Time for some Honesty

Complete BS! They launched WORLD WIDE!! Which SONY cannot and never will PSP anyone? Oh wait now PS3 as well!

I think your terms of reference are a little restricted. I'm not saying Microsoft f**ked everyone over with the launch of 360. They only f**ked Europe and USA over with shortages - there was an over-abundent supply in Japan.

I am referring to the bigger picture - where Microsoft's history of illegal practises, monoloply leverage and piss-poor software has held computing generally back by years.

It seems to me, and im far from an expert on the subject, that MS has had a lot less legal difficulties in recent years. Now weather that is due to improved biz practices or the painfulyl lax gub'ment regulation i cant say, but in relation to the xbox they seem to really go above and beyond when it comes to pleaseing the customers. Now this is of course so that they can some day "own our digital life style", but for the time being it means only good things for us the consumer. If, for example, the ps3 does underperform as badly as some are speculating, you can bet your ass that the ps4 (if sony survives that long) will be a much more affordable and less trojan horsey.

Course the down side is that if sony does crumble (which i doubt) having only MS and nintendo means having no real competition in gaming. Kids will buy wii's, teens will buy xboxs, and the older gamers (whose numbers increase yearly) will get both. And quality will drop off almost immediatly.

_________

Could a company the size of Sony really go under?

Also, If there was only M$ and Nintendo, I’d like to think that the developers would still try to out do each other, competition between developers as opposed to companies

When the largest percentage of their profits comes form the PS division and the movie division and the lean both on each other, yes, i suppose its possible. Highly unlikely, but possible.



Sure the games woudl still eb good but we wouldnt see the sort of "sell at a loss" super systems we get now. The ps3 and 360 are both expensive, and im relatively sure they both cost more to make than they are sold for. If MS didnt have sony to compete with it could make a 250 dollar system, sell it for 300 and be very happy. Nintendo would make a 150 system, sell for 200 and be good. And thats all we woudl get.

_________

For an example of what Microsoft do when they don't have any competition, look no further than Internet Explorer.

Netscape ceased to be a viable browser in about 1999-2000.

IE6 was released in August 2001. It was an improvement over IE5.5, but sucked as far as CSS support and security goes. Security patches followed, but no updates to help us web designers code properly and have our sites work. Microsoft even broke up the IE development team.

Now that Mozilla Firefox and Safari have started making inroads into IE's dominance, we are getting a new IE7. With CSS handling updates.

If Microsoft "win" the console "war" then you will see one more Xbox and then very probably nothing else until someone else challenges them. It took a passionate bunch of people making their product available for free to get MS to notice with browsers, who is going to do that with consoles?

I'm not saying Sony will be any better if they "win", but you need to look at what sort of corporation Microsoft is before welcoming them into your home and giving them the lion's share of the gaming market.

Tyr, puhleese...more fear propaganda we've already heard from you a thousand times before. Just stop already you're starting to sound ;like a broken record.

Do I think that MS (or Sony or Nintendo) hegemony (forget all this "win" crap) is a good thing? No. Do I think it within the realm of probability? Again, No. I'm sure theres some people here with with either enough blind hatred for MS/love for Sony, or are just plain gullible enough to nod along with this kind of specious reasoning, but I doubt you're making any new converts, especially with this tired old garbage thats prolly been trotted out in reference to this since Xbox was announced.

Sheesh, you would think Sony's in real trouble if this wasn't Tyrion's "Why MS Is Bad, Mmm-Kay" variation #5, which hes prolly been polishing up and trotting out since before I even joined SPOnG. Quit proving that goon who keeps flaming you right and me wrong for thinking you're better than that. Because I really hate to be wrong.

Tyrion's point was well reasoned, and backed up by historical fact. How is that specious?

Specious does not mean; "Disagrees with me in a way I am too lazy and stupid to refute credibly."



Really!?! You do it so much I thought you enjoyed it.

Its specious becasue its predicated upon the possiblility of MS achieving hegemony(not impossible, but not very likely either) and motivated by fear and hatred of MS (understandable), not as you assert, historical fact or sound reasoning. Unique circumstances not likely to be repeated in the console market led to MS' OS and browser hijinx. Asserting that MS is in danger of doing what MS does best to consoles is quite disingenous, you'd get laughed out of Akibahara talking that kind of ludicrous crapola.

You have just admitted that it is possible. Therefore diminishing your own argument. No one is saying it is likely - not even (I guess) Tyrion - but unless we acknowledge its possibility, and acknowledge the disasterous effects that would have - it becomes more likely.



Again, your acknowledgement of the other side's motivation, while it increases my opinion of you as a reasonable person (although quite a nocturnal one if I am correct in thinking you are in the USA), does little to supprt the position that Tyrion's reasoning was specious.



How does Microsoft's behaviour in the browser differ from Tyrion's recollection of it? It doesn't - it represents historical fact.

No matter what you say, Microsoft would LIKE to achieve a similar level of dominance in the console market - I'm not going to say video-games - because they could care less about games - they just want a computer in ever living room so that they can contol and take a cut from all media distribution.

If they have to give away games consoles in Japan to do that - that is what they will eventually do. But if they can elimiate the competition using more profitable commercial routes they will. They thought they had eleminiated Nintendo in the last generation - and it is to their great Chagrin that Nintendo has come back so robustly/ BUt Nintendo's aims do not extend beyong gaming - so Micrisoft does not even see them as a competitor for its Zoon/home-media objectives. PlayStation 3 is a far greater competitor - but Sony has m,ade may errors on this coming generation, so the "it will never happen" scenario is more likely now than ever before.



I don't disagree with you. Because Japanese levels of insularity and arrogance are almost as complete as American ones.

Ever been to Akihabara, BTW? Because every time I go there, I meet so few people who speak good English that I could spout almost any opinion without risk of mockery.

I'm sorry if I'm confident enough in my position that I can afford such luxuries as admitting the reality of the situation. I'm not playing Mortal Kombat trying for a Flawless Victory or engaged in a High School debate. I'm keeping it real dawg. The subject of this thread being honesty, seemed appropriate to tell the whole truth, not just the bits that support my position. I don't see that as weakening my argument, such as it is. Speaking of weak arguments...Theres a vast difference between asserting the possibility of MS console dominance and asserting its likelyhood. You wanna insist that you can draw the inside straight, go right ahead, I still think its a sucker bet.

I don't see that anyone has asserted that it is LIKELY. I think people have just asserted that it is a possibility - which you yourself acknowledge. But it's a possibility which, should it become a reality, could have disasterous consequences for gaming.

I say its a possibility...bandying the possibility about as anything aside from a fantasy is nothing but transparent fearmongering propaganda of the worst kind. (And I totally swear this is not a backhanded compliment ploy on my part) I truly believe Tyr knows this, and is using it for effect, because I'm dead certain he's not stupid. Therefore I have no choice but to conclude that hes deliberatly spinning this even when he knows better himself. The subject of this thread being honesty, I'd like to see some.

I could point out that "historical fact" would show that every time someone achieves dominance in the console market, a new player arrives and whips the tar out of them. It'd certainly be more relevant than the unique circumstances surrounding MS' OS and browser dominance. But its all fairly irrelevant given the situation on the ground, now, doesn't point to anyone assuming that role anytime soon.

Is kinda funny watching alla the Sony fanboys running around like Chicken Little screaming "The sky is falling!" though. I'm sure eventually Sony will pull its collective head oput of its nether region and affairs will assume a veneer of normalcy sooner rather than later, thier corporate existence more or less depends on it.

Well, the subject of what would happen if Sony withdrew from the console market was raised. I responded with an opinion on what would happen if Microsoft gained a dominant position in the market. At no point did I say it was going to happen, I mentioned what I believe to be the consequences of Xbox dominating the games market.

It used to be a fantasy that Microsoft would enter the console market at all. Think about that for a moment, a software company, with very little experience in hardware or games in general entered the games console market and now has a similar share to Nintendo, who have been in the market since the 1970s. And you aren't worried by what they can do next?


And I'd counter with the fact that nobody has the resources of Microsoft. Nobody else on the planet would be willing to throw away the billions of dollars that Microsoft has, just to gain the 20% or so market share they have achieved.

Plus, there has only really been one tar whipping so far, Atari couldn't lay the blame for 1983 with Nintendo, Nintendo re-made the market after it crashed, competed reasonably equally with Sega for a while and then Sony came in and did the aforementioned tar whipping. You can't create a historical trend with one data point and you can't then use that as an indicator of the future.

*kicks self for deleting brilliant reply

OK, damn damn damn damn damn...that button I mentioned that lets you open the thread in a new window would have been a lifesaver there, right-clicked then hit Open instead of Open in New Window...

Sorry dude, your use of left the impression that even so much as a 51% share could prove disasterous, that coupled with what I know to be your belief that MS having even a .1% share is a bad thing led me to ascribe your comments to propagandizing rather than mere speculation. Though your further comments, once again raising the spectre of fear would seem to validate my characterization of your motivation.

No, MS doesn't scare me, not even a little bit. They're horizontally structured. Sony's potential for vertical monopoly scares me. MS' entry into the market doesn't startle me at all, anything less would have probably failed. Also you're shading the truth a little here as well, Nintendo was in the coin-op biz until '83, when they entered the console market with the NES, not the '70's as you claim. MS had years of previous hardware and games experience prior to their entry into the console market, they didn't come in from scratch as you imply.

And yes, my point about the tar whippings was unfortunately worded, my original thought was that the dominant player shoots themselves in the foot (MUCH more applicable), but them I became enamoured of the "new player", as I was considering the "out" if MS totally destroyed Nintendo and Sony and was remembering Sony's entry to the market. But I will continue to contend that the console market is very different from the OS market, and, given an opening such as the removal of all but one competitor, a new one would arise.