Gates: Xbox Live Will Become Windows Live

This is why you should not buy an Xbox 360.

Microsoft are a cancer.

who did not see this coming? Let me see... you get torched with some nice Y0U SUCK0RZZZZZZ replies if you even mention xbox and trojan horse in the same sentence on some forums and "i have no idea what you just explained in full detail" in others.
So it breaks down to Xbox fanboys(add the Sony ones too), hardcore gamers who can't fanthom innovation outside the box of gameconventions and half the casual gamers who post on forums from time to time but actually have no idea what they are talking about.

In other words, this industry is so screwed... seriously. Accepted artform? never going to happen.

This is the reason I didn't want MS in the games industry, because at the end of the day it's allabout fooking Windows.

If you ask me Xbox Live is a good service but to now take it down this route starting with that awful name Windows Live is just cheese. Was this not suppose to be about Xbox and gamers or just stamping the already succesful windows brand on everything so we never forget it?

Has he actually asked us what we want as gamers, the same way they did when they wanted to create Xbox? While I understand the convergience concept Xbox Live may get worse if this happens.

Let me explain. Within the last two-three years didn't MS shut down u.k MSN chat rooms in knee jerk reaction to bad press on grooming? U.K people then couldn't contact each other and they wanted you to pay to get onto u.s chat rooms. What's to stop this kind of crap happening on Xbox Live if MSN gets tied into it somehow? Will they then only have you playing online in the europe and u.k?

Remember Gates, it's about the games. Remember who got you where you are.

Perhaps I'm worrying over nothing, I dunno.

Is this the beggining of the dread plutocracy we've been fearing? Oh no! Xbox 1.5, and Windows Messenger, is the start of the end!

Agreed. MS is trying to monopolize the way we play games. I say f**k that. I'm not about to let MS dictate how I play games. Not to mention I find absolutely nothing interesting about it (and I live in N. America!).
PS3 and Revolution all the way

ok, so this isnt really a suprise to anyone who ever thought about it. i mean honestly, didnt you watch total recal when you where yonuger and see that they just have entire walls that are tvs/monitors and say wow... i cant wait till that happens... unless of course its microsoft that does it... then i can wait a few years.



and thats just retarded... sony is on the same band wagon, except they are less concerned with the online and software and more concerned with the hard ware angle since they manufacture pc's and cosoles... its no coinidence that MS's head of XNA development is also in charge of xbox.

here is what you do... you buy either a ps3 or a 360, whichever you prefer, an just make sure to buy a revo also. and everythign will be fine. huge crazy over priced high def games will come on your shiny living room pc's and "clasic gaming" will continue on through nintendo... hopefully.

_____

MS spies on you with Windows, they are a main partner and provider to the Echelon spying network, in exchange, they are allowed to do industrial spying with it, Windows is a pretty bad OS, any good informatician can tell you that, they want to monopolize the gaming industry as they do with the computer market, I don't have to tell that monopoly is the mother of all disgraces to come, when you rule your area the way Microsoft does, it doesn't leave any space for other companies, they are bought or overpowered, like with the Xbox, doing dumping, and so killing in the egg start-ups, therefore killing diversity, if MS wins, we'll all have to eat the same soup, and believe me since MS already lost 5 Billions$ with the Xbox, they do not intend to lose money on it forever, when they'll start collecting, it' s gonna be "ZOINKS" for us all,and anyone that dares to challenge them will be overpowered by the money that MS did with it's trash OS, Sony are on the same boat with their DRM:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051118-5600.html
and they alrteady stated that they intend to sell the PS3 at loss in order to penetrate the home of every gamer with it's Blue-Ray player... the good of free trading, and capitalism is that when something on sale is not good, the better product wins and so do the consumer, when you have a bad product, that is sold half the price of a better product by the miracle of dumping & the better product fails to sell, because of the big money a big company is willing to put on their own bad product, the consumer loses, so does creativity, diversity and the good yet not so powerfull companies, you don't reward the ones that are doing good products, but instead the Bully of the market. Sad, so sad behaviour, that is why I don't support Sony, nor Microsoft, Nintendo has my full support because they care of us gamers, they do innovate, try to push the frontiers of gaming further, are not obsessed by "the money for the money", they make game for everyone, trying to reach everybody, no matter the age, they don't do inintelligent, violent, pointless, shallow games kinda GTA, the Getaway, put it that way: Miyamoto is the Jedi, the others are the dark side. I know I sound radical, but please do some research on independent, serious, backed-up information news sites or blogs, you'll see that I only tell the truth, in fact you' see that I'm painting a not so dark picture of reality, to my real sadness, it is even worse & please think about what we don't even know, the reality that is concealed from us.
Sorry for the length of the post, but I really tried to be short since it is a matter rather infinite, please be aware that your choices have consequences, and do support the people that deserve it, not the ones with megalomania that only want to rip our money & want to control us. take care!

Miyamoto is the Jedi and the rest the Dark side... ouchie, let's not polarize to much here.
Nintendo is also a company and companies need to make money to survive so also Nintendo will make itself guilty of cash-in maneuvers (as seen with the many Mario Sports games). Small point of difference with other cash-in maneuvers is that Nintendo tries to keep it high-quality and fun as proven by the various surveys amongst parents and children younger then 12 who put Nintendo on top of their lists because of good quality and value and just delivering plain old fashioned fun.

Difference with Nintendo and Sony/MS is that Nintendo is not after the position of the home-entertainment gatekeeper, games are its corebusiness, it wants to keep it that way. Who has that gatekeeperposition can by large margin control the movie, music and gameindustrie and all the profits linked to it. If a company holds that position it will turn out bad for the consumer except if the goverment can regulate it with laws, keep the gatekeeping company under close eye.

Competition is good, competition keeps every contender in the industry on its toes and as history has showed, the one with the best-applied innovation can turn the tide. The Revolution could be responsible for a more maturing of the gameindustry like the movieindustry before it. You got big Hollywood productions and you got smaller, bit niche arty productions, they can live side by side perfectly.

Nintendo doesn't need to re-invent the complete gaming industry perse, enriching it is already a good step in the right direction.

It seems I've failed to mention that Xbox360 has failed to wow me in any way. By saying PS3 all the way I'm making an educated guess that they will most likely have (eventually) an extremely solid lineup that will cater to my tastes like it did with this generation. Xbox wasn't exactly a piece of hardware that catered to me and my personal tastes as a gamer.

But another reason why I'm turned off from the xbox360 is the fact that currently the games look like they're suped up versions of this gen's games. Now, thats not to say that won't change but in my opinion this launch was far too early and if technological advancement has only come this far, Next-Gen and Xbox360 should have waited another year or two. I remember the first time I played the original Rogue Squadron on the N64. I also remember the day that I brought home Gamecube and RS:II and how much I pissed my pants with joy at the jump in graphics and the new controller standard. To me that felt like a needed and quite a large jump. Right now the Xbox360 doesn't give me that feeling.

Now that you've heard (essentially) a full reply, is my response still retarded?

*Excellent first post GameGod.

not at all... just was weird in the context of the discussion. pardon my harsh words :)
I actually side with MS, in the previosu gen at least, because i was buying a superior product at the same price sony was sellign its technically inferior ps2. as a consumer it seemed liek the way to go... and it turned out well as i thuroughly enjoy the whole fps thing. and im an admited graphics whore... i have def bought games just cause they looked pretty.

i am currently planing on buying all three on their respective releases, as i am hooked on many xbox games and sony is lo0oking set to have the strongest system.

as for the whole MS spying on us thing, i do believe it, im a huge conspiracy theorist myself. However, as evil as MS may seem i dont think they are doign anythign that any one else wouldnt do it that position, you dont get to be the richest man in the world by such a wide margin by not playign dirty. The way i see it, it is up to us to controll them, not the other way aroudn, however i feel it shoudl be handled through well informed voting as apposed to denyign yourself a worth whiel product. if the US and UK gub-ments wherent so full of fookers right now we woudltn have these probs. hell i was a big clinton fan but he did more to deregulate the media than anyone and now look, we have a moneky for a president two terms now!

thats why its important to keep up on reliable news outlets and support and patronize them regualrly.

you'll never get the masses to not buy play stations, but you might be able to get them to vote for someone who is actually qualified to be a leader.

rambling, done.
___________

My problem is that Microsoft already has a lot of monopolies, and I don't see why gaming should be another one of them.

When gaming is the same as the OS market, we'll all complain, but at the moment people just love Xbox.

No thought for the future.

I totally agree with you Adam, we must take action today and do not feed the monster, it's like us ruining our planet and climate, when we'll hit the wall, then it will be too late. OptimusP, I know that Nintendo are no angels, but there's quite a difference in their goals, found on :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigeru_Miyamoto#External_links
this: "Despite being an influential figure in video games and responsible for multi-million dollar franchises, Miyamoto is said to be very humble, insisting on being given an average income, and often rides a bicycle to work."
You'll give me that there is a substancial difference in human value between the people at Nintendo and the others behind MS... at least they don't spy on all our communications as MS do, that is just criminal, Bill Gates should be in prison, as every plain citizen if caught doing so, and Nintendo as you said: "Nintendo tries to keep it high-quality and fun as proven by the various surveys amongst parents and children younger then 12 who put Nintendo on top of their lists because of good quality and value and just delivering plain old fashioned fun." they do intelligent/decent/fun games.
Lupos, I agree with you on the voting issue, but don't illude yourself, power is more in the hands of corporate companies than inthe hands of voters, the candidates that you have to choose from, are already own by them, in most cases, they are their politic representants and come from big wealthy families tied to big buck companies (i.e. Bush, Kerry, Rumsfeld...), you are so right when you say:"its important to keep up on reliable news outlets and support and patronize them regualrly." Try this monthly newspaper, one of the best you can read worldwide:
http://mondediplo.com/
About not getting the masses to boycott the Xbox 360 or the PS, I don't know, it's like voting, my only 1 vote won't make the difference, nevertheless it's important to vote, maybe I won't change the future of videogaming, but at least they won't fool me & if I can convince a few of you in doing so, maybe you'l spread your better knowledge of the gaming scene to others, kinda "viral strategy", I know I do so with my friends & some people I know, I want them to be aware of the whole picture, then they decide wathever they want, but in order to forge an opinion, you need the tools to do so, read info, truthfull info.
Been a pleasure reading your posts, you all seem reasonable well informed people, take care ;)

While I think that Nintendo would be a better monopoly player than Microsoft for quality, they are both just in it for the money.

I do agree that even in a monopoly position Nintendo would continue to innovate to an extent, indeed Nintendo seem to believe that they can only survive through being different.

My main point is that we know from other markets that Microsoft is very very good at getting into a market, forcing standardisation around a platform it holds isn't in any way open, not innovating or even listening to customers most of the time and doing everything it possibly can for profit. Everyone moans about this AFTER it has happened rather than thinking "hey, prehaps in 10 years time when we can only buy games and consoles from Microsoft supporting them now by buying an Xbox might not be such a good idea".

Examples: OS, Office software, Media Players (let's face it Windows Media is becoming increasingly standard, with its only rival now being Quicktime), Media Centre Devices, PDAs etc

I like a good rage against the machine. To MS I do this by not using Internet Explorer after what MS did to Netscape, and I now use Mozilla's fantastic Firefox instead.

Windows Media Player i feel is BS (down with DRM), so I also don't use that and I use Div X player instead. Hey I don't own an Xbox either, not because I didn't want one to play cool games like Outrun, but because I couldn't afford it ages ago.

A 360 is a possibility for me but not because of the 360 itself, MS's agenda and all it's HD TV BS, but to play certain games and also play games online, no other reason (something I'd do with my PC if it wasn't so crap).

I agree with the 360 launch line up, nothing I've seen makes me want to buy it except for Ridge Racer 6 (Dead Rising) and playing online. That's really saying don't buy for a while til the games start to come out for it. The most recent and ultimate turnoff is the backwards compatibility issue and those games that won't work from the previous Xbox. And there I was ready to invest in a 360 and take advantage of Gamestations 2nd hand generosity. I still may buy a 360, but all this dark news hurts me. Do I have to buy an Xbox 1 too, just to play Outrun etc?

And here's a story. My best mate is also a keen gamer for many years, he's bought and opted for an Xbox while owning a PS2 and GC, while I had just a GC and PS2 though I wanted an Xbox. He's had two Xbox's die on him, the second very recently (with no hope of it being fixed unluckily) and he's already caught in the 360 hype while he ignores the DS totally, which I invested in and know the true beuaty of. Now while 360 looks hot I need more of a reason to spend £280 on one than FPS and driving games. I can't see much at the moment and to be honest my DS is exciting me a lot more, despite it's lesser cutting edge hardware than 360. Each to their own I suppose.

In truth I'd like all three home consoles to experience games across the board, but because of choice and money I have to buy with my heart and head sensibly. Though 360 is out of the starting blocks first I'll hold off buying for a while and feed my DS, and more importantly GC and PS2 while I still can.

The thing is, we know what Nintendo is like in a monopoly position through their activities in the hand-held sector.

I'm using MCV's feature on the launch of the GB Micro for my dates here, they may differ in your country.

The original GameBoy came out in 1989 to eventual great success. Nintendo owned the hand-held market with this product.

It took them until 1997, eight years, to bring out a smaller version, the GameBoy pocket. Then they obsoleted that the next year with the GameBoy Color.

Nine years after the original and all we have for innovation is colours.

Then in 2001 we are given the GBA, twelve years on from their original and we get a "next generation" hand-held from Nintendo. It's rushed and cheap (screen) and dissapoints with the technology if not the games. More of an evolution of the GB than a true generational gap.

Then in 2003 we get the GBA-SP, a better screen a smaller form factor, but no headphone jack as standard, you need to buy an adapter.

And in 2005 we get the DS and the GB Micro. A new hand-held, arguably rushed to counter the PSP, and a smaller version of the GBA, now with a headphone jack again.

To summarise, we have had two product lines over 16 years, one with two generations the other a stand-alone product at the moment.

What we have had, however, is tons of "special edition" versions of most of the above products. The same stuff being sold to us in different coloured cases, or with a few stickers in the sad case of the SP tribal edition.

The only innovations we have seen from Nintendo are when it feels the pressure of competition or customer dissatisfaction.

The GBA could be seen as a response to the popularity of the Bandai WonderSwan, released in 1999.

The SP was defiantly a reaction to customer dissatisfaction with the screen of the original GBA model.

The DS may have been in development for a while, but it was announced and released to go up against the PSP.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Nintnedo make s**te hardware, I'm not saying they don't innovate. What I am saying is that they don't necessarily put money into innovation when they don't have to.

Would they really be a better monopoly than either Sony or Microsoft? I don't think so.

I don't think any of them would be a "good" monopoly. I much prefer the games market to have three strong players, each offering something different, be it mainstream acceptance, online excellence or just simple fun.

You seem to forget that back in the days of the GB, Technology didn't evolve like we see it today, ther were battery issues and price issues, making a more powerfull GB would have meant: less hours of play or huge expensive battery, more powerfull GB = expensive hardware, more costs of developement as so less variety of games(one of the good points of the GB was its huge library of all kind of games), consoles are made so the owner have fun with ,them, not for him to act like a peacok with his flashy hyped new device, in today business, companies "creates" necessities, you have to own a new device and the sooner the better.. for them, not for you, because it fills their pockets, look at the mobile market, always new devices, but be honest, you can do what you do everyday calling, send SMS, with your 5 years ago cell phone, the truth is they convince you that you need the new product, but could live as well with your current one, the same applies with the PC market and the monthly "evolving" new Intel processor, all this is marketing and almost everyone fall for it... so sad, we are, for our shame and stupidity, letting more & more ourselves being told what to do, what we need, what we want, society are sheep, waiting to go to the slaughterhouse with stupid smiles...MEEEEEHHH

On this point if you really want three strong players in the videogamong scene, support Nintendo, because Microsoft isn't going anywhere of the videogame market and they have enough money to keep their billions record loss strategy for tthe decades to come, the same applies to Sony though they don't as the $$$$$$$$$ as Microsoft.
And yes I'm quite sure that Nintendo would make a 10 Million light-years better monopoly than the other 2, but I don't wish that and never say so, I want for Nintendo good competitors, ethical competitors, not ones that push the videogames down, Sega was a good competitor to Nintendo, it's not casual that the golden age of gaming was during the Sega/Nintendo era.
Microsoft is truly a despisable company in every way, you can not point one good thing in the way they do things, not to mention that they are outlaws... Hear a good advice: Try to see a little bit far than your shoes!!!

A monopoly has never been a good thing anyway in any market.

What would happen if Nintendo would own the gaming monopoly, well geuss what, it practically did with the NES. So what happened? Nintendo used its marketpower to force developers paying huge royalties and limiting the number of games any publisher or developer could make. Financially bullying third parties is not a good thing offcourse but limiting gamereleases was a ver good thing. Developers were forced to actually make good games because their means were divided among a limited number of games anyway. By controlling the flow of games Nintendo could garantee a steady flow of good-quality games, not like the diarria we have these days.Also by limiting the offering of games the games that were on sale sold good anyway.
Would the same thing happen again if Nintendo had the monopoly? Well, Iwata is no Yamauchi offcourse.

Bottom line anyway is that a monopoly is not good in no form or way and by no company.

You DO make sense OptimusP, unlike other sites or blogs where there is a "diarrhea" of commentators/posters, the few at Spong are well in touch with the videogaming scene!!! The people at: http://gonintendo.com/
are worth talking/debating with. Take care, cya!