Having been on the HD DVD team, the reason we backed HD DVD was because it used our IP and software. We offered our interactivity layer to the BD consortium, and it got turned down. If it had been accepted, we would have been Bluray supporters.
Was MS launching XBox a good idea? *spawn
- Thread starter bomlat
- Start date
And there I was hoping to see: "We know where you live, you use a Microsoft operating system. Remain there as our operatives are en-route to capture you and take you to an acredited Microsoft re-education center where you will learn the proper appreciation of all things Microsoft"
Can't get everything...
Can't get everything...
While Blu-Ray slowed down the launch of the PS3 I don't think it was the sole reason Xbox came out first. I think the extra delay in the PS3 gave a little more room for MS when releasing the 360. Yet this is just my speculation, without having inside information it's very hard to say for sure what effect the PS3's delay had on MS with releasing the 360.
MS's biggest fear was that a console would replace a computer in the household and in fact they are somewhat correct. I know now there are quite a few families that have more then one computer in their home and the way the market was heading I think that caught MS by surprise. PC gaming was still very large before the last generation and the thought of families only having one (if even that) computer at home now that a console could perform the web browsing and gaming the majority of computers were being used for scared them.
But lets not count MS as simply being fear driven for its emergence in the console area. MS is smart enough to know that if you can provide a medium to sell digital content you can stand to make a lot of money per your investment. MS saw the way consoles were heading, they were hooked up to a TV so therefore they offered the ability to play movies for the entire family. Movie streaming was already taking hold during PS2's lifetime (I subscribed to Starz on demand and purchased movie rentals at that time on my pc) and the fact that someone could do that with a web connected console meant more potential revenue.
Live was designed simply for a means to sell digital entertainment but marketed towards those looking for online game play. It was a perfect implementation from the start, PC guys would go to xbox for gaming and then be introduced to other forms of entertainment they HAVE to pay for (no illegal downloads on the xbox). So while the average Joe saw Live as a way to get their frag on MS was sitting back and watching revenue poor in from a market they didn't have before.
I say MS's success had more to do with them, then the fumbles of the PS3. I might be a PS3 fanboy at heart but even I can't deny that MS played the game better then Sony. Even if Sony launched the PS3 6-9 months earlier I think MS was just better prepared, had better vision and much better execution that it still would have dominated as it did in the start.
MS's biggest fear was that a console would replace a computer in the household and in fact they are somewhat correct. I know now there are quite a few families that have more then one computer in their home and the way the market was heading I think that caught MS by surprise. PC gaming was still very large before the last generation and the thought of families only having one (if even that) computer at home now that a console could perform the web browsing and gaming the majority of computers were being used for scared them.
But lets not count MS as simply being fear driven for its emergence in the console area. MS is smart enough to know that if you can provide a medium to sell digital content you can stand to make a lot of money per your investment. MS saw the way consoles were heading, they were hooked up to a TV so therefore they offered the ability to play movies for the entire family. Movie streaming was already taking hold during PS2's lifetime (I subscribed to Starz on demand and purchased movie rentals at that time on my pc) and the fact that someone could do that with a web connected console meant more potential revenue.
Live was designed simply for a means to sell digital entertainment but marketed towards those looking for online game play. It was a perfect implementation from the start, PC guys would go to xbox for gaming and then be introduced to other forms of entertainment they HAVE to pay for (no illegal downloads on the xbox). So while the average Joe saw Live as a way to get their frag on MS was sitting back and watching revenue poor in from a market they didn't have before.
I say MS's success had more to do with them, then the fumbles of the PS3. I might be a PS3 fanboy at heart but even I can't deny that MS played the game better then Sony. Even if Sony launched the PS3 6-9 months earlier I think MS was just better prepared, had better vision and much better execution that it still would have dominated as it did in the start.
Looking at it today, I don't see how the answer can be anything other than a 'Yes'. The only 'No' I can think of is that perhaps if they'd spent the same effort on dominating the mobile phone market back then, they could have made a lot more money now. But that's a very big if.
I've skimmed the thread, so excuse me if this answer has been given already.
Was MS launching the Xbox a good idea? It stopped Sony from taking over the living room while getting their own foot in the door for living room dominance, which was MS' original intent behind the xbox. So yes, I think it's considered a good idea.
Was MS launching the Xbox a good idea? It stopped Sony from taking over the living room while getting their own foot in the door for living room dominance, which was MS' original intent behind the xbox. So yes, I think it's considered a good idea.
But MS didn't stop Sony. PS2 has gotten into 150 million living rooms, give or take, but that hasn't won Sony the living room content market which is being contested by smart TVs and web services. And if 360 didn't exist and all those 360 sales were PS3 sales, which I'm not sure they would be, Sony wouldn't be much better off than they are now IMO. They wouldn't have gotten their content services like Qriocity out any quicker. Maybe even slower given a lack of obvious competition!
True, but I wasn't using "taking over" in a literal sense. Was merely paraphrasing what I read in regards to the Xbox 1's development.
Still got their foot in the door for having a share in the living room, more so than any other venture they've dabbled in IMO, and more importantly, it raised their mindshare for the average consumer who wasn't looking for Office software or a new computer/OS.It's all a slow burn and the more MS eats into Sony's marketshare, I'm sure the happier they are with launching the original xbox.
Also I disagree. I think Sony would have been in a much much better position if the 360 was never released. The amount of exclusives and games alone would be massive if they only had the Wii to worry about.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I'm not sure that's the way to look at it.
From MS's POV. They wanted a presence in the presumed digital ecosystem in the Living room and home of the future.
They had already tried WebTV. Failed.
Computers weren't really a living room item so something had to be done to try to convince people to put a computer in their living room. So MS went two routes.
One...
They tried Media Center. Failed. At the time HTPC's weren't that common (arguably they still aren't). And the few attempts (Gateways Big Screen Media TV entertainment computer system) failed rather misearably.
Basically a computer in the living room but with TV friendly interface and media playback.
Bzzzzzzzz, people didn't want a computer in the living room at the time. So fail. And its successors (small HTPCs) still haven't gotten much living room penetration, as people still (in general) don't want a computer in the living room.
Two...
At the same time they were launching their Xbox system. The Xbox itself may be considered a failure in that it didn't come anywhere close to being a good return on investment by itself. However, it allowed MS to pioneer, integrate, and refine their online + media + game system. Although it wasn't until X360 that media was finally truly integrated and refined (unless you had a hacked Xbox
).Basically a computer in the living room, but wrapped in a console looking package with console controllers and banning the use of anything that might make it appear like a computer (keyboard and mouse primarily) or act like a computer (desktop and applications).
DING DING DING. It's a computer but not a computer. Not a success by itself, but a far larger success than the Media Center computer push. And its successor finally fulfilled the vision and is pretty resoundingly a success.
Welll, one out of two isn't bad.
And they realize just as Sony does, that the console by itself won't be enough to establish a dominating presense. Sony has a bit of an advantage here (just like they had an advantage with the PS2 being an established brand) in that they have a fairly robust home electronics division. Thus they can incorporate things easily into their TV's, receivers, whatever.
MS appears to be looking at enhanced set top boxes. Details are sparse at the moment, but it's also possible they could be looking at inclusion in TVs at which point there's going to be competition from Google also.
The whole Xbox console line has been only one prong of MS's push into the living room.
The other prong of the push is still evolving. I'm imagining the hints we're getting of a MS set top box or TV integration is just an evolution of their Media Center push. Or perhaps a merging of the Media Center push with a ressurection of their WebTV.
Regards,
SB
They don't have a limited set of known hardware configuration against which software developers can test, they are not administered by the manufacturer, they don't have an OS with very good application isolation, they don't have an appstore with some basic QA to ensure security, they don't have gaming with some basic QA to ensure consistency in profiles/save games/input configuration/gamepad playability/achievements/multiplayer/chat/etc.
Without the XBOX Microsoft could and probably would and should have done all that with Windows. Media center was always too limited an application for PC hardware, another waste of money and effort caused by the XBOX.
But is the current release of Qriocity a result of competition from XBOX? I believe it was more a result of competition from other products such as Apple's. It was planned as a service for a broad range of devices anyways which they wanted to make more competitive
Except they put themselves into a position where they had to hurt one of their competitive advantages in consumer computing to get there ... unnecessarily. They are competing with themselves and worse they are competing with their core business ... unnecessarily.
All during a very dangerous time ...
All during a very dangerous time ...
What exactly are you referring to? Windows as a gaming platform? They don't make any extra money off of a gaming PC versus a dedicated browser. Or do you have some statistic showing that PC sales have dwindled due to console sales? People were buying consoles with or without MS in the market, by being in there they maintain some control and they have definitely expanded their revenue stream because of it. And I highly doubt that consoles equate to any significant lost windows sales.
Dangerous? Explain.
Using hindsight, I'm sure MS would change the way they did a lot of things with regards to their launches and licensing, but I still think they'd launch the Xbox.
There's nothing stopping the windows division from doing those things. They're about 5 times our size in manpower, you can't claim we've been holding them back. The reason Windows doesn't have that stuff is because the primary user for Windows is an office worker.
Also, MS does not control the PC ecosystem, I suspect we would get some serious legal repercussions if we said "We only support Motherboard X and ATI graphics cards". This magical world in which your postulations run wild does not, and could not, exist. Irrespective of the existence of the XBox.
By the way, MS launched a number of devices for the living room running windows: WebTV, Some satellite thing they demoed at the company meeting in 1999, Cable DVR boxes... All of them, except the XBox, have been a dismal failure.
I always thought that a protected mode execution system could have worked really well for both office workers and game players. Effectively its an extremely stable and high performance stripped down version of Windows within Windows. Just turn off all services. It'd be sort of like Windows running Xbox OS.
"If we launch a game that is on 360 and PC simultaneously, we basically shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing the German market to choose to play the PC version – because they are more likely to buy that than spend their money on the Xbox 360. (…) If we launched a Halo game on PC and 360 in Germany simultaneously, 80 per cent of sales would be on the PC."
Despite their size and despite repeated commitments to PC gaming they seem to have no political power ... and when there is internal competition political power is more important than revenue. I very much doubt they are allowed to go in that direction.
This isn't how you would limit the hardware configurations, you would limit it by certification costs ... so new configurations could be introduced, it would just take money (which would give Microsoft the money to do the extra QA necessary).
Last edited by a moderator:
Windows in the consumer market period.
If you're not gaming on your PC it's far easier to go with a competitor for everything else ... and their position at least in the consumer home is less secure than it was 10 years ago.
