Microsft's goal with the Xbox brand?

What do you think is the main and final goal of the Xbox brand for Microsoft?

The obvious answer is that Microsoft wants to take over everyone’s living room with a single device that becomes a computer/games system/movie player/music player/web browser/Tivo/cable box, etc. The problem is, how does Microsoft take over the industry without pissing off the very hardware companies that act as the core for the Windows operating system.

It seems that Microsoft’s answer is to take baby steps and slowly wean themselves off of the 3rd party vendors such as Dell, Gateway, Intel, etc. In other words, the Xbox was just a way to get their foot in the door, the 360 offers a lot of connections to other media devices (iPods, computers, PSPs) but isn’t a full fledged computer. Xbox 3 might have two sku’s: 1 = a games system like 360/2 = a full fledged computer. Maybe by Xbox 4, Microsoft will simply ditch any attempt to mask their goal of replacing all media devices.

I picture an Xbox, in the future, that tries to replace every device in the living room becoming a software and hardware monopoly. Am I wrong in thinking this is Microsoft’s intent?

The fact that Intel is trying to get into the living room game with ViiV shows that they’re afraid that Microsoft, one day, won’t need Intel. Sony is obviously trying to attempt the same thing with PS3 and beyond.

The interesting thing, with Sony, is that they don’t have to worry about pissing off the Dell’s and Intel’s of the world. This is the reason why Sony is creating a full fledged media device now(PS3). Microsoft has to play nice for the time being but it seems like they will slowly introduce more and more with each Xbox.

So, if this is truly Microsoft’s goal, then how do they actually pull this off? How long would something like this even take? 10 – 20 years?

One option for Microsoft is to simply include the hardware vendors into the scheme of things. So Microsoft could create the Xbox architecture and sell Xbox game systems. Then, let Dell, Samsung and others take that architecture and offer other features on top of the gaming features and sell them separately. This of course, only works if Microsoft wants to share.

So where do see Microsoft with the Xbox brand 10 – 20 years from now?
 
winstonsmith1978 said:
It seems that Microsoft’s answer is to take baby steps and slowly wean themselves off of the 3rd party vendors such as Dell, Gateway, Intel, etc. In other words, the Xbox was just a way to get their foot in the door, the 360 offers a lot of connections to other media devices (iPods, computers, PSPs) but isn’t a full fledged computer. Xbox 3 might have two sku’s: 1 = a games system like 360/2 = a full fledged computer. Maybe by Xbox 4, Microsoft will simply ditch any attempt to mask their goal of replacing all media devices.

No. You should check out the "inside the Xbox" book for a really good look at the reasons for all things 'Xbox'. Xbox was pretty much a knee jerk reaction to Sony and their PS2. From what I understand Sony wants the Playstation to replace personal computers. MS saw this and created the Xbox to slow down their momentum. The system was thrown together with PC parts in about a year. MS is primarily a software company, they hate having to deal with the hardware. But they did this to hopefully get a foothold in the market and change the course of Sony and the Playstation if they can. Sony with the Playstation and Linux are the only formidable competition to Windows IMO. MS is just protecting their cash cow (Windows).
 
I havent read the book but i think they see the concept of a 'connected home' and want to be the end to end solution for that, and at some point be a content provider.

You cant just dismiss their non-consumer business though. Servers, workstations, applciations, these are all very critical and seperate parts of the business and their overall strategy.
 
Microsofts main point? To try and steal some of the HUGE money pie that is the console business that Sony has created. Microsoft didn't even think about entering the console business until it reached the 10's of billions of dollars in profits throughout the industry.

Sony has been doing the " central HUB for your home " stuff since the PS1 so its not like Microsoft is trying anything new or doing anything revolutionary to accomplish the goal. When the Xbox released people already had the PS2 as their DVD player, and the Xbox added nothing else to the home HUB equation. The 360 adds nothing to the home HUB equation either, whereas the PS3 will become the central Blu-Ray player in most peoples homes as well as being capable as a network server and things of that nature.

Pretty much all Microsoft wants is the money. When Sony entered the business I don't think the gaming industry was even bringing in a billion a year. Sony entered because Ken Kutaragi thought he could bring about a 3D system into the industry while Sega was still touting the Saturn as a 2D powerhouse.
 
Hardknock said:
No. You should check out the "inside the Xbox" book for a really good look at the reasons for all things 'Xbox'. Xbox was pretty much a knee jerk reaction to Sony and their PS2. From what I understand Sony wants the Playstation to replace personal computers. MS saw this and created the Xbox to slow down their momentum. The system was thrown together with PC parts in about a year. MS is primarily a software company, they hate having to deal with the hardware. But they did this to hopefully get a foothold in the market and change the course of Sony and the Playstation if they can. Sony with the Playstation and Linux are the only formidable competition to Windows IMO. MS is just protecting their cash cow (Windows).

Thats fine, but what does Microsoft do with Xbox 3 and beyond. It seems like Microsoft is stuck with how much they can offer in an xbox, if they have to cater to the hardware vendors. If what you say is true, then how come Microsoft hasn't opened up the Xbox architecture to 3rd party vendors. Microsoft can create a closed gaming architecture and let 3rd party vendors add to it with their own stuff as long as they support the Windows platform.

So Dell could offer a 360 with computing options and Windows. Samsung could offer a TV with 360 built in. I don't know, maybe in the future?
 
centerofadmiration said:
Pretty much all Microsoft wants is the money. When Sony entered the business I don't think the gaming industry was even bringing in a billion a year. Sony entered because Ken Kutaragi thought he could bring about a 3D system into the industry while Sega was still touting the Saturn as a 2D powerhouse.
I'm just thankful we have a company like Sony that operates on altruistic values and doesn't let things like the wanting money get in the way of doing good for gaming-kind.

.Sis
 
centerofadmiration said:
Microsofts main point? To try and steal some of the HUGE money pie that is the console business that Sony has created. Microsoft didn't even think about entering the console business until it reached the 10's of billions of dollars in profits throughout the industry.

Sony has been doing the " central HUB for your home " stuff since the PS1 so its not like Microsoft is trying anything new or doing anything revolutionary to accomplish the goal. When the Xbox released people already had the PS2 as their DVD player, and the Xbox added nothing else to the home HUB equation. The 360 adds nothing to the home HUB equation either, whereas the PS3 will become the central Blu-Ray player in most peoples homes as well as being capable as a network server and things of that nature.

Pretty much all Microsoft wants is the money. When Sony entered the business I don't think the gaming industry was even bringing in a billion a year. Sony entered because Ken Kutaragi thought he could bring about a 3D system into the industry while Sega was still touting the Saturn as a 2D powerhouse.

Dont forget that Kutaragi spends his spare time finding homes for displaced puppies.
 
winstonsmith1978 said:
Thats fine, but what does Microsoft do with Xbox 3 and beyond. It seems like Microsoft is stuck with how much they can offer in an xbox, if they have to cater to the hardware vendors. If what you say is true, then how come Microsoft hasn't opened up the Xbox architecture to 3rd party vendors. Microsoft can create a closed gaming architecture and let 3rd party vendors add to it with their own stuff as long as they support the Windows platform.

So Dell could offer a 360 with computing options and Windows. Samsung could offer a TV with 360 built in. I don't know, maybe in the future?

Because no one wants to lose $126 per console except microsoft. :)

Michael Dell said it best when first appraoched by MS to manufacture the first xbox (paraphrasing) "Why am i going to make the shaver if i cant get a piece of the blades you sell for it"
 
Sony has been doing the " central HUB for your home " stuff since the PS1

sony has been saying that since the ps1 but it hasn't happened the only thing close to a media hub is a xbox360 and a windows MC pc

I would rather be able to stream all the music, pictures, and movies I have on my pc to the living room

The 360 adds nothing to the home HUB equation either, whereas the PS3 will become the central Blu-Ray player

just having bluray is kinda limited when compared to what the 360 does with multi media and networking, PS3 has it's strong points but I think when it comes to media the 360 is going to win hands down
 
expletive said:
Because no one wants to lose $126 per console except microsoft. :)

Michael Dell said it best when first appraoched by MS to manufacture the first xbox (paraphrasing) "Why am i going to make the shaver if i cant get a piece of the blades you sell for it"

I was thinking more along the line that microsoft would still offer the 360's they offer now, but allow 3rd party vendors to add the features some people might want.

So the people who actually want HD-DVD or Blu-Ray could end up buying a version of the 360 from a vendor with these features. Of course they'll be more expensive.

Or the people who are in the market for a game system and a computer. Wouldn't it be nice if Dell was selling a $1000 computer with 360 inside.

If you want just the 360 then you buy the Microsoft version. If you want a system that can do more than streaming, then you buy the Dell or Gateway version.

I really like the concept that the PS3 is going to be a Linux computer, so it would be nice if the 360 had an option like that with Windows. This would allow Windows to take over the living room without hurting the hardware vendors.
 
To try and steal some of the HUGE money pie that is the console business that Sony has created.

Yeah, because before Sony there was only Atari, Nintendo, Sega, NEC, etc. and the thousands of visionary game creators who built the industry up over the years.

Sony did not 'create' anything such as you assert. They usurped the industry from other players who laid the groundwork for them, much like MS is attempting to do now.
 
winstonsmith1978 said:
I was thinking more along the line that microsoft would still offer the 360's they offer now, but allow 3rd party vendors to add the features some people might want.

So the people who actually want HD-DVD or Blu-Ray could end up buying a version of the 360 from a vendor with these features. Of course they'll be more expensive.

Or the people who are in the market for a game system and a computer. Wouldn't it be nice if Dell was selling a $1000 computer with 360 inside.

If you want just the 360 then you buy the Microsoft version. If you want a system that can do more than streaming, then you buy the Dell or Gateway version.

I really like the concept that the PS3 is going to be a Linux computer, so it would be nice if the 360 had an option like that with Windows. This would allow Windows to take over the living room without hurting the hardware vendors.

I don't think MS would make the Xbox360 open to others to produce. It would be a lot more expensive for anybody else to manufacture the console + additions unless MS decided to be VERY helpful. Also, as past history has shown, the PS3 isn't really going to be a "linux" computer. Granted it'll probably be more of a "linux computer" than the PS2 but no real linux user will mistake it for a true replacement for their PC. As far as MS is concerned, PCs are its bread and butter. It makes applications for PCs and servers, you might see a streamed version (from a PC) of its programs for the xbox360 in the future like how you can run MS Office from a terminal server and have remote hubs connect and use programs installed on the server.


Sean*O said:
Yeah, because before Sony there was only Atari, Nintendo, Sega, NEC, etc. and the thousands of visionary game creators who built the industry up over the years.

Sony did not 'create' anything such as you assert. They usurped the industry from other players who laid the groundwork for them, much like MS is attempting to do now.

Sony made the console mainstream and opened it up to the billion dollar market. With Atari (who died a long time ago in the console hardware market), Nintendo (who was the most mainstream (in my opinion), SEGA, and NEC (who hardly anybody knows of as far as the gaming market (in america at least) is concerned) the market was VERY VERY small. Although, they never really created anything "unique" or "revolutionary" as far as consoles are concerned, they just made it a lot more popular.
 
Yeah, because before Sony there was only Atari, Nintendo, Sega, NEC, etc. and the thousands of visionary game creators who built the industry up over the years.

Sony did not 'create' anything such as you assert. They usurped the industry from other players who laid the groundwork for them, much like MS is attempting to do now.

Videogaming was not a highly profitable industry like it is now, for either the console makers or the game developers. Sony came in and marketed to the new gaming audience ( you know, the gamers who grew up ) instead of doing what Nintendo is STILL doing and marketing their products for the 8-15 age group.

I don't think anyone can deny that Sony brought gaming to the MASSES, to kids and adults and helped churn it into the highly profitable business that it is today. Thats what I meant by " create ", they created the MASSIVE money pot that has become the console gaming business.

Having two systems that have sold / will sell 100,000,000 units is unprecented. Nintendo didn't even come close to those numbers with the NES and SNES.
 
Sis said:
I'm just thankful we have a company like Sony that operates on altruistic values and doesn't let things like the wanting money get in the way of doing good for gaming-kind.

.Sis

Yes, I read that Ken Kutaragi had to jump through hoops to get Playstation 1 made since no one in Sony really understood the concept then. Now with Cell, let's hope he does it again but the stake is definitely much higher today.

As for Xbox, I read "Opening the Xbox" years ago. Besides fuzzy goals like stopping Sony in its track, I think the original Xbox "founders" wanted to build a developer friendly gaming system so they can develope the game they really want to make.

I feel that the vision is somewhat lost now. Ironically, Sony PSP seems to fill that "mission" in a different, unintended way.

As for Xbox as a consumer brand, I'm afraid even MS doesn't know. I have the feeling, after watching all their strange and arguably ineffective campaigns, that J. Allard does not understand consumers. The series of XB "marketing" programs feel like periodic corporate proposals by agencies and MS just pick the "coolest" and hope that it sticks with the consumers.

On the other hand, I can identify with Nintendo's and Sony's visions... and I think they have executed rather well thus far. Nintendo is pushing "just" fun for everybody... very simple and pure (toy-like ?) kind of fun where everyone young and old can enjoy. Whereas Sony has been saying "Gaming is Entertainment" and they have their arsenal of movies, songs, celebs, EyeToy, DVD/Blu-Ray players to back them up in PS2 and 3.

I also feel that MS needs to explain Live better in the larger context because a lot of people still refuse to pay for subscriptions. Gluing MSN, XBox and Media PC together doesn't necessarily create a brand. Am I being too harsh or am I blind/clueless ? :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hardknock said:
No. You should check out the "inside the Xbox" book for a really good look at the reasons for all things 'Xbox'. Xbox was pretty much a knee jerk reaction to Sony and their PS2. From what I understand Sony wants the Playstation to replace personal computers. MS saw this and created the Xbox to slow down their momentum.
Different books probably have different explanations. I haven't read the whole of Smartbomb, but the excerpt here...
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1932&Itemid=2&limit=1&limitstart=1
doesn't seem to suggest that view, in the little info there is there. Smartbomb's info seems to suggest the traditional 'MS wanted a living set-top box' and not 'MS wanted to stop PlayStation replacing PCs.'
 
patsu said:
I have the feeling, after watching all their strange and arguably ineffective campaigns, that J. Allard does not understand consumers.

It's not J's job to understand consumers from a marketing point of view.

As for Sony not in it for the money... You guys are kidding, right?

It's great to have all those companies on board though. I love them all! :)
 
pipo said:
It's not J's job to understand consumers from a marketing point of view.

God bless him. You're right. Whoever approved the "Ring of Light" MTV prelaunch program and bunch of other ineffective campaigns... yeah you. I'm talking about you :p
 
That would be Peter Moore. :)

I'm not sure about the impact of the MTV launch either... Apparently they wanted to reach the non-hardcore gamers. I doubt those people really cared about it though.
 
pipo said:
That would be Peter Moore. :)

I'm not sure about the impact of the MTV launch either... Apparently they wanted to reach the non-hardcore gamers. I doubt those people really cared about it though.

Heh I still need to laught about the fact that in most parts of Europe, that show was shown without any Xbox 360 commercials during the break, so what people got to see was a woman carrying an Xbox 360 in a bag and placing it in the center of the stage, which took around 8 seconds (I counted it myself). They just showed the bands playing. =)
 
Back
Top