The only real benefit of the XBox 360 is that it was out first and was a little cheaper than the PS3. Excuse me, but have you tried Xbox Live? Every reviewer from any site agrees that Microsoft has the best online act compared to PS3 or Wii (which has no online gaming support yet).
Microsoft has proven that they can design a solid online offering, providing centralized friends lists, voice, chat, messages, easy matchmaking, really cool and innovative (as well as retro) games on XLA, coutnless downloads (that work in the background) and more. The PS3 forces each developer to provide their own online support or demand that gamers subscribe to a third-party service.
Online support on a console does not mean slapping on a badly integrated browser (every time I try to surf on my PSP I want to blow my brains out), it means seamless online gaming. We live in a day and age where people get connected for everything. From YouTube to MySpace, World of Warcraft to Instant Messaging, people do not want to stay alone at home, disconnected and secluded. Xbox Live brings gamers together, and that's the ace in the sleeve of the Xbox strategy, especially when paired with Live Anywhere which loops in the windows gamers too. Sony had a year to get their online act together and they have learned nothing.
I could cite many other reasons why the 360 will impress and endure, including community offerings using XNA, a non-Trojan horse HD-DVD drive, amazing non-Halo exclusives like Mass Effect, Lost Planet, Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey, but to me, Xbox Live carries a lot of weight on its own.
Yes, I am a huge Microsoft & Xbox 360 fan (although I also own a PSP and will buy a Wii as soon as I find one), and Microsoft might not beat Sony's numbers in this generation, but one thing is for sure, both the Xbox 360 and the Wii will eat a huge chunk off Sony's 70% market share.
So he's essentially confirming that their SDKs suck!?!
Love or hate Microsoft, you cannot deny that they produce some of the best development tools and SDKs. Cater to users, and you end up with a nice Mac, user-friendly, but with 5% market share. Cater to developers, and you dominate the PC desktop. Apply formula to console gaming, rinse, repeat for next-gen...
Live Anywhere is not there to kill X-fire and other online gaming networks, but it will help bring Xbox and Windows gamers together. If you want to game on the other networks, then fine. They're not going away. If you do not want to pay for Live, then don't. You have a choice here.
Microsoft has destroyed the market for Linux by disallowing Microsoft OEMs from shipping other operating systems (SEE BeOS, for instance). Microsoft fucks over other people, including their customers, just to maintain dominance. That's a big statement, do you have solid proof here?
Thanks for the link. I appreciate when people argue and use references to support their arguments. I must admit I am surprised since I had read the opposite as the article states. I'll wait and see what the official forecasts are from Gartner, IDC, Forrester and others. But the thing is with the costs of digitizers dropping, the tablet and pen will become a standard feature of notbooks who will eventually all be convertible.
People will then simply use it or not, depending on their needs. And with the new tablet features in Vista, you'll see a much higher satisfaction ratio now that handwriting recognition is enhanced and that Vista can learn your written quirks as you write and correct it.
TabletPC is a failure. And you are basing this on what? I have read many research reports from Gartner, Forrester and other research firms and it turns out that they expect that by 2008, the majority of laptops sold will be Tablet PCs. The thing with tablets is that Microsoft is not making a separate edition of Windows for it, the tablet support is baked in Windows Vista, whether you have the hardware or not.
Most tablets are in fact hybrid notebooks with a swivel screen and the built-in tablet digitizers. But if you say it is a failure, I would love to see your source. I am well connected with the Mobile PC group who handles tablets and I would take your feedback to them.
Dude... I am just sharing my opinion here, I'm not trying to force anyone to use Windows or whatever. It's just a discussion. It,s clear how strongly some people feel about this, and it's ok. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's just that I see a LOT of people saying "Microsoft is strong-arming OEMs to stop making Linux drivers" and "Microsoft is crushing the little people..." and yet I see no proof, just boasts and speculation.
The truth is there are hundreds of thousands of Microsoft Partner companies, OEMs and ISVs, that make as lot of money thanks to Microsoft. They thrive in the Windows ecosystem because Microsoft knows how to maintain good relations with partners. I'm one of them and I owe my whole career to their technologies. When people tell me that software should be free I'm not sure how I'm supposed to earn a living then because my company writes software for money.
I'm sorry... I don't post here much and did not realize i had to use HTML for line breaks. many other forums and blogs allow simple line breaks with the ENTER key. I noticed it as soon as I posted it. My bad.
I will do better in future comments, I hate it too when there are no line breaks.
ame studios and publishers have released games for ages under common brands for all consoles... Sega, PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo... and they have not been "crushed" or "oppressed"... why would "games for Windows be any different? Most of the Slahdot readers are geeks and therefore well edicated on tech and gaming, so that kind of branding and direction is lost on them. But for the casual gamer on Windows, these things will help.
Would you prefer if the OS market was segmented 25% four-way? Do you really think that all hardware and all games would be supported on all four OS? Do yo really think that games would cost $10-20 cheaper on PCs than on consoles like they are now? You would end up with some games being available for some, and others for other OS. Some would be exclusive. The smaller developers would only make the game available on one OS, ignoring the other 3. Sure, monopoly is not great, but it also makes some things easier. PC gaming would suffer a lot more in a segmented market. Developers use DirectX because it *is* easier than coding straight to the hardware like they did for DOS. Microsoft gave us that. And DirectX 10 leverages new infrastructure in Vista, it's not a lockdown to force an upgrade. Many people complain there are not enough incentives to upgrade to Vista, well DirectX 10 is one of them. And if Microsoft found a way to port DirectX 10 to Windows Xp, then people would complain Vista has even less values... how do you win?
Seriously? Yes, I'm a Microsoft MVP, yes I'm a software architect who specializes in Microsoft.NET technologies, yes I'm a big Windows gamer, I also have an Xbox and an Xbox 360, I'm an Xbox Live subscriber, so yes, you can call me a fanboi.
But it amazes me to see that in the eyes of so many readers here, Microsoft can do no right. Whatever they do, you'll see the glass half-empty. Sure they tried gaming on Windows before and the MPC spec too, and it did not work. It does not mean the idea is bad, it means the implementation is. Look at pen computing: since the late 80's many companies (other than Microsoft) tried to push for pen computing and failed utterly, whereas Microsoft decided to take a crack at it and was very successful with the Tablet PC. Sometimes the approach has to change, not the idea. Ask any entrepreneur, they know.
I'm happy this is coming to Games for Windows. do not need a nice box and I can easily read specs, but I also recognize that common folks (not everyone is a geek like us guys) will find it useful, and the extra testing will only help quality. And so what if Microsoft uses their Windows dominance to help the Xbox? Look at Sony... 70% of the console market and they cannot innovate beyond a faster CPU and they have such an arrogant attitude. And if Linux is supposed to be an alternative to Windows, then it needs to have what it takes. If you say "I only play on Windows because Linux has no hardware drivers and no games, it means there is no market for these. Linux still has to get a lot better for it to be used by average folks at home on their desktops. It is a great server OS, but it just does not cut it for desktops, and to beat Microsoft, you have to build something better, no destroy Redmond.
I'm open to a discussion here, but please ask yourself, is there anything that Microsoft could do as a business that would ever please you? Honestly?
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has proven that they can design a solid online offering, providing centralized friends lists, voice, chat, messages, easy matchmaking, really cool and innovative (as well as retro) games on XLA, coutnless downloads (that work in the background) and more. The PS3 forces each developer to provide their own online support or demand that gamers subscribe to a third-party service.
Online support on a console does not mean slapping on a badly integrated browser (every time I try to surf on my PSP I want to blow my brains out), it means seamless online gaming. We live in a day and age where people get connected for everything. From YouTube to MySpace, World of Warcraft to Instant Messaging, people do not want to stay alone at home, disconnected and secluded. Xbox Live brings gamers together, and that's the ace in the sleeve of the Xbox strategy, especially when paired with Live Anywhere which loops in the windows gamers too. Sony had a year to get their online act together and they have learned nothing.
I could cite many other reasons why the 360 will impress and endure, including community offerings using XNA, a non-Trojan horse HD-DVD drive, amazing non-Halo exclusives like Mass Effect, Lost Planet, Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey, but to me, Xbox Live carries a lot of weight on its own.
Yes, I am a huge Microsoft & Xbox 360 fan (although I also own a PSP and will buy a Wii as soon as I find one), and Microsoft might not beat Sony's numbers in this generation, but one thing is for sure, both the Xbox 360 and the Wii will eat a huge chunk off Sony's 70% market share.
So he's essentially confirming that their SDKs suck!?!
Love or hate Microsoft, you cannot deny that they produce some of the best development tools and SDKs. Cater to users, and you end up with a nice Mac, user-friendly, but with 5% market share. Cater to developers, and you dominate the PC desktop. Apply formula to console gaming, rinse, repeat for next-gen...
Live Anywhere is not there to kill X-fire and other online gaming networks, but it will help bring Xbox and Windows gamers together. If you want to game on the other networks, then fine. They're not going away. If you do not want to pay for Live, then don't. You have a choice here.
Thanks for the link. I appreciate when people argue and use references to support their arguments. I must admit I am surprised since I had read the opposite as the article states. I'll wait and see what the official forecasts are from Gartner, IDC, Forrester and others. But the thing is with the costs of digitizers dropping, the tablet and pen will become a standard feature of notbooks who will eventually all be convertible.
People will then simply use it or not, depending on their needs. And with the new tablet features in Vista, you'll see a much higher satisfaction ratio now that handwriting recognition is enhanced and that Vista can learn your written quirks as you write and correct it.
Most tablets are in fact hybrid notebooks with a swivel screen and the built-in tablet digitizers. But if you say it is a failure, I would love to see your source. I am well connected with the Mobile PC group who handles tablets and I would take your feedback to them.
Dude... I am just sharing my opinion here, I'm not trying to force anyone to use Windows or whatever. It's just a discussion. It,s clear how strongly some people feel about this, and it's ok. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's just that I see a LOT of people saying "Microsoft is strong-arming OEMs to stop making Linux drivers" and "Microsoft is crushing the little people..." and yet I see no proof, just boasts and speculation.
The truth is there are hundreds of thousands of Microsoft Partner companies, OEMs and ISVs, that make as lot of money thanks to Microsoft. They thrive in the Windows ecosystem because Microsoft knows how to maintain good relations with partners. I'm one of them and I owe my whole career to their technologies. When people tell me that software should be free I'm not sure how I'm supposed to earn a living then because my company writes software for money.
I'm sorry... I don't post here much and did not realize i had to use HTML for line breaks. many other forums and blogs allow simple line breaks with the ENTER key. I noticed it as soon as I posted it. My bad.
I will do better in future comments, I hate it too when there are no line breaks.
ame studios and publishers have released games for ages under common brands for all consoles... Sega, PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo... and they have not been "crushed" or "oppressed"... why would "games for Windows be any different? Most of the Slahdot readers are geeks and therefore well edicated on tech and gaming, so that kind of branding and direction is lost on them. But for the casual gamer on Windows, these things will help.
Would you prefer if the OS market was segmented 25% four-way? Do you really think that all hardware and all games would be supported on all four OS? Do yo really think that games would cost $10-20 cheaper on PCs than on consoles like they are now? You would end up with some games being available for some, and others for other OS. Some would be exclusive. The smaller developers would only make the game available on one OS, ignoring the other 3.
Sure, monopoly is not great, but it also makes some things easier. PC gaming would suffer a lot more in a segmented market. Developers use DirectX because it *is* easier than coding straight to the hardware like they did for DOS. Microsoft gave us that. And DirectX 10 leverages new infrastructure in Vista, it's not a lockdown to force an upgrade.
Many people complain there are not enough incentives to upgrade to Vista, well DirectX 10 is one of them. And if Microsoft found a way to port DirectX 10 to Windows Xp, then people would complain Vista has even less values... how do you win?
Seriously? Yes, I'm a Microsoft MVP, yes I'm a software architect who specializes in Microsoft .NET technologies, yes I'm a big Windows gamer, I also have an Xbox and an Xbox 360, I'm an Xbox Live subscriber, so yes, you can call me a fanboi.
But it amazes me to see that in the eyes of so many readers here, Microsoft can do no right. Whatever they do, you'll see the glass half-empty. Sure they tried gaming on Windows before and the MPC spec too, and it did not work. It does not mean the idea is bad, it means the implementation is. Look at pen computing: since the late 80's many companies (other than Microsoft) tried to push for pen computing and failed utterly, whereas Microsoft decided to take a crack at it and was very successful with the Tablet PC. Sometimes the approach has to change, not the idea. Ask any entrepreneur, they know.
I'm happy this is coming to Games for Windows. do not need a nice box and I can easily read specs, but I also recognize that common folks (not everyone is a geek like us guys) will find it useful, and the extra testing will only help quality. And so what if Microsoft uses their Windows dominance to help the Xbox? Look at Sony... 70% of the console market and they cannot innovate beyond a faster CPU and they have such an arrogant attitude. And if Linux is supposed to be an alternative to Windows, then it needs to have what it takes. If you say "I only play on Windows because Linux has no hardware drivers and no games, it means there is no market for these. Linux still has to get a lot better for it to be used by average folks at home on their desktops. It is a great server OS, but it just does not cut it for desktops, and to beat Microsoft, you have to build something better, no destroy Redmond.
I'm open to a discussion here, but please ask yourself, is there anything that Microsoft could do as a business that would ever please you? Honestly?