a pricey adapter

    This was fixed in the Xbox 360 S revision.

    1. Re:Xbox Live Indie Games by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Valve complained that they can give away additional content for their games on the PS3 but not the Xbox. I'm not terribly sure about the Wii but I got Zelda Four Swords for free the other week as did anyone else that wants it.

  30. Re:Why? Their competitors all sell commodities by dskzero · · Score: 1

    I think it's safe to say that this particular AC has no idea about what he's babbling about.

    --
    Oblivion Awaits
  31. Bullshit by mrops · · Score: 1

    Microsoft saw what the hacker community is doing with the original xbox and great stuff like XBMC, they put that in Xbox360. They did not see any writing on the wall, as always they were smart in realizing the potential of what the hacker community bought to the xbox, bought that to 360. They did the exact same with Indie games on xbox 360 as people on the original xbox were writing indie games. They just capitalized on what the consumer wanted. A smart thing to do, but I would give credit to the innovators and original xbox hacking community.

    I did not RTFA.

  32. Re:Because by cybersaga · · Score: 1

    Yeah, from what I saw on Wikipedia and the Microsoft Flight web page (linked from Wikipedia), it looks like a complete rewrite.

    --
    Web Design Tips
  33. Re:Why? Their competitors all sell commodities by westlake · · Score: 1

    Which is why Microsoft is so hung up about vendor lock-in and crushing Linux

    With a market share of less than 1%, and a trend line as flat as the Kansas prairies, what is there left to crush?

  34. To extend... by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Let me guess: to extend and extinguish them... isn't it? Isn't it?
    <duck>

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  35. Re:Because by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    And the REALLY funny part? The thing that sold MSFT on DirectX was a bad Xmas game! For those that don't remember MSFT had a primitive graphics layer called "WinG" back in the days of win 3.x but it was a fiddly little bitch. Well along came a little game that used WinG called The Lion King and wouldn't ya know it, every parent went out and bought that for their little ones thinking they'd be sitting in front of the keyboard singing "I just can't wait to be king". Well instead what they got was a bunch of serious parent cursing when WinG would shit, die, shit AND die, or just lock the whole fucking PC up hard. yeah that made all those little tykes happy.

    So it wasn't long after that they announced they were gonna come up with an abstraction layer to fix all the fiddly crap that was WinG and DirectX was born, and it was good. oh I'm sure some of those out here that are cheering for ABM (anyone but MSFT) hate it but ya know what? It works and it works WELL. I mean here I am in 2011, with a quad core PC with 800 stream processors for a GPU and an X64 OS yet I can STILL fire up a game from 1998 like No One Live forever and still have it hardware accelerated in all its blocky fingered fun. Then I can go straight from that to Just Cause II with full DirectX 10 bling bling squirting wonder across my screen, no fiddling, no changing shit, just "clicky clicky" and it WORKS. Now THAT is what I'm talking about!

    As for TFA I have a REALLY good suggestion for MSFT, are they listening? Yeah you see that company over there, Valve? yeah those guys? Well RIP THEM OFF as hard as you fricking can! Because while you have made extending media to the X360 from the Win 7 PC about as butt simple as can be Games For Windows Live is a steaming pile of festering shit on a crusty roll.

    Just for the fuck of it I decided i'd quit playing the pirate version and just register the Bioshock II game I'd had sitting in a box for weeks, I thought "Surely they have the bugs worked out by now, so I can just register and play, right?".....oh boy, what a horrible experience! Valve if any of you guys are reading this I will NEVER EVER say a bad thing about Steam ever again, okay? first i launch the thing and it needs to update. Okay I've had the game in the box awhile, that's fair. But then it kicks me off live to update but does NOT close the game so I'm sitting there wondering WTF is going on, so I close the game and it takes a good 30 minutes to update even though i'm on a 12Mbps connection. Okay fine, I launch when its done...and it needs another update, another 30 minutes....argh! So I finally get the bullshit done, play for an hour and go to bed, a couple of days go by and I decide to play a few more levels so I launch...another update...FUCK YOU GFWL &%$&^%$!

    So please MSFT, you guys are famous for ripping off good ideas right? Please take a big lesson from valve and make it all seamless and nice okay? you have all the pieces of the puzzle, you have DirectX to make it easy for porting and programming, you have the Win 7 PC that is easier than ever to use, you have the X360 with all the bugs worked out, and you have the WinPhone with Skype recently purchased. Just make it all work together nice and neat, okay? steal the best ideas from Valve and Apple and make it butt simple to manage my media, play my games, have everything all neatly linked together and seamless. Is that really too much to ask for?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  36. Re:Because by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 1

    You can't do paletted textures, 16-bit dithering or table fog.

    There. Not exactly backward compatible is it? And that's not even factoring in nvidia's "the way it's meant to be played" broken regressions in drivers.

    But yeah, Microsoft was serious about gaming much before the Xbox. Halo kids don't know the huge Win95 "DOS Games are Dead" push, the antics of Alex St. John, that Gates doom video on pushing Doom95, Microsoft GDK and DirectX, the novelty of your dos games in a slowly updated window, the SIDEWINDER JOYSTICK LINE, Microsoft Arcade, the Entertainment Packs, etc.
    sorry tykes, master chief didnt invent microsoft gaming.

  37. Re:Because by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Heh. I remember interviews with Alex St. John, where he outlined the history of DirectX, gradually rewriting all of DOS hardware access into the API. It was like virtualization, before virtualization.

    What "architecture"?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  38. Re:Because by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    You SURE that isn't an Nvidia problem? Because I have dealt with plenty of Nvidia's dropping backwards compatibility but I haven't had a bit of trouble from ATI in that regard and I still play some REALLY old games like the original Command & Conquer. I even have some DOS games from GOG like Redneck Rampage but those are through DOSBox I'm sure so I have no clue whether those are hardware or software accelerated.

    But you are taking me back with the rest of your post. They had some REALLY killer flightsticks when Win95 came out, along with MSFT Combat Flight Sim (although I never had a sidewinder, I had IIRC a CF F15 Flight pro) but to me the thing that proved to me DirectX was the way to go was WinQuake and the directX version of MechWarrior II. Me and my friends just sat around the PC going "Ooooh!" and drooling while we watched the demo run on those two.

    So you're right, the kiddies may not remember but I sure as hell do, there was a time when St. John was in every mag and it seemed like every company out there was trying to top the others with what they could pull out of DirectX. Hell how many games did we end up with running on either a Quake or Doom engine? I thought for a while they should just say on the back of the box "Yes we are running the Quake (insert number) engine!" and while I loooved the games back then if you haven't played Just Cause II on a directX 10 card you don't know what you are missing. If I have a customer on the fence about whether he wants to have an HTPC all I have to do is fire that game up and set off a couple of charges and they are drooling while they hand me a check.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  39. Re:Because by akanouras · · Score: 1

    I was one unlucky child at the time, as I wanted the awesome Amiga/DOS Lion King platform game, and instead my father got me the Windows animated presentation^W^W"game" version. Luckily I found it "from a friend" a year later.

    What I remember from WinG (Myst used it as well IIRC) was a) forcing me to restart Windows in 8bit color to use it, and b) frequent screen corruption and the subsequent reboots to fix it.

  40. Re:Because MS doesn't like free and open computers by wed128 · · Score: 1

    Only problem: the XBOX is not expensive. $300 will get you an xbox, or a really underpowered computer.

  41. Don't you get it? by tist · · Score: 1

    Really? Really? You don't know why Microsoft embraced gaming? Haven't you figured it out yet? Microsoft made zillion$ in operating systems and application software. Did they need a game or game console, NO! But the US military did. They started with Bungie and the Mac thinking they would prepare a small select group, but it wasn't enough. So they enlisted Microsoft to take it to the next level and get it out there on a game console. Oh, yea, now do you get it?
    IT'S NOT A GAMING CONSOLE, IT'S A TRAINING SIMULATION!
    They are trying to prepare us for the day when the Covenant get here! Urban combat, space combat, huge tracts of devastation, get it? GET IT?
    THE COVENENT ARE COMING AND THEY ARE BRINGING THE FLOOD!!!! I'm going to be ready. I've trained in the simulations again and again. I've read all the mission reports. I'll be READY. I have my shotgun! AAAAAAAAAA! No, NO! Leave me alone. You're not turnin' me into one of those things! AAAAAAA!!!!!!!

  42. Re:Because MS doesn't like free and open computers by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    A Ford Ka is dirt cheap compared to Ferrari but that doesn't mean anything. Just like the Xbox may be cheaper than a top of the line computer (though you can get a computer for $300) but when compared to other consoles and the costs to get the same experience then it's not exactly cheap.

  43. Re:Because by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    Which probably means no modding tools, all addon functionality will be DLC. Even if they have user made addons, they will have to be approved and distro'ed through the MS app store.

    --
    Good-bye
  44. Re:Money by patoco12 · · Score: 1

    And don't forget that the Xbox has helped to cripple PC gaming, which is one of the main reasons for people to upgrade their PC and buy a new version of Windows.

    All in all the Xbox has been a disaster; I'm amused to see Microsoft tying their loss-making search engine to their loss-maknig console and hoping it will suddenly make money.

    But doesn't Microsoft, in the long run, view gaming consoles as PCs for the living room? Not a market they would want to miss out on.