And Sony wants control of the living room so they control which Sony media is pushed to your screens - which is worse?
Xenon Project
- Thread starter bbot
- Start date
And Sony wants control of the living room so they control which Sony media is pushed to your screens - which is worse?
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Paul said:
Ever hear of BetaMax....High-8....MiniDisc....Memory Stick?
What do you think Sony intends for "the living room" should they get full control? This is almost surreal...of all people to complain about MS wanting to "prevent" other people from using competing technologies that they don't control....this line of argumentation comes from someone heaping praise on Sony?
Bring on the competition, and let the market decide.
Noone said they weren't. But they aren't looking to "win" anything, there really is no money to be made on consoles for them. It's all to take over the competition in the living room so their PC OS monopoly remains untouched by the likes of another OS.
That's the gist of it, oh and that and to kill playstation.
Sony will never get full control of the living room(this I admit), their goal is to make Playstation into a all in one entertainment device; and to make all Sony products run off Cell. Not only that, but to make these devices interconnect and communicate with each other.
Basically, they are looking into home networks. PS3 will form their home network, or so they want.
http://news.com.com/2100-1040_3-232858.html
But what runs such a device that connects to the internet? Oh yea.. an OS, this is where MS comes in in order to stop sony and the others from using other OS's other than Windows. Even though MS already has a monopoly. THIS is what I don't like, MS trying to stop all forms of competition as we know it, and let's face it, Windows is full of all types of bugs and vounerabilities.
The future of entertainment is one device; running a host of different processes. The days of buying a standard PC are nearing the end, so is just buying a video player that just plays videos. And that also means the days of buying a game console and having it just play games are over. This is something we are seeing with PSP, to SOME extent PS2, and PS3 will just take the idea and take it to a new level.
That being said, I have no problem with the way Xbox2 and PS3 are going. I embrace the idea.
However this is what I do not embrace, the fact that MS was basically misleading in all of it. They reached out to the hardcore gamer and delivered a great console; however I feel that they are just stabbing these same gamers in the back with Xbox2.
This is just me. So while you Joe may say they did what they had to do to get a foot through the door I disagree. I mean.. xbox2 isn't going to be much of a "video game system" is it.
This is a ludicrus statement.
In what way is there any suggestion that they are detracting from the power of the hardware that operates the code to make games run in order to make way for any other functionality?
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Paul said:
Oh...my bad then. Sony doesn't want the living room...they want to whole HOME!
Shocker...you mean...MS wants people to use their software? Say it Ain't so...
Really?
You MS bashers need to make up your mind...is MS an OS monopoly, or is Linux / Unix going to topple them?
MS has a monopoly on console OSes? Handhelds Games? PDAs? Cell Phones?
Yeah..just like X-Box...oh wait....
So, you don't have a problem with X-Box....but you do have a problem with a console that's not even announced yet? You've been stabbed in the back by a product you haven't bought yet? Get a grip, Paul.
Just as much as PS3 I'd wager.
Your counter arguments are so half assed at this point they are barely worth discusing. They aren't even points, just little bashes here and there.
They want to connect Home networks via media Hubs.
99% of the computer world ALREADY uses their OS's, they just want to destroy the competition in the livingroom/media hub game so their monopoly over the OS world is secure.
WTF did you think I was talking about when I said they already had a monopoly, over childrens toys? OF COURSE PC OS's.
I never said Xbox was a success, I said that they were trying.
Edit: I fubared on my typing, I didn't mean Xbox had all types of exploits and such.
YOU get a grip, and stop going bonkers everytime someone says anything against MS. They lied to the hardcore gamers plain and simple and are hypocrites.
I don't have to own the product to know that it's not going to be a pure gaming device as the crew touted xbox as a whole to be; just take one look at what big gates is saying it will be.
Yup and I guess Sony touts their consoles to only play games, but oh wait.. it says computer entertainment system right on the box. And I love how your always comparing the situation to Sony "just like ps3" "i see sony doing the same thing".
Sure Sony are a bunch of bastards too, but than again Sony didn't lie and be misleading about it's intentions to get a foot in the door. BEFORE friggin psone came out Kutaragi was saying in a EGM interview about PS2 and how it was going to be connected to the net, and how there would be downloadable content. All this stuff. His intentions were quite clear.
They want to connect Home networks via media Hubs.
99% of the computer world ALREADY uses their OS's, they just want to destroy the competition in the livingroom/media hub game so their monopoly over the OS world is secure.
WTF did you think I was talking about when I said they already had a monopoly, over childrens toys? OF COURSE PC OS's.
I never said Xbox was a success, I said that they were trying.
Edit: I fubared on my typing, I didn't mean Xbox had all types of exploits and such.
YOU get a grip, and stop going bonkers everytime someone says anything against MS. They lied to the hardcore gamers plain and simple and are hypocrites.
I don't have to own the product to know that it's not going to be a pure gaming device as the crew touted xbox as a whole to be; just take one look at what big gates is saying it will be.
Yup and I guess Sony touts their consoles to only play games, but oh wait.. it says computer entertainment system right on the box. And I love how your always comparing the situation to Sony "just like ps3" "i see sony doing the same thing".
Sure Sony are a bunch of bastards too, but than again Sony didn't lie and be misleading about it's intentions to get a foot in the door. BEFORE friggin psone came out Kutaragi was saying in a EGM interview about PS2 and how it was going to be connected to the net, and how there would be downloadable content. All this stuff. His intentions were quite clear.
Come on Paul, just give it up. I dont think anyone but AntiMS geeks, will agree with you. For your sake, i am still mulling whether to reply to all you radical posts.
BUT for one, I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO BROUGHT SONY INTO THIS.
Once again:
Posted on Page 1. NO prior Chap's post before it. Geebuz...not only with your radical thinking, you are just another anti-chappers...
BUT for one, I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO BROUGHT SONY INTO THIS.
Once again:
Posted on Page 1. NO prior Chap's post before it. Geebuz...not only with your radical thinking, you are just another anti-chappers...
Indeed, Paul, bring things down a notch or five. We can certainly make fun of Microsoft for being faulty, but they'd be a pretty damn foolish company to not change their game-plan mid-stride to remain more competitive and/or follow the way the public seems to be going... They're not triggering the armageddon clock or anything, either.
This doesn't mean I like what they'd want to do, though, since the closer they converge all their products the better, and I don't want higher Windows functionality ANYWHERE NEAR console-dom, and I'd much rather not have the developers slacking and carrying in expectations from one field to another. I'd also much rather see open source proliferate, of course...
But we'll have to see, regardless. Media Center PC's still have 2-3 years of proliferation anyway, so they may have a good presence in that sector anyway, even before the PS3 shows up. I'm still not sure how they're going to resolve the similarities between an Xbox (if they push it high-grade) and an MCPC, however... They may cause themselves problems with this. (Or perhaps they may phase one out for the other, but I don't think the OEM's would be too keen on that.)
Regardless, even for the next gen--no matter how many geez and gaws the consoles have, it will STILL be primarily decided by the games. The public will slowly start adopting consoles for other matters as well, I suppose, but it STARTS with the games.
This doesn't mean I like what they'd want to do, though, since the closer they converge all their products the better, and I don't want higher Windows functionality ANYWHERE NEAR console-dom, and I'd much rather not have the developers slacking and carrying in expectations from one field to another. I'd also much rather see open source proliferate, of course...
But we'll have to see, regardless. Media Center PC's still have 2-3 years of proliferation anyway, so they may have a good presence in that sector anyway, even before the PS3 shows up. I'm still not sure how they're going to resolve the similarities between an Xbox (if they push it high-grade) and an MCPC, however... They may cause themselves problems with this. (Or perhaps they may phase one out for the other, but I don't think the OEM's would be too keen on that.)
Regardless, even for the next gen--no matter how many geez and gaws the consoles have, it will STILL be primarily decided by the games. The public will slowly start adopting consoles for other matters as well, I suppose, but it STARTS with the games.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Paul said:
Paul, that's exactly what your MS Tirade is. Continuous MS bashing...and it's self contradicting to boot.
Right....Sony's media hubs. Like I said...Sony wants "Home" domination. They want their stuff in there. Gosh...you're so "impressed" with everything that Cell is supposed to be integrated into...but don't see it as a threat to anyone else's "well being?"
Man, Sony's playing you for a fool...and by promoting PS3 and Cell you are but a tool in their quest for world domination.
Self-contradictory. Either they have a Monopoly, or they don't. Either their "monopoly" is secure, or it isn't.
As I said, I presume you are a huge Linux and Even Mac supporter (for not much else reason than it's not MS, right).
That's not what I was referring to.
You went off about how "buggy" MS OS's are....I don't recall my X-Box ever blue-screening....I don't recall my X-Box having any more issues than any other consolw I'e owned.Lol....I'm not going bonkers...I'm having fun with another one of the "I Hate MS" lemmings....this one is particularly amusing because at the same time you are bashing MS for potential world domination, you have no problem with Sony and their own quest....It really is laughable!
They never lied to me...X-Box is everything I remember them saying it would be: a friggin' game console based around DirectX8.
Because if it's not a "pure gaming device", then it's some personal affront to gamers? This is too funny....
Liars...it's not a computer! Sony;s lying right to your face and you just lap it up with pleasure? How could you!
Dr. Ffreeze:
> It looks like Microsoft wanted to get their software out of the Den and
> into the Living Room.
That is one goal but not the primary purpose of the Xbox. The Xbox was designed as a preemptive strike against Sony which M$' considers one of the biggest potential threats against its business (and rightfully so).
> To do this they made a game console called the XBox to get their foot
> in the door.
They made a set-top box. Or rather, they made a watered down PC. Patching and installable software are traits inherited from the PC space.
> but also DVDs
The DVD functionality is already there. They just disable the functionality by charging you seperately for a DVD remote. This helps bring the, already way too high, costs down while maintaining the marketing advantage. Not unlike the Xbox' so-called out-of-the-box internet capability.
> auido, video recording
While they pitch it as a game Music Mixer will introduce this functionality to some degree.
> How is this bad?
It's bad because M$ is merely trying to secure its Windows monopoly. And in doing so they're blurring the lines between console and PC - both functionally and qualitatively.
> Again, please explain how any of that is wrong
The problem is how they go about it.
AzBat:
> then Sony themselves could be the ones taking over the living room
Unlikely. To truly take over the living room you need to control the distribution of content. Sony has a horrible track record when it comes to building up support for its proprietary media formats. You just won't see other content and hardware providers team up with Sony on Sony's terms.
> in the end the customer wins by having a choice and lower costs
Do we really? As I see it this competition comes at the cost of quality. Sure you may get the hardware below cost, perhaps with a few free games, but hardware quality and software quality (creatively as well as technically) has taken a dive. In the end, the console market isn't big enough for three players and do you really think that once the competition has been settled and one party emerges as the victor, that consumers will still get the same deals we're seeing today? Especially if that company is M$?
> Nobody else has the balls, money or technology.
M$ doesn't have the last part. They have to buy it from those who do.
> I'd rather have a choice then none at all, wouldn't you?
A choice? Noone is forcing you to buy a PlayStation. As for options, we've always had several of those. Genuine options and not just also-rans that are trying to mimick Sony.
Joe DeFuria:
> Since when does anyone compete for the sake of competition?
Noone does. At least not mega corporations. But from a consumers' perspective the idea of competion for the sake of competition isn't as enticing as some make it out to be. Sure you may save a few bucks now but what happens when the mega corporation with the deeper pockets has destroyed the competition? Do you think the competitive pricing will still go on then?
> MS Built, marketed, and sold a console, Like Sony.
Correction: a set-top box/neutered PC.
> Developers can choose to develop for Sony or X-Box, or both.
Certainly. And they did and chose Sony until M$ started waving money around.
> You don't think Sony seing Microsoft in the living room isn't a threat
> against Sony's consumer electronics?
Of course they do.
> This somehow implies that Sony is a pauper?
Compared to M$? Absolutely. Keep in mind that it's primarily SCEI keeping Sony afloat these days. A single mistake and Sony could be in whole lot of trouble. M$ has considerably more money to burn and a constant flow of money coming in from Windows and Office.
> why couldn't they noticably out do Microsoft on their very first noob
> attempt at a console?
Keep in mind that PS2 shipped more than a year and half before Xbox.
cthellis42:
> but they'd be a pretty damn foolish company to not change their
> game-plan mid-stride to remain more competitive
But they are not changing their plan. They are following the plan that was laid out from the very beginning.
> It looks like Microsoft wanted to get their software out of the Den and
> into the Living Room.
That is one goal but not the primary purpose of the Xbox. The Xbox was designed as a preemptive strike against Sony which M$' considers one of the biggest potential threats against its business (and rightfully so).
> To do this they made a game console called the XBox to get their foot
> in the door.
They made a set-top box. Or rather, they made a watered down PC. Patching and installable software are traits inherited from the PC space.
> but also DVDs
The DVD functionality is already there. They just disable the functionality by charging you seperately for a DVD remote. This helps bring the, already way too high, costs down while maintaining the marketing advantage. Not unlike the Xbox' so-called out-of-the-box internet capability.
> auido, video recording
While they pitch it as a game Music Mixer will introduce this functionality to some degree.
> How is this bad?
It's bad because M$ is merely trying to secure its Windows monopoly. And in doing so they're blurring the lines between console and PC - both functionally and qualitatively.
> Again, please explain how any of that is wrong
The problem is how they go about it.
AzBat:
> then Sony themselves could be the ones taking over the living room
Unlikely. To truly take over the living room you need to control the distribution of content. Sony has a horrible track record when it comes to building up support for its proprietary media formats. You just won't see other content and hardware providers team up with Sony on Sony's terms.
> in the end the customer wins by having a choice and lower costs
Do we really? As I see it this competition comes at the cost of quality. Sure you may get the hardware below cost, perhaps with a few free games, but hardware quality and software quality (creatively as well as technically) has taken a dive. In the end, the console market isn't big enough for three players and do you really think that once the competition has been settled and one party emerges as the victor, that consumers will still get the same deals we're seeing today? Especially if that company is M$?
> Nobody else has the balls, money or technology.
M$ doesn't have the last part. They have to buy it from those who do.
> I'd rather have a choice then none at all, wouldn't you?
A choice? Noone is forcing you to buy a PlayStation. As for options, we've always had several of those. Genuine options and not just also-rans that are trying to mimick Sony.
Joe DeFuria:
> Since when does anyone compete for the sake of competition?
Noone does. At least not mega corporations. But from a consumers' perspective the idea of competion for the sake of competition isn't as enticing as some make it out to be. Sure you may save a few bucks now but what happens when the mega corporation with the deeper pockets has destroyed the competition? Do you think the competitive pricing will still go on then?
> MS Built, marketed, and sold a console, Like Sony.
Correction: a set-top box/neutered PC.
> Developers can choose to develop for Sony or X-Box, or both.
Certainly. And they did and chose Sony until M$ started waving money around.
> You don't think Sony seing Microsoft in the living room isn't a threat
> against Sony's consumer electronics?
Of course they do.
> This somehow implies that Sony is a pauper?
Compared to M$? Absolutely. Keep in mind that it's primarily SCEI keeping Sony afloat these days. A single mistake and Sony could be in whole lot of trouble. M$ has considerably more money to burn and a constant flow of money coming in from Windows and Office.
> why couldn't they noticably out do Microsoft on their very first noob
> attempt at a console?
Keep in mind that PS2 shipped more than a year and half before Xbox.
cthellis42:
> but they'd be a pretty damn foolish company to not change their
> game-plan mid-stride to remain more competitive
But they are not changing their plan. They are following the plan that was laid out from the very beginning.
cybamerc said:
Their press says one thing, their delivery shows another... How do we know what was originally mapped out, and what was just changing rapidly as they realized certain market expectations and had to backpedal? Plus, how does it really matter? Companies change their plans mid-stride all the time, and you REALLY get to knock them on is their earlier claims. What matters, however, is their current performance.
err... i know i shouldnt do this, but i'm quiote lazy today and this seems to be an interesting thread... but i dont wanna read it all... anyone care to shortly tell me what has been going on here? pretty please!? give u a cookie!
Joe DeFuria
Legend
cybamerc said:
Um....when there is no competition, it's generally bad. When there is competition, it's generally good. A "mega corporation" (of which both Sony and MS can be accused), that has deeper pockets has a higher liklihood to succeed, because it can spend more on R&D (for a better product), marketing, etc.
I don't get you. As I said, lack of competition is generally not good. You're arguing cyclically: competition might not be good if someone ultimately "wins?"
If no some one can build a better product, they will. In the mean time, all competitors are fighting for your dollar...Sony included.
Correction. A CONSOLE. I plop in a game and "play it" just like every other console I've ever owned.
Lol...and Sony doesn't support developers either? You've got to be kidding me.
Compared to M$? Absolutely [sony is a Pauper.][./quote]
Oh, cry me a river!
And again I said Sony are a bunch of bastards too; but than again we aren't talking about Sony.
Their monopoly will be in danger in the coming years from Sony and the crew installing other OS's in the living room. Now your trying to say they don't have a monopoly over the PC OS game? lmao.
You assume too much. Going by this same logic; Your a major MS supporter because Billgates bought you a house.
Didn't you catch my edit? I wasn't implying that Xbox crashes(it doesn't)
And such "pure gaming console" stuff alard, blackely and the crew is being thrown out the window with Xbox2.
It's a personal slap in the face to all those hardcore gamers who bought xbox because it was a GAMING CONSOLE ONLY.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Paul said:
Of course you're not...because if you apply the same mentality to Sony that you apply to Microsoft, you'll be seen for the hypocrite that you are. It's easy to bash on company in isolation, ain't it? A bit tougher to apply your standards consistently across companies...
And Sony's dominance in the console arena will be in danger in the coming years from Microsoft.
No, I'm trying to gauge how much of a hypocrite / how consistent you are. Is Linux a real threat to MS, or not? Does the MAC exist?
Eh?
I "support" MS to the extent that I buy their OSs (and use their office products), because they do their job.
My point: why even mention "buggy OSes"?
If you don't like the X-Box 2...don't buy one. Simple as that. MS can have the X-Box2 wipe your ass for all I care. The market will decide if it's a viable product.
The logic escapes me. You're so being thoroughly slapped in the face, and at the same time using your x-box to, uh, play games?
Meanwhile, Sony is positioning Cell as the "paradigm of the future"...and this isn't a slap in the face?
How is MS telling you that X-Box 2 will do "more" than just games, more of a slap in the face than Sony telling us the same: WTF does PS2 or X-box 1 have to do with the next gen?
Yeah but it IS a pure gaming console only (aside from DVD capabilities). I'm not sure if they even said that Xbox would solely be a gaming console stripped right down to the basics. I think they just wanted to get away from the idea that the Xbox is nothing more than a condensed PC since MS are usually associated with PCs only with their perceived 'buggy' Windows products.
Xbox has since maintained their statement that the Xbox is, more or less, a pure gaming console. I'm not quite sure why the fact that Xbox2 may not be is any sort of back stab to gamers since its an entirely different machine in an entirely different generation altogether.
If they do chooose to move in the same direction as the PS3 (ie. multi-functioning device) then I don't think there's any fault to that. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it, even if you have an Xbox right now.
Xbox has since maintained their statement that the Xbox is, more or less, a pure gaming console. I'm not quite sure why the fact that Xbox2 may not be is any sort of back stab to gamers since its an entirely different machine in an entirely different generation altogether.
If they do chooose to move in the same direction as the PS3 (ie. multi-functioning device) then I don't think there's any fault to that. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it, even if you have an Xbox right now.
One problem with your logic here.
1. I sold my PS2 to buy an Xbox.
2. I currently don't have any plans to buy a PS3, I'm interested in Cell and PS3 tech mostly.
3. I don't give a damn about sony's plans for PS3 on a other than gaming level, I care about MS's because I am(or was?) planning to get an Xbox2 because the original was so good basically.
So quite frankly all this stuff your bringing up about Sony doing doesn't mean anything to me.
This has nothing to do with anything. MS's PC OS's are in danger from COMPETING OPERATING SYSTEMS in the living room, whatever they may be. Linux, a proprietary whatever.
All this pure gaming stuff seamus and the crew touted with Xbox is being thrown out the window with Xbox2. Do you object to this? A simple yes or no, don't try and sway the conversation as you have been doing.
1. I sold my PS2 to buy an Xbox.
2. I currently don't have any plans to buy a PS3, I'm interested in Cell and PS3 tech mostly.
3. I don't give a damn about sony's plans for PS3 on a other than gaming level, I care about MS's because I am(or was?) planning to get an Xbox2 because the original was so good basically.
So quite frankly all this stuff your bringing up about Sony doing doesn't mean anything to me.
This has nothing to do with anything. MS's PC OS's are in danger from COMPETING OPERATING SYSTEMS in the living room, whatever they may be. Linux, a proprietary whatever.
All this pure gaming stuff seamus and the crew touted with Xbox is being thrown out the window with Xbox2. Do you object to this? A simple yes or no, don't try and sway the conversation as you have been doing.