MS buys vivendi games division?

[Crusher]

For the love of god, would you read what is being written? Nobody, anywhere, tried to say that PC game sales were a major source of revenue for Microsoft, or that they even came close to the sales of the Windows OS.

What we're saying is, a large part of the reason WHY Windows makes so much money, is because it's *the* OS for playing games on a computer. I don't care if a million people only contribute $5 a piece to the PC gaming industry by purchasing Deer Hunter, they still need Windows to run it on. That makes Microsoft money, regardless of how much money it makes for the PC game industry, the makers of the game, or anyone else in the world.

As for unpirated copies of windows, it's sold with just about every OEM computer in the United States. Do you think the majority of the millions of people playing the Sims built their PC's themselves and pirated Windows? How the hell do you think Microsoft became the largest software corporation in the world? Why do you think they're worth more than Sony? Sony makes thousands of consumer electronics products, most of them aren't even related to computers. Microsoft has a very focused market in comparison. They're making money from people, and I guarantee it's not from internet gateway and web server machines. The majority of gateways are routers these days, btw, not Windows boxes. The few PC gateways left are probably running Linux, too.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

uhm, and your obviously clueless as to what WE are saying, we are saying gamers make up less than 15% of the computer population, meaning that they are also a small part of windows sales.. but they are insinuating windows gamers are important to MS's sales, which is BS.. gamers dont buy office, gamers dont buy frontpage, very few of them buy Visual Studio.

 

[cybamerc]

BenSkywalker:

> Look to total gaming revenue for all of PCs compared to Windows
> revenue alone.

I'm not talking about revenue. Ppl may not buy a lot of games for Windows but they buy Windows because they can play games on it. Windows' success is heavily based on its appeal as a consumer OS. If all ppl cared about was business software Windows in all likelihood wouldn't be as dominant.

> Linux needs Office to take off.

Possibly but if that is true then I'd say the chances are good. M$ is considering putting Office on Linux. I don't see it as a requirement though. If a business takes the step to replace Windows it might as well replace Office as well.

StarOffice/OpenOffice are worthy alternatives. The average user doesn't use 90% of the features in an Office package anyway.

> Office is the overwhelming driving force behind MS's dominance in the
> business world.

Yes, but I'd like to argue that that dominance is a result of the dominance in the home sector. OS/2 was doing pretty well as a business OS for a while but as Win95 matured as a consumer OS businesses dumped OS/2. A computer in the home is a potential second work place but only if the programs are compatible and preferably identical as the average user rarely has the required experience in multiple applications.

> Linux may do fine in the enthusiast or server market, until Office is
> ported it doesn't really stand a chance in the business segment at large.

Nonsense. If private users switch to Linux and OpenOffice so will businesses. Sony is working on its version of Linux together with Matsushita. Linux' chances as a future consumer OS are improving by each passing day. What is the last non-M$ OS you could say that about?

> ... but anyone who thinks it will replace the PC isn't thinking straight.

It won't replace the PC but it isn't meant to either. It's meant to protect the Windows platform. If Windows goes M$ is in a whole lot of trouble.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Cybermac-

Ppl may not buy a lot of games for Windows but they buy Windows because they can play games on it.

Linux total market penetration for desktop PCs is 5% including those who dual boot. Gaming is a miniscule portion of the PC industry, it is not in the least important to the overwhelming majority of PC users. Gaming is a complete non factor to the vast majority of PC buyers.

Possibly but if that is true then I'd say the chances are good. M$ is considering putting Office on Linux.

And it's negative 50 in hell too

If a business takes the step to replace Windows it might as well replace Office as well.

Businesses run Office, the fact that it is on Windows simply makes the choice of which OS to go with simple. Macs have a far greater chance of taking over the business desktop PC market then Linux anywhere in the near future.

StarOffice/OpenOffice are worthy alternatives.

Only the most rabid lovers of open source think so.

Yes, but I'd like to argue that that dominance is a result of the dominance in the home sector. OS/2 was doing pretty well as a business OS for a while but as Win95 matured as a consumer OS businesses dumped OS/2.

OS/2 compared well to Windows 3.11, it wasn't comparable to Win95. I still have the displeasure of using OS/2 where I work, least reliable POSs we have by far. Not to mention a GUI that looks like something out of the late 80s.

A computer in the home is a potential second work place but only if the programs are compatible and preferably identical as the average user rarely has the required experience in multiple applications.

And most businesses that were running WordPerfect or Lotus have already switched to Office, years ago at that, despite huge savings using the less popular choices. You have an entrenched work force of tens of millions using Office every day.

If private users switch to Linux and OpenOffice so will businesses.

No, they won't necessarily. Linux and OpenOffice have to prove that they are superior for desktop productivity first, and do so by a sizeable margin. Right now Linux is still several years behind Windows for the users who have to call IT weekly dealing with XP and OpenOffice isn't in the league of WordPerfect or Lotus, let alone Office.

It won't replace the PC but it isn't meant to either. It's meant to protect the Windows platform.

It's meant to enter a new market for MS, not protect their Windows platform which is very secure. Looking at MS's historical P/E it has always been significantly higher then what it has been recently due to a major 'problem', they have reached nigh saturation in every market they compete in. They are currently agressively trying to enter the Chinese PC market but that is a lengthy process and iffy due to obvious political pressures. They needed a way to continue to increase revenues and profits, something that would be very difficult to do barring a new extremely large market opening up quickly. The 'digital hub' is something MS was talking about prior to the PSX hitting, in fact at one point Gates saw interactive TV being more popular then the internet(back in the 93-94 time frame). MS had its eyes on people's living rooms prior to Sony's entrance into the market.

Sony is working on its version of Linux together with Matsushita. Linux' chances as a future consumer OS are improving by each passing day. What is the last non-M$ OS you could say that about?

The Mac, for decades. For a lengthy period of time they had an OS superior to MS's consumer offerings, had superior hardware and were priced in a competitive fashion not to mention they had superior software support in relative terms vs what Linux has now. You think Sony and Matsushita are going to make MS so much as bat an eye lid with their OS development? IBM and Dell have already been on the Linux bandwagon for a while now and have yet to make a viable consumer based OS out of it, nothing even close actually. Sony and Matsushita have proven nothing in terms of the PC market, not that they understand it nor that they can launch a major platform of their own. MS is not sitting still either, they are working on the next major shift in GUIs, and it looks like they will hit well before anyone else with it too(fully 3D GUI). Linux is a lot like a lot of other OSs that were popular amongst niche enthusiasts that thought their platform of choice had what it took to topple MS. Apple, Be and OS/2 most notably. Linux has found a niche handling what it does best, server applications. Expecting it to do anything more ignores history. At their peak, the alternative OSs mentioned had a higher marketshare then Linux does now outside of Be.

Crusher-

What we're saying is, a large part of the reason WHY Windows makes so much money, is because it's *the* OS for playing games on a computer.

We are explaining why that is so far removed from reality.

Do you think the majority of the millions of people playing the Sims built their PC's themselves and pirated Windows?

Sims player using Linux.... 'nuf said

 

[Crusher]

http://wire.ign.com/articles/380/380041p1.html

PC games sales over the first ten months of 2002 reached $956 million compared with $945 million during the first ten months of 2001. Between January and October of 2002, 41.6 million units of PC games were sold

Assuming a slight increase in sales during the last two months for the holiday season, that's over $1.2 Billion dollars in PC game sales last year. That's not exactly a small industry. You can take a stab in the dark with some guestimates and say the average person bought 4 PC games, so that's about 12 million people for the year. Assume further that half of those people are running pirated versions of Windows ( which seems like a pretty conservative ammount to me). That's still 6 million PC gamers who purchased Windows at some point. Assume only 1/6th of those people bought it in 2002 (which implies the assumption that people who buy the OS only buy one version every 6 years, which seems rediculously low, but again, going for the conservative numbers here). At the OEM rate of approx. $100 per copy, that's still $100 Million in Microsoft's pocket. That's not chump change. Add to that the fact that they're also receiving part of the $1.2 Billion from PC game sales for the year, and they're probably pushing $250 Million made from PC gamers last year.

Comparatively, let's look at the XBox. Microsoft does not make $100 from selling the operating system that comes on the XBox. That is included in the cost of the console system. It's also common knowledge that Microsoft has been selling the XBox for even less than it costs to produce it. So not only are they giving away the OS for free, they're selling the hardware for less than its worth. That's a lot of ground they have to make up to even begin to turn a profit, let alone make it more profitable than PC gaming is for them. And the only way they have to do it, is through the XBox games they produce, and the royalties they get from 3rd party developers.

Is console gaming more popular than PC gaming? Yes.

Do more people buy XBoxes than the Windows OS for gaming purposes? Yes.

Does the XBox make Microsoft more money than PC games do? Hell no.

Is Microsoft going to change that in the near future? Nope.

 

[Phil]

Comparatively, let's look at the XBox. Microsoft does not make $100 from selling the operating system that comes on the XBox. That is included in the cost of the console system. It's also common knowledge that Microsoft has been selling the XBox for even less than it costs to produce it. So not only are they giving away the OS for free, they're selling the hardware for less than its worth. That's a lot of ground they have to make up to even begin to turn a profit, let alone make it more profitable than PC gaming is for them. And the only way they have to do it, is through the XBox games they produce, and the royalties they get from 3rd party developers.

Exactly, yet Microsoft are in this business with Xbox for a reason. Bringing this back onto the topic, to turn Xbox into a success, why wouldn't they try to bring in Blizzard flagship titles onto Xbox 2? Do you think Microsoft wants to stay on 2nd/3rd place and a marketshare of less than 30% in this industry?

 

[Glonk]

Phil/CaptHowdy, I think the main problem here is you think you're smarter than most people.

MS knows that making Blizzard do console-only (or more specifically, Xbox-only) is PR suicide in the gaming market. They'd alienate and piss off more people than they would make people buy their console. That's not how you get to #1.

Give them some credit.

Before somebody mentions Bungie, it was totally different. Bungie wasn't exactly a big name in the PC gaming market before, and Halo is still coming out on PC anyway.

 

[Phil]

Phil/CaptHowdy, I think the main problem here is you think you're smarter than most people.

Huh? And I suppose the same can't be said about every single poster in here who tries to make a point, riiight?

MS knows that making Blizzard do console-only (or more specifically, Xbox-only) is PR suicide in the gaming market. They'd alienate and piss off more people than they would make people buy their console. That's not how you get to #1.

Give them some credit.

Credit for what? Something they didn't even say, something you and I can only speculate about?

Last thing I was aware of was that this whole topic is rather speculative, therefore, also your rather smart remark about what Microsoft/Blizzard know. What if Blizzard wouldn't mind developing for Xbox? It would totally change the picture. I was never the one to fully support CaptHowdy's fears, but to some extend, I do think they're very valid. Considering what position Microsoft is in and what potential the console industry holds, I really do fail to see why this idea wouldn't even slip their minds.

Do note that I am aware that there will be many pissed off PC gamers outthere, but we had that scenario with Halo already (obviously lesser degree than Blizzard would). Personally, I do think if Microsoft does it right, they could bring it through (perhaps bring it for PC first, then to Xbox2 with much better graphics/exclusive content etc and convert PC users slowly - just an idea). I mean heck, it's really up to Microsoft/Blizzard and how lucrative they see the console industry. You obviously disagree but to each their own I guess. If this buyout ever happens, we can bring this up again and laugh at each other, though one of us will surely be eating his own words....

 

[Glonk]

they dont even bother to fix thier games anymore

when MS gets back to supporting PC games, maybe I will bite my tongue, until that day, I go by experience.

By the way, v1.03 of Age of Mythology is out now.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

AOM didnt need the patch, Rallisport and CFS3 do, BIGTIME.

 

[ben6]

Has anyone seen the top 10 PC games of 2002?

1 / The Sims: Vacation / EA / Mar '02 / $28
2 / The Sims: Unleashed / EA / Sept '02 / $28
3 / Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos / Vivendi / June '02 / $54
4 / Medal of Honor: Allied Assault / EA / Jan '02 / $44
5 / The Sims / EA / Feb '00 / $42
6 / The Sims: Hot Date / EA / Nov '01 / $29
7 / The Sims Deluxe / EA / Sept '02 / $41
8 / Zoo Tycoon / Microsoft / Oct '01 / $27
9 / Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone / EA / Nov '01 / $26
10 / RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 / Infogrames / Oct '02 / $27

Says a lot about the PC game buying public

 

[Magnum PI]

StarOffice/OpenOffice are worthy alternatives.

Only the most rabid lovers of open source think so.

only the most rabid lovers bill gates won't recognize that a fully usable, complete and *free* office suite isn't a worthy alternative to MS office.

i mean it may not have every fonctionnality, but it does have enough for 95% of users... it may even be slower.. but it's free !

i used staroffice as my only office suite for years, now i use openoffice 1.01.. and some office users i know are amazed at what you can do with the drawing application..

http://www.openoffice.org/

openoffice 1.02 is available now..

for the people curious about the opensource software you can use on windows OS, i can only recommend this site and the associated compilation (iso downloadable for free, click on "order your cd..)

http://www.gnuwin.org

every category of software is covered.

 

[Tahir2]

Quote Benskywalker:
StarOffice/OpenOffice are worthy alternatives.

Only the most rabid lovers of open source think so.

Right so why are companies like Medion and even Packard Bell moving away from MS Works/MS Office and going for Star Office?

Perhaps they are rabid lovers of open source or perhaps they like the sound of a bigger bottom line?

 

[Tagrineth]

I needed a good word processor for my new PC a year and a half to two years ago.

I looked at the store shelves.

I saw Office 2000 for $300 and Office XP for $400. Or something equally ridiculous...

Right next to them I saw StarOffice (by SUN Microsystems, and I like SUN) for... $39.95.

Which one do you think I bought and use today to do school work?

 

[Vince]

Office XP... Yeah, definatly.


Oh yeah, knew I came in here to do something substantive (sp):

In a separate announcement, EA said it had filed a shelf registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, allowing it to issue $2 billion in new stock shares. The news prompted market speculation that EA was planning major acquisitions and that it may join the list of possible suitors for French media conglomerate Vivendi's game assets. EA shares were down $1.70, to $49.27, in after-hours trading

 

[BenSkywalker]

Crusher-

At the OEM rate of approx. $100 per copy, that's still $100 Million in Microsoft's pocket.

The actual OEM rate to a company like Dell is closer to $30. The $100 you pay from NewEgg and the like is marked up obviously, although MS likely sees closer to $60 per copy out of those. Say half of all the potential(we'll use your numbers) PC gamers bought a new PC and the other half bought an OEM copy. That is $180Million from hardware based OEM sales and $360Million from software based OEM sales. The XBox has a tie in ratio of ~5:1 and an installed based of over 8Million, but we'll use 8Million straight up. Figure Microsoft makes an average of $15 per title(betweeen licensing and extra income from first party) and it's $120Million. Add in sales of XBox consoles themselves, a million @$300 and another 5.7Million @$200 and you are talking about another $1.44Billion in revenue.

Add to that the fact that they're also receiving part of the $1.2 Billion from PC game sales for the year, and they're probably pushing $250 Million made from PC gamers last year.

There are no licensing fees on the PC. The money MS makes is from first party sales, $150Million would mean MS first party has ~10% of all PC games sales.

That's a lot of ground they have to make up to even begin to turn a profit, let alone make it more profitable than PC gaming is for them. And the only way they have to do it, is through the XBox games they produce, and the royalties they get from 3rd party developers.

To put things in perspective, MS turned a profit of roughly $10Billion this past year. Not sales, profit(their revenue was closer to $30Billion). Compare that to the numbers we are talking about, peanuts. PC gaming isn't that important to MS. Yes they want bragging rights and they want the Windows platform to be the PC platform of choice for gaming, but not because it is a huge financial boost to their bottom line.

Magnum-

only the most rabid lovers bill gates won't recognize that a fully usable, complete and *free* office suite isn't a worthy alternative to MS office.

Thinking of the prospect of providing for my family using Open Office doesn't inspire me with confidence, quite the contrary. I'm assuming you think I haven't used the product? It isn't close to the level of Office yet, not by a long shot. I built a rig for my Mom in '02 and she didn't want to spend the money on Office so I told her I could get her OpenOffice for pretty much free(picked it up in an OEM bundle soft pack off of NewEgg) so she decided to give it a try. She spent one week with it before changing her mind and deciding that Office for $500 was a much better deal then OpenOffice for free.

i mean it may not have every fonctionnality, but it does have enough for 95% of users... it may even be slower.. but it's free !

It has a lousy interface, is very slow, lacks the integration and is simply more of a pain in the ass to use then Office.

i used staroffice as my only office suite for years, now i use openoffice 1.01.. and some office users i know are amazed at what you can do with the drawing application..

I use Corel Draw for imaging purposes. I know that Photoshop is the superior application so I don't ever try to argue otherwise. The reason? My finances do not depend on how well Draw works. It's cheaper then PS, and it does what I need it to for my personal use. Those that rely on their imaging apps output for their careers are not going to care that a casual non professional consumer can get by with Draw, just as a person who relies on Office to pay the bills isn't going to care that a non professional end consumer who could get by with Works thinks that OpenOffice is good enough.

Tahir-

Right so why are companies like Medion and even Packard Bell moving away from MS Works/MS Office and going for Star Office?

PackardBell is synonomous with shit in the US, the reason they failed and had to exit the market here. Who the hell is Medion?

Tag-

Right next to them I saw StarOffice (by SUN Microsystems, and I like SUN) for... $39.95.

Which one do you think I bought and use today to do school work?

Given what you are using it for, I would never have reccomended Office. Works is plenty to handle what you are going to be doing(and can be had for a comparable price, at least compared to OpenOffice). For basic utilization OpenOffice can work fine for people, it's when you start needing to utilize ever Office application in conjunction to post internal reports to the company web site and such that the real limitations of OpenOffice start to show up(the level of integration and amout of features missing starts to become very apparent).

 

[Tahir2]

Packard Bell is on of the largest OEM in the UK and Europe. Medion is a small company in comparison.. you may know them better as MSI, their parent company.

And just cos Packard Bell is not thought of highly in the US doesnt mean shit either. We are talking sales figues not what you percieve. I think Packard Bell are shit too but they also sell shitloads of PC's here in the UK. You heard of a little company called NEC by the way? You know the ones that wanted dual boot Linux and Windows PC's but couldnt due to licensing clauses with MS? NEC=Packard Bell.

More will follow PB's and other OEM's lead in Europe at the very least and ditch MS Office/MS Works in the future... sign of the times mate.. it's called competition or dont you believe in that when it comes to the all conquering MS?

See ya in the morning... or isnt it morning there yet?

 

[Fafalada]

IBM and Dell have already been on the Linux bandwagon for a while now and have yet to make a viable consumer based OS out of it, nothing even close actually.

Oh come on... "IBM consumer product" is a contradiction of terms.

 

[Vince]

PackardBell is synonomous with shit in the US, the reason they failed and had to exit the market here.

Man does have a point here.

 

[V3]

StarOffice is good IMO. But if you grew up with Microsoft, you would be screw to switch. Basically MS has you by the neck