Microsoft CEO Says Xbox is Key to Microsoft's Business

[O maestre]

I don't get the cynicism from you guys, we need a competitive gaming market, if the xbox division is canned who is going to compete with Sony?

This is a good thing and I hope that Microsoft keeps at it, the last thing we need is an indestructible monopoly(no irony intended)

Allow me to explain the general mood here.

Competition IS good, but you must compete with quality products that will also turn a profit in some way or another. Now, in the case of major game consoles, the consoles themselves do not so much because they take too much to produce in many cases, and have to rely more on the games you're going to play on them and whatever other features they thing is a good idea. But it's mostly the games, trust me.

Anyway, the thing you have to remember is that if your console is not enticing enough, the gaming crowd isn't going to even walk that path with you and you're stuck eating the losses. Now, Microsoft is uber-rich and so they can afford to sell quite alot at a loss without too much harm. But after making a series of consoles (originally copied from Sony's pioneering work, I might add), having to deal with RROD issues and other things, and now THIS... Man, those flapjacks of fail are stacking high.

The X-Box isn't so much a key to their business as the Joker in the deck. They think keeping it is the right move, maybe even for your point, that it needs to be there for the competition. But it's not the right move HERE because Nintendo has four-of-a-kind, Steam has a full house, and Sony just pulled that inside straight-flush. The X-Bone's not gonna come up aces. It won't be good competition material. They should fold, get some new cards, and wait for this hand to play out.

while I appreciate the poker analogy, it is somewhat faulty. Nintendo and steam are playing the same game but at different tables, without the Xbox there is only the PlayStation. Both Microsoft and Sony have stated that they do not regard Nintendo as competition. Look at it this way, if it wasn't for Microsoft's marketing fuck ups Sony would not be on this wave of good will, and would most likely do the same dick moves as Microsoft. Your analogy does not explain how the Xbox demise would benefit gaming, how is monopoly a good thing? I am sorry but I don't understand your point

you're right in that a monopoly is not a good thing, but then is it any better than keeping around a product from a company that shows strong, consistent, customer contempt? Who fail to apologise for their wrongs and blame the customer when things don't go as they want? who repeatably ignore the complaints and concerns of potential customers and fail to explain and clarify these issues? Perhaps getting rid of the xbox may open up the market to other new types of consoles (though after the Ouya debacle I wouldn't hold out great hope here). Maybe if the xbox one fails so completely the entire division will be back to the drawing board and possibly the next console they come up with may be a better, more consumer orientated system.

But that is my point exactly if Microsoft wasn't there doing their evil schtick then Sony would do the exact same thing, don't think for one second they wouldn't impose the same dickish stuff if Sony was the only player in the market. In a healthy market our money is our vote, if there is only one party our vote is meaningless. If and when another competitor comes along then we can support scrapping Xbox. Look at the smartphone market, the companies there are pushing and shoving each other with all kinds of features and gimmicks to get ahead, look how far the standard smartphone has come in such a short time.

Snip

You can't look at it as different tables. It's all one big one called gaming. Some players don't do so well each round and sometimes the actual players change, but it's poker, by god, and no mistake about it. Both of them 'saying' that Nintendo and such aren't their competition is either falling for a bluff or putting forth one of their own. You cannot afford in business to ignore ANYONE, because then you get complacent. And when you do that, someone can come out from under you and take the pot. And since the cards are based in R&D, marketing, customer reaction, timing, and other such nuances in business, that is ever possible because half of your hand is really determined by someone else. X-Box's demise does not effect the long game to create an imbalance because someone will fill it. What it does that is positive is get rid of the jokers in the deck, the X-Bones of the gaming world.

Dude you have tortured that poker analogy far enough, I can't even understand you now. But who out there can fill the Xbox shoes and compete with Sony in the console market? Until someone has the resources and licences to compete there is no reason to leave one player with all the console chips, it would mean game over with a very big buy in.

 

[faefrost]

Sorry but what I'm actually hearing is "We've dumped way too much money down these black holes to try to recoup our losses by selling them off."

I'm glad I'm not the only one that was getting that vibe. I think the board and the shareholders are very very nervous about the XB1. And I suspect most of them don't see the point of Bing anymore.

Stephen Elop the retard who ran Nokia to the ground is one of prime candidates to take over as CEO after Ballmer retires and he has repeatedly stated that if he became CEO he would sell everything Microsoft has and settle on only two products their software suite and the Windows OS.

If anything Ballmer was assuring shareholders that they should create a Microsoft ecosystem of product integration, and not can entire divisions

Isn't that the opposite of selling?

I'm not saying that I disagree with Balmer, and MS's future depends on some diversity for growth. But I still suspect that the shareholders look on XBox and Bing questionably, and are not real thrilled with the whole Tablet experiements. They see better profits with less expense and risk from things like the back end server products.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

I don't get the cynicism from you guys, we need a competitive gaming market, if the xbox division is canned who is going to compete with Sony?

This is a good thing and I hope that Microsoft keeps at it, the last thing we need is an indestructible monopoly(no irony intended)

Microsoft? Competing? I'm sorry, you must have them confused with a good company like Google. Maybe you've missed their recent Scroogled ad campaign. Microsoft isn't about "wow look at all the cool things we do" but rather, "Our competitors are an evil monopoly who steals your data! You can totally trust us". The only reason they're still relevant is because Windows and Office have become so embedded in the home and workplace. There's a reason a free, open OS like Android became the fastest growing technology ever while Windows phone 8 is celebrating an 5% adoption rate

Besides the Xbox division wouldn't get canned. It would get bought a company with money and a CEO who doesn't have their head up their ass. The Xb1 is the opposite of competition, it's completely centered around Microsoft software

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoiks!

Sorry, but I am a writer and tend to go on a tangeant. Suffice it to say, I don't KNOW who fills the void. Why should I? I didn't see Microsoft getting into consoles in the first place. So, how could I predict more than to say that someone will try because they see an opportunity. That's much is almost a given.

But really, I want to actually hit upon your response to Frosty now. It is entirely unfair to say that such-and-so company could pull the same shit as Microsoft...when they haven't. It's not that it's false, it's just that it's unfounded. They haven't done it, and they have a better feel for the crowd as to whether that's acceptable or not. After seeing enough Microsoft effigies burning at the stake, the other companies decide that much of what Microsoft has been up to is a BAD thing to follow, so it won't happen. Not unless they want it to be torches and pitchforks time.

 

[Strazdas]

while I appreciate the poker analogy, it is somewhat faulty. Nintendo and steam are playing the same game but at different tables, without the Xbox there is only the PlayStation. Both Microsoft and Sony have stated that they do not regard Nintendo as competition. Look at it this way, if it wasn't for Microsoft's marketing fuck ups Sony would not be on this wave of good will, and would most likely do the same dick moves as Microsoft. Your analogy does not explain how the Xbox demise would benefit gaming, how is monopoly a good thing? I am sorry but I don't understand your point

A old timer wakes up coughing at the poker table and pronounces "I've been holding on this royal flush for a while should i drop it now or wait till you stop bickering?". His name was PC.
Both Xbox One and PS4 are basically underpowered and limited PCs now, and that makes them sit firmly at the same table even if you push steam and WiiU to the other corner. If microsoft Xbox closes doors we have one of two situations:
1. a monopoly run by consumer friendly business - good results.
2. SOny goes evil and new challenger appears (or even people go to PC). People buys the new product simply because the other option is Sony. Results - better situation than now.
3. Costumers are stupid enough to buy "Evil sony" version consoles. results - you bloody well deserved it.

I don't get the cynicism from you guys, we need a competitive gaming market, if the xbox division is canned who is going to compete with Sony?

WiiU, Ouya, Shield, SteamMachine, PC, Oculus Rift, possibly new competitor?

 

[likalaruku]

Two days ago, Gordon Mah Ung of Maximum PC claimed that he was just accepted as the new CEO of Microsoft & that he wanted the company to focus on DirectX 12. I'm sure he was being sardonic, but that's kind of hard to pick up on in text.

 

[O maestre]

I don't get the cynicism from you guys, we need a competitive gaming market, if the xbox division is canned who is going to compete with Sony?

This is a good thing and I hope that Microsoft keeps at it, the last thing we need is an indestructible monopoly(no irony intended)

Microsoft? Competing? I'm sorry, you must have them confused with a good company like Google. Maybe you've missed their recent Scroogled ad campaign. Microsoft isn't about "wow look at all the cool things we do" but rather, "Our competitors are an evil monopoly who steals your data! You can totally trust us". The only reason they're still relevant is because Windows and Office have become so embedded in the home and workplace. There's a reason a free, open OS like Android became the fastest growing technology ever while Windows phone 8 is celebrating an 5% adoption rate

Besides the Xbox division wouldn't get canned. It would get bought a company with money and a CEO who doesn't have their head up their ass. The Xb1 is the opposite of competition, it's completely centered around Microsoft software

I don't understand you, how Microsoft is not competing with Sony? Are you berating them for being closed source? The Playstation 3/4 and Wii/u are just as closed and proprietary as Microsoft is. Android and different OS got nothing to with this. I am not even defending Microsoft, they are the original evil empire company.

On a side note, which is very much on the periphery of the current discussion. Google is slowly approaching the same level of evil that microsoft and apple have. They are a search engine monopoly as it is, they doctor results to feature social pages based on Google + and not their competitors. They force Google + into every aspect of their products, even breaking the comment system on Youtube in the process. Actively disabling and concealing adblockers with no choice for an opt out and their involvement in PRISM. This isn't 1999 or 2005 any more Google has grown up and are just as power hungry and ruthless as the other silicon valley giants. The only thing that makes Google different is androids open source, which was already part of android before Google bought them. "Don't be evil" is long dead, Google + is the greatest indicator along with their new terms policy where they can use members likeness for advertising unless you actively tell them not too, and using Gdrive gives them access to screen all the files that are hosted there.

 

[O maestre]

Zoiks!

Sorry, but I am a writer and tend to go on a tangeant. Suffice it to say, I don't KNOW who fills the void. Why should I? I didn't see Microsoft getting into consoles in the first place. So, how could I predict more than to say that someone will try because they see an opportunity. That's much is almost a given.

But really, I want to actually hit upon your response to Frosty now. It is entirely unfair to say that such-and-so company could pull the same shit as Microsoft...when they haven't. It's not that it's false, it's just that it's unfounded. They haven't done it, and they have a better feel for the crowd as to whether that's acceptable or not. After seeing enough Microsoft effigies burning at the stake, the other companies decide that much of what Microsoft has been up to is a BAD thing to follow, so it won't happen. Not unless they want it to be torches and pitchforks time.

It is an assumption, I grant you, but remember how silent Sony was while Microsoft was digging their own PR grave earlier this year, they didn't come out and take advantage until they knew exactly why gamers were pissed off. Truth be told I had to find articles from back then to see why, besides the always on Kinect, always online connection and privacy issues there was not a whole deal to be pissed off about, except that the way they gave the message sucked beyond what anybody would tolerate. Their disrespect towards their consumers was unforgivable, especially when implementing such invasive changes without explanation, but in regards to the machine itself nothing too bad beyond the Kinect.

Most of us think of DRM as something evil, but it was hardly Microsoft that invented it, the rest of the industry embraced it with great vigour. Microsoft gave Sony the upper hand when they burned down in that PR mess, Sony just took the advantaged when the opportunity presented itself, not because they are altruistic.

Anti-consumer and anti-trust practices should be punished, but that doesn't mean we should come flocking towards a monopoly and hope it will continue to be benign. Just look at Google and their Google+

while I appreciate the poker analogy, it is somewhat faulty. Nintendo and steam are playing the same game but at different tables, without the Xbox there is only the PlayStation. Both Microsoft and Sony have stated that they do not regard Nintendo as competition. Look at it this way, if it wasn't for Microsoft's marketing fuck ups Sony would not be on this wave of good will, and would most likely do the same dick moves as Microsoft. Your analogy does not explain how the Xbox demise would benefit gaming, how is monopoly a good thing? I am sorry but I don't understand your point

A old timer wakes up coughing at the poker table and pronounces "I've been holding on this royal flush for a while should i drop it now or wait till you stop bickering?". His name was PC.
Both Xbox One and PS4 are basically underpowered and limited PCs now, and that makes them sit firmly at the same table even if you push steam and WiiU to the other corner. If microsoft Xbox closes doors we have one of two situations:
1. a monopoly run by consumer friendly business - good results.
2. SOny goes evil and new challenger appears (or even people go to PC). People buys the new product simply because the other option is Sony. Results - better situation than now.
3. Costumers are stupid enough to buy "Evil sony" version consoles. results - you bloody well deserved it.

I don't get the cynicism from you guys, we need a competitive gaming market, if the xbox division is canned who is going to compete with Sony?

WiiU, Ouya, Shield, SteamMachine, PC, Oculus Rift, possibly new competitor?

1. show me a consumer friendly monopoly, Microsoft had a monopoly for years and they have been nothing but evil, and Google are on the fastrack
2. I can only imagine Samsung with enough resources to enter the game industry as a rival
3. Are you using Windows OS? or Mac? believe me people will buy evil.

Nintendo is to rigid and in their own little pond, I don't think they have the capital to compete with Sony. The Ouya, are you kidding me? The Occulous rift is still developing. the others you mentioned are all streaming apps or console sized hardware for PC games

which brings me to the other point that you mentioned, the grand old PC, shouldn't all console gaming just die? Everyone and their dog is introducing some kind of box to attach to their TVs, like the examples you mentioned, some which can game and much more, why do we even need consoles any more. Shouldn't the Playstation, the Xbox and the Wii just go extinct?

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoogy

Oh, I am aware, man. Believe you me, I understand where you're coming from. It's just that I see this in a different light. Aye, many have done DRM before Microsoft. The idea here is that Microsoft did it with severe handling of the Idiot Ball on top of everything else and Sony merely made a wise business decision. I understand this. However, my viewing is that Sony has often done just that: Been rather careful with its consumers so as not to lose them. I have been on the Sony train since the first console. I'm aware that it is not a perfect ride. However, it has still been a pretty good one. Yes, they could potentially make some downright evil decisions AND I would probably jump ship if they crossed the line, but they haven't. Anyone can do anything improperly. The question is whether you have or not.

 

[Strazdas]

1. show me a consumer friendly monopoly, Microsoft had a monopoly for years and they have been nothing but evil, and Google are on the fastrack
2. I can only imagine Samsung with enough resources to enter the game industry as a rival
3. Are you using Windows OS? or Mac? believe me people will buy evil.

Nintendo is to rigid and in their own little pond, I don't think they have the capital to compete with Sony. The Ouya, are you kidding me? The Occulous rift is still developing. the others you mentioned are all streaming apps or console sized hardware for PC games

which brings me to the other point that you mentioned, the grand old PC, shouldn't all console gaming just die? Everyone and their dog is introducing some kind of box to attach to their TVs, like the examples you mentioned, some which can game and much more, why do we even need consoles any more. Shouldn't the Playstation, the Xbox and the Wii just go extinct?

1. Steam
2. Noone expected microsoft to enter the market, yet they did. There are plenty of companies that can afford it, and our guessing is really not going anywhere. Thing is, a new competitor WILL come IF it will be needed.
3. I do not believe that windows OS is evil. You would have to pay me to use MAC though.

Nintendo has enough capital that even if they released absolutely nothing in the next 200 years they would still have more money then debt. They are sitting on a huge pile of money. They could easily outspit the current consoles if they wanted to take the risk. they wont though, since Nintendo is extremely conservative and has been so for the last hundred of years. And it worked for them.

Yes, ouya is poor competitor, but its a competitor. if the other things fail that one will be used. Ouya is more like saying "a console based on open OS" rather than "this current thing we have".
Steam Machine is not a streaming (though its basically PC) but the shield is admitedly. Still that has traction so there is market for alternatives.
Consoles have died. They are like dinosuars, the heart has stopped already but the nerves are so slow that the brain will only know about it in 3 minutes. We have a "new" console that feels 3 years old at launch. We got consoles loosing their "Cheaper" perspective. They also lost their "Easier to use" perspective. Consoles now are just underpowered, limited PCs. if you want media center you buy a smart TV. if you want gaming you buy a PC. since architecture now is the same, only completely batshit insane developers will not make ports for PC. Then again if PC is popular enough again they will once again become the primary perspective.
The consoles now run not because they fill in a certain ninche, they run because nostalgia, costumer loyalty and misconceptions about competition (like PC being hard to set up).

(hey, were throwing alegories here so why not dinosaurs).

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Just to throw my hat in this conversation real quick, I honestly don't think that if MS left the console industry another competitor would enter the industry. I'm just going to put a quick numbered list as to why so that I can get out of here:

=The days of traditional consoles are numbered.
-Tech is becoming more mobile, open, and flexible while consoles stay closed
-The Future of consoles is cheap cloud boxes(which does give Strazdas argument of people moving to PC some merit)

=Console's profit margins becoming slimmer and slimmer
-Only people who would want to push their services onto people would enter(Google is the only likely candidate)

=Console gaming has a huge entry fee
-We're talking billions here if someone wanted to compete with Sony

 

[Pyramid Head]

The Xbone and Bing are key to Microsoft's future?

...right then. I think it's time i begin considering Linux.

 

[O maestre]

1. show me a consumer friendly monopoly, Microsoft had a monopoly for years and they have been nothing but evil, and Google are on the fastrack
2. I can only imagine Samsung with enough resources to enter the game industry as a rival
3. Are you using Windows OS? or Mac? believe me people will buy evil.

Nintendo is to rigid and in their own little pond, I don't think they have the capital to compete with Sony. The Ouya, are you kidding me? The Occulous rift is still developing. the others you mentioned are all streaming apps or console sized hardware for PC games

which brings me to the other point that you mentioned, the grand old PC, shouldn't all console gaming just die? Everyone and their dog is introducing some kind of box to attach to their TVs, like the examples you mentioned, some which can game and much more, why do we even need consoles any more. Shouldn't the Playstation, the Xbox and the Wii just go extinct?

1. Steam
2. Noone expected microsoft to enter the market, yet they did. There are plenty of companies that can afford it, and our guessing is really not going anywhere. Thing is, a new competitor WILL come IF it will be needed.
3. I do not believe that windows OS is evil. You would have to pay me to use MAC though.

Nintendo has enough capital that even if they released absolutely nothing in the next 200 years they would still have more money then debt. They are sitting on a huge pile of money. They could easily outspit the current consoles if they wanted to take the risk. they wont though, since Nintendo is extremely conservative and has been so for the last hundred of years. And it worked for them.

Yes, ouya is poor competitor, but its a competitor. if the other things fail that one will be used. Ouya is more like saying "a console based on open OS" rather than "this current thing we have".
Steam Machine is not a streaming (though its basically PC) but the shield is admitedly. Still that has traction so there is market for alternatives.
Consoles have died. They are like dinosuars, the heart has stopped already but the nerves are so slow that the brain will only know about it in 3 minutes. We have a "new" console that feels 3 years old at launch. We got consoles loosing their "Cheaper" perspective. They also lost their "Easier to use" perspective. Consoles now are just underpowered, limited PCs. if you want media center you buy a smart TV. if you want gaming you buy a PC. since architecture now is the same, only completely batshit insane developers will not make ports for PC. Then again if PC is popular enough again they will once again become the primary perspective.
The consoles now run not because they fill in a certain ninche, they run because nostalgia, costumer loyalty and misconceptions about competition (like PC being hard to set up).

(hey, were throwing alegories here so why not dinosaurs).

1. steam is not a monopoly in its field, Origin and Good old games. On the store front there is Direct 2 drive and Amazon, they are not alone but they are the best.
2. Whoever it would be would have to be a established tech company with several divisions, if Microsoft disappeared, Sony would try to hoarde as many licenses as possible.
3.Windows Microsoft is evil, disregard for consumer rights, several billion dollar anti trust violations, aggressive buy outs and stock manipulation, wilfully disabling compatibility for old and alien(non M$) software, pressuring vendors and developers to sell PC with windows bundled the same goes for their server software, and .netframework. I could go on forever.... If you want a more relevant example of people buying evil look no further than EA.


At least we agree that consoles are horribly outdated and should be extinct.

 

[O maestre]

Zoogy

Oh, I am aware, man. Believe you me, I understand where you're coming from. It's just that I see this in a different light. Aye, many have done DRM before Microsoft. The idea here is that Microsoft did it with severe handling of the Idiot Ball on top of everything else and Sony merely made a wise business decision. I understand this. However, my viewing is that Sony has often done just that: Been rather careful with its consumers so as not to lose them. I have been on the Sony train since the first console. I'm aware that it is not a perfect ride. However, it has still been a pretty good one. Yes, they could potentially make some downright evil decisions AND I would probably jump ship if they crossed the line, but they haven't. Anyone can do anything improperly. The question is whether you have or not.

Sony has made mistakes.. but they haven't been dicks about it, remember the first PS3s allowed you to side-load linux and other kind of open source goodness, a whole indie market was emerging before they shut it down. The great PSN hack, and the information black out when it happened and its consequences. The rootkit scandal, somewhat obscure, but they had information of the music you played sent to the Sony music division to see if you were a pirate, and stopped you from making copies of your legitimately bought music. On a personal note, Blu-ray is stupid... we should be moving away from physical storage discs, I know I am in the minority but I am still unimpressed buy the "big blue DVD". Sony is no where near as bad as Microsoft, but then again how can you be?

But it is also why we need the micro-dick-king-soft, so the other companies know what not to do.

 

[FalloutJack]

Voip

There are a number of things I don't like about Sony. 'Tis true. They do not have a perfect track record, nor are they approaching perfect. Still very good, though. I'm aware that they could pull alot of shenanneggans and still come up better than Microsoft. However, I don't actively gripe about them more than token efforts because it's more-or-less a preference issue. I don't want the Vita. I like PSP. That's my decision. Erm, I DO like blu-ray, though, so let's not get into a fight about that, mkay? And I don't blame Sony for the dumbass behavior of hackers. You don't blame the victim. That's far too much a Hobs philosophy, and Hobs is a fucking idiot. Anyway, we are waaaay off-topic here with our tangeant, I think. I'm gonna stop monopolizing your time, or whatever time it is you spend replying. I believe we're good here.

 

[Strazdas]

1. steam is not a monopoly in its field, Origin and Good old games. On the store front there is Direct 2 drive and Amazon, they are not alone but they are the best.
2. Whoever it would be would have to be a established tech company with several divisions, if Microsoft disappeared, Sony would try to hoarde as many licenses as possible.
3.Windows Microsoft is evil, disregard for consumer rights, several billion dollar anti trust violations, aggressive buy outs and stock manipulation, wilfully disabling compatibility for old and alien(non M$) software, pressuring vendors and developers to sell PC with windows bundled the same goes for their server software, and .netframework. I could go on forever.... If you want a more relevant example of people buying evil look no further than EA.


At least we agree that consoles are horribly outdated and should be extinct.

Steam is a monopoly. There are mroe games than i can count that are available ONLY with steam. All of its competitors exist merely on denying ability to buy from steam, and are closing down one by one. Direct2drive or Amazon cant really be even counted since when you buy from them you still have to activate via steam. steam gets a cut if you buy from amazon.
2. Does not have to be a tech company. Microsoft wasnt. and its not like world lacks those. if you see a gap and know you can fill it and earn al ot of profit it will be people that try. a lot of people. Everyone is trying to hoard licenses as it is now as well, thats because licensing laws are broken beyond belief.
3. You do make some fair points about Evil Windows. however whats the main reason people use it? no alternative. And the system isnt bad in itself to use. And at least microsfot buy people out instead of blatantly stealing and then copyrighting their ideas like Apple.
EA isnt evil, its stupid and capitalist - a very dangerous combination. they seek to maximize profit and thing that the way to do it is.... something we dont like. However there is noticable change in policies from them now as they got new CEO, so there is hope.
You know who is also changing CEO? Microsoft. coincidence galore.

 

[O maestre]

1. steam is not a monopoly in its field, Origin and Good old games. On the store front there is Direct 2 drive and Amazon, they are not alone but they are the best.
2. Whoever it would be would have to be a established tech company with several divisions, if Microsoft disappeared, Sony would try to hoarde as many licenses as possible.
3.Windows Microsoft is evil, disregard for consumer rights, several billion dollar anti trust violations, aggressive buy outs and stock manipulation, wilfully disabling compatibility for old and alien(non M$) software, pressuring vendors and developers to sell PC with windows bundled the same goes for their server software, and .netframework. I could go on forever.... If you want a more relevant example of people buying evil look no further than EA.


At least we agree that consoles are horribly outdated and should be extinct.

Steam is a monopoly. There are mroe games than i can count that are available ONLY with steam. All of its competitors exist merely on denying ability to buy from steam, and are closing down one by one. Direct2drive or Amazon cant really be even counted since when you buy from them you still have to activate via steam. steam gets a cut if you buy from amazon.
2. Does not have to be a tech company. Microsoft wasnt. and its not like world lacks those. if you see a gap and know you can fill it and earn al ot of profit it will be people that try. a lot of people. Everyone is trying to hoard licenses as it is now as well, thats because licensing laws are broken beyond belief.
3. You do make some fair points about Evil Windows. however whats the main reason people use it? no alternative. And the system isnt bad in itself to use. And at least microsfot buy people out instead of blatantly stealing and then copyrighting their ideas like Apple.
EA isnt evil, its stupid and capitalist - a very dangerous combination. they seek to maximize profit and thing that the way to do it is.... something we dont like. However there is noticable change in policies from them now as they got new CEO, so there is hope.
You know who is also changing CEO? Microsoft. coincidence galore.

1. Do you know what a monopoly means? its when you have a business or enterprise as the only supplier of a particular product or service. They dominate their market but they are not the only player.
2. What are you talking about? how is Microsoft not a tech company?? If they are not tech then what are they, a furniture company?
In regards to licenses you prove my point, if Microsoft disappears from the game industry, what is going to stop Sony from purchasing their old gaming divisions along with their license deals?
3. Bingo, there is(was) no alternative, people, vendors and producers were forced to take whatever Microsoft did, that is why monopolies are bad, when someone has absolute power over a market what is to stop them beyond court cases.
In regards to EA every company is capitalistic, nobody is doing it for altruistic reasons. Microsoft isn't changing CEO due to a policy change, Steve Ballmer is retiring, Microsoft hasn't changed it's practices since the days of Bill Gates.

 

[Atmos Duality]

1. Do you know what a monopoly means? its when you have a business or enterprise as the only supplier of a particular product or service. They dominate their market but they are not the only player.

Sorry to butt in here, but a more accurate term might be "virtual monopoly". At least for "traditional games" (non-service centric). Steam gets no takes from most MMOs out there, and technically still has (much much weaker) competition elsewhere, but it's shocking how little actual, beneficial, competition there is out there.
(GoG is the only other company that really compares right now)

Granted, it's a legitimate fear that one day Steam will "cash in their chips" and force something like a subscription fee or Always Online DRM, or such. Most of AAA gaming is trying to push for that dark future already, because it represents lucrative security for investors.

But right now, Steam has absolutely no reason to do anything of the sort.
They're making megabucks and have an incredibly positive standing with the PC gamer market; a market that is largely snubbed by the rest of the game world. They have absolute stability in an otherwise uncertain economy, and there's no chance they would piss it all away.

 

[Strazdas]

1. Do you know what a monopoly means? its when you have a business or enterprise as the only supplier of a particular product or service. They dominate their market but they are not the only player.
2. What are you talking about? how is Microsoft not a tech company?? If they are not tech then what are they, a furniture company?
In regards to licenses you prove my point, if Microsoft disappears from the game industry, what is going to stop Sony from purchasing their old gaming divisions along with their license deals?
3. Bingo, there is(was) no alternative, people, vendors and producers were forced to take whatever Microsoft did, that is why monopolies are bad, when someone has absolute power over a market what is to stop them beyond court cases.
In regards to EA every company is capitalistic, nobody is doing it for altruistic reasons. Microsoft isn't changing CEO due to a policy change, Steve Ballmer is retiring, Microsoft hasn't changed it's practices since the days of Bill Gates.

1. Surely i dont need to explain to you how majority of games for PC wont even run unless you verify them on steam, even if you bought it at retailer and all. you simply cannot be a PC gamer without steam now because the games demand you connect them to steam. Thats a monopoly.
2. Microsoft is a software company. they do not build tech. Outbox they outsource the building even. On the other hand Sony and Nintendo does build electronics. In fact MS being software company and Sony being hardware company is what creased comparison of "MS better at making games, sony at consoles" to begin with.
Nothing is going to stop sony from purchasing non-profitable part of microsoft or their games. This however does not matter for any possible new competitor unless you just want sequels forever and no new IPs. Well, unless you mean patent trolling agiasnt new competitors later on, in which case thats a broken law system not sony. by law they are required to patent troll of possible or they loose the patent.
3. And yet the end result is good here. Before windows we have very strange PC hardware market. Bill Gates managed to talk IBM and others to manufacture hardware that works for windows. The result is standartized PC components that has allowed PCs to be easily mass produced at low costs that pretty much revliutionized PC market. Meanwhile on the software side windows have allowed people to do what they were never even though possible. Windows are bad and evil, but at the end of the day its still better to use them than not to. And even then you are free to try using one of thousands other OS out there. They work, to a point, yet no reasonable competition even tried besides Apple, and these guys is a whole different level of evil.
And yes EA is capitalistic and so are other companies. They are just working in environment we created, not being evil for sake of evil.