More Junk from MS

[grip24]

Heres another wonderful Ms product going up in smoke....


http://www.audioholics.com/news/indu...el-recall.html

[stockstar1138]

thats real cute. the xbots will claim: this makes forza 2 way more realistic than gt, yeah cars smoke sometimes and this is just added realism. i mean what could be more realistic than running head first into a wall at 100+ mph and having the whole bumper come off. yeah thats right i said it the whole bumper! so realistic, gt isn't like that, no damage, weve got damage! eat that ps3 fanboys. forza 2 rules! weve got 50 tracks and 12 different environments, why would you need blu-ray? its so much to handle. and our system can read the game perfectly fine w/o locking up.

[ground chuck]

wow, i guess you can just throw money at the problem and hope it goes away.

[ADPNIGHTMARE]

only in japan right now but wow! that sux. I would be pissed!

[phranctoast]

Good. Anything that makes people have any FUD for the 360 is good in my book. I know it sounds immature and stupid, but I really dislike MS way of doing "business".

They claim innovation but do nothing but buy away their competition, and steal others ideas, and most people dont care eather way. This was my biggest problem with the Xbox entering into the console wars in the first place. MS with there deep pockets, buying excluve games from third party since they cant earn those games on their own merit. Their harware issues is just the icing on the cake and exactly what one should expect from them. Id like to believe that they would finally give up on the consoles in general since they have yet to be profitable in that division.
Having every AAA game also availabel on the PC helps ease any pain for their best exclusives (Bioshock, gears)

Im really ticked wih the paramount thing most of all.

[WickyWoo]

They claim innovation but do nothing but buy away their competition, and steal others ideas, and most people dont care eather way. This was my biggest problem with the Xbox entering into the console wars in the first place. MS with there deep pockets, buying excluve games from third party since they cant earn those games on their own merit. Their harware issues is just the icing on the cake and exactly what one should expect from them. Id like to believe that they would finally give up on the consoles in general since they have yet to be profitable in that division.
Having every AAA game also availabel on the PC helps ease any pain for their best exclusives (Bioshock, gears)

Actually, they paid for the development of most of those exclusives.

And I'll always be thankful for Steel Battalion, no one would have ever had the balls to make that otherwise

[schticker]

Originally Posted by phranctoast

They claim innovation but do nothing but buy away their competition, and steal others ideas, and most people dont care eather way.

Well, since the design was someone else's idea, why blame MS?

This was my biggest problem with the Xbox entering into the console wars in the first place. MS with there deep pockets, buying exclusive games from third party since they cant earn those games on their own merit.

Name the precise methodology for "earning" exclusivity. I think it has to do with ease of programming, being first to market, and having the resources to design the equipment necessary to make the games run as intended.

Their hardware issues is just the icing on the cake and exactly what one should expect from them. Id like to believe that they would finally give up on the consoles in general since they have yet to be profitable in that division.

That division is one of many, since MS is made up of "small companies" after the "monopoly" ruling. That one division is their loss leader, just like any company that makes hardware. Software rakes in the revenue, which is where exclusivity helps. It boosts hardware sales to compensate for low-margin manufacturing, and has the potential to earn profit.

Having every AAA game also availabel on the PC helps ease any pain for their best exclusives (Bioshock, gears)

There's a reason for that, as well. And yes, as consoles approach the design of high-end PCs, that analogy will be made more often.

Im really ticked wih the paramount thing most of all.

LOL yes, I figured that was at the root of something.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by schticker

Well, since the design was someone else's idea, why blame MS?

Because Microsoft is selling crap. Anyone who sells crap should be called on it. It does not matter who made it. If Apple had Lockheed Martin Skunk Works build the best possible iPod and charged $10,000 each for them and they routinely failed after 100 hours I'd still blame Apple not Lockheed.

Look at the battery fiasco of last year. I feel that Apple and Dell and a host of others are at fault every bit as much as (and maybe more so than) Sony. Sony shipped defective batteries but it was an inherently flawed design for which Sony should be blamed. Putting that flawed design in their computers is Apple's, Dell's and other's fault, not Sony's.

Originally Posted by schticker

Name the precise methodology for "earning" exclusivity. I think it has to do with ease of programming, being first to market, and having the resources to design the equipment necessary to make the games run as intended.

You "earn" exclusivity when a developer independently of the console vendor decides it is in their best interest to be exclusive. This is rarely the case. The extreme case was Halo. Bungie had planned to be exclusive to the Mac. Microsoft could not stand that. Microsoft bought Bungie and made Halo exclusive to Microsoft systems. Cases like that are most definitely not "earned" exclusivity.

Originally Posted by schticker

That division is one of many, since MS is made up of "small companies" after the "monopoly" ruling. That one division is their loss leader, just like any company that makes hardware. Software rakes in the revenue, which is where exclusivity helps. It boosts hardware sales to compensate for low-margin manufacturing, and has the potential to earn profit.

What "'small companies' after the 'monopoly' ruling" are you talking about? Are you talking about the anti trust case of the U.S. Government and 19 States against Microsoft? Microsoft was found to be a monopoly for desktop operating systems in the U.S. Microsoft was found to be using that monopoly power to force abusive and anti competitive behavior out of other companies. The penalty was to agree to never do it again. There are no "small companies" due to that litigation. Period. End of story. Anyone who thinks there is should read the facts of the final ruling. After reading the facts, anyone who still thinks there are "small companies" within Microsoft due to that ruling is purely delusional.

Software has almost always had larger gross margins than software. Companies often sell hardware at a loss to make it up on the hardware. This is very common in the gaming market. It is not as common with add on hardware, but it still has occurred.

There is a point though where you are actively buying into the market to kill off a competitor. If Microsoft or Sony were to sell their consoles for $49.95 then they'd be guilty of this. There are laws on the books (both federal and in the states) where selling things too low will cause a criminal investigation. I don't believe any of the current generation consoles are this low. However, I do know that some of the government organizations involved have, from time to time, looked into this aspect of the gaming hardware market.

Originally Posted by schticker

There's a reason for that, as well. And yes, as consoles approach the design of high-end PCs, that analogy will be made more often.

This is one of the advantages of the Xbox over the PS3. Porting a game from the Xbox to Windows (and vice versa) is simpler than porting a game from the PS3 to Windows. Thus cross platform development happens more easily for the Xbox.

Originally Posted by schticker

LOL yes, I figured that was at the root of something.

This is irrelevant to the situation at hand. (Although many might say it is just an extension of the symptoms displayed by the company in general.)

[mapledragon]

microsoft does have had a run of bad luck with their hardware recently, but there's nothing you can do about it. They are too big and powerful to feel anything over these tiny snafus.

And one bad representative does not tarnish the rest of that company. Don't forget the whole PC world would look very different w/o MSFT and Intel.

[Mr.Neutral]

Originally Posted by phranctoast

Good. Anything that makes people have any FUD for the 360 is good in my book. I know it sounds immature and stupid, but I really dislike MS way of doing "business".

They claim innovation but do nothing but buy away their competition, and steal others ideas, and most people dont care eather way. This was my biggest problem with the Xbox entering into the console wars in the first place. MS with there deep pockets, buying excluve games from third party since they cant earn those games on their own merit. Their harware issues is just the icing on the cake and exactly what one should expect from them. Id like to believe that they would finally give up on the consoles in general since they have yet to be profitable in that division.
Having every AAA game also availabel on the PC helps ease any pain for their best exclusives (Bioshock, gears)

Im really ticked wih the paramount thing most of all.

I think the competition is good. Ever wonder what the PS3 would have been like had there been no Xbox? I think the Xbox got Sony to open there eyes just a bit (maybe squint) and see that they had some competition. I think it probably showed a little in the PS3, but they still ignored some key areas (online specifically). Since they are at the bottom of the list this generation and may very well stay there, I think the PS4 will really shine much more and have more innovation.

And as far as Microsoft is concerned, yeah they do take a lot of ideas from others. But their goal is the same in all of thoses cases. Take a decent idea and grow it and make it better. I think they tend to do this pretty well.

Certainly MS showed just how important online gaming is with Xbox live - where do you think online capabilities would have been without this?

[Mr.Neutral]

Originally Posted by mapledragon

microsoft does have had a run of bad luck with their hardware recently, but there's nothing you can do about it. They are too big and powerful to feel anything over these tiny snafus.

And one bad representative does not tarnish the rest of that company. Don't forget the whole PC world would look very different w/o MSFT and Intel.

Yeah, I hope they fire whoever made that design. My biggest complaints with my 360 are:

1. No wifi
2. Big ass power brick
3. Concerned about over heating

My PS3 is heavy as a brick, but its all one box. MS really should go back to the basics next gen.

I think too many people see MS as a big Evil Corporation. I hate to burst anyone's bubbles, but Sony is no better. They are all companies out to make money. Plain and simple. And for what its worth, the best support I've ever received has been from Microsoft. While colleagues of mine can, I myself can't say I've ever had a bad support experience.

[WickyWoo]

I think the competition is good. Ever wonder what the PS3 would have been like had there been no Xbox? I think the Xbox got Sony to open there eyes just a bit (maybe squint) and see that they had some competition. I think it probably showed a little in the PS3, but they still ignored some key areas (online specifically). Since they are at the bottom of the list this generation and may very well stay there, I think the PS4 will really shine much more and have more innovation.

And as far as Microsoft is concerned, yeah they do take a lot of ideas from others. But their goal is the same in all of thoses cases. Take a decent idea and grow it and make it better. I think they tend to do this pretty well.

Certainly MS showed just how important online gaming is with Xbox live - where do you think online capabilities would have been without this?

All valid points, but as I've pointed out many times before: Games are games and movies are movies

A single studio has move movies than all the games released on all 3 platforms last generation, and 90% of games are run once then go out of print, while most movies are kept perpetually in print. There simply isn't the shelf space to do it twice over, and retailers are unwilling to support it.

[Mr.Neutral]

[QUOTE=WickyWoo;187789]All valid points, but as I've pointed out many times before: Games are games and movies are movies

A single studio has move movies than all the games released on all 3 platforms last generation, and 90% of games are run once then go out of print, while most movies are kept perpetually in print. There simply isn't the shelf space to do it twice over, and retailers are unwilling to support it.[/QUOTE]

Its that exact reason that I am surprised retailers didn't get behind HD DVD more. DVD is going to be around a long time, so at a minimum there will be two shelf spaces - 1 for DVD and 1 for Blu-ray (or less likely HD DVD).

If (and I'm not sure they can) studios could release HD DVD Twin's (or combo's) at about the DVD price (or at a minimum HD DVD prices), I would think they could stop producing DVD's and have just released HD DVD Twin or Combo's. I would have thought retailers would jump all over this since it would mean 1 shelf space for 2 formats.

I'm thinking they can't (or more likely won't) drop the price low enough to only produce an HD DVD Twin or Combo though.

[schticker]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

Because Microsoft is selling crap. Anyone who sells crap should be called on it. It does not matter who made it. If Apple had Lockheed Martin Skunk Works build the best possible iPod and charged $10,000 each for them and they routinely failed after 100 hours I'd still blame Apple not Lockheed.

MS is also winning.

Look at the battery fiasco of last year. I feel that Apple and Dell and a host of others are at fault every bit as much as (and maybe more so than) Sony. Sony shipped defective batteries but it was an inherently flawed design for which Sony should be blamed. Putting that flawed design in their computers is Apple's, Dell's and other's fault, not Sony's.

It's not up to other companies to independently test for months the quality of a simple device--especially a battery. Christ, I would think they would trust Sony to do that correctly.

You "earn" exclusivity when a developer independently of the console vendor decides it is in their best interest to be exclusive. This is rarely the case. The extreme case was Halo.

That never happens though. You assume that these decisions happen in a vacuum. The ease to maximize the programmer's vision is a definite factor, and PS2/PS3 consoles are absolutely notoriously difficult to program for, capabilities aside.

Bungie had planned to be exclusive to the Mac. Microsoft could not stand that. Microsoft bought Bungie and made Halo exclusive to Microsoft systems. Cases like that are most definitely not "earned" exclusivity.

Well, that and the fact that Apple doesn't/didn't have a console. Although a lot of the design of the 360 is based on Macs--be we won't go there.

What "'small companies' after the 'monopoly' ruling" are you talking about? Are you talking about the anti trust case of the U.S. Government and 19 States against Microsoft?

Which was bogus.

Microsoft was found to be a monopoly for desktop operating systems in the U.S. Microsoft was found to be using that monopoly power to force abusive and anti competitive behavior out of other companies. The penalty was to agree to never do it again.

Part of how that is typically ensured is that companies are "split" into separate business entities on paper (and as a result, in function).

There are no "small companies" due to that litigation. Period. End of story. Anyone who thinks there is should read the facts of the final ruling. After reading the facts, anyone who still thinks there are "small companies" within Microsoft due to that ruling is purely delusional.

Do your homework. MS operates LIKE a group of small companies, in that each division is granted their own budget a huge degree of autonomy. Anyone working at MS will tell you that, and frankly there's no real reason to say so otherwise.

This is one of the advantages of the Xbox over the PS3. Porting a game from the Xbox to Windows (and vice versa) is simpler than porting a game from the PS3 to Windows. Thus cross platform development happens more easily for the Xbox.

This is called good planning and foresight, not collusion or unfair play.

This is irrelevant to the situation at hand. (Although many might say it is just an extension of the symptoms displayed by the company in general.)

Not really. There is an assumption that MS handed off a suitcase full of cash to buy this deal. It is after all easy to pick on MS, when BRs only hope is in the form of a game console that competes directly with a MS product. I'm aware of the roots of hostility here in this regard, and it's for good reason. Anyone (other than Apple) has to fight uphill against MS, because they in the end churn out good, usable product that enjoys mass-adoption.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by schticker

Not really. There is an assumption that MS handed off a suitcase full of cash to buy this deal. It is after all easy to pick on MS, when BRs only hope is in the form of a game console that competes directly with a MS product. I'm aware of the roots of hostility here in this regard, and it's for good reason. Anyone (other than Apple) has to fight uphill against MS, because they in the end churn out good, usable product that enjoys mass-adoption.

BD players are outselling HD DVD players for the past month. So, I wouldn't say the PS/3 is the only hope.

And, while you can deflect the issue onto one of MS-bashing, the critical issue is someone handed a suitcase full of cash to a studio to STOP supporting a format.

Gary

[schticker]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

BD players are outselling HD DVD players for the past month. So, I wouldn't say the PS/3 is the only hope.

I hope not. Right now, that machine is outselling everything else BR manufacturers have to offer.

And, while you can deflect the issue onto one of MS-bashing, the critical issue is someone handed a suitcase full of cash to a studio to STOP supporting a format.

I suppose Paramount was in a trance over the paltry (big picture here) $150 million? C'mon.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by schticker

MS is also winning.

Not for long. The other consoles are on a faster ramp up when viewed on the same timeline as the Xbox has been. I have not checked recently, but it would not surprise me if the total number of Wii boxes sold has now out numbered the number of Xbox 360s sold.

Originally Posted by schticker

It's not up to other companies to independently test for months the quality of a simple device--especially a battery. Christ, I would think they would trust Sony to do that correctly.

You've obviously never been in charge of development of any major system. I have -- to the tune of over $1 billion for a single project. You test and test and test again. Sometimes things slip through, but if they do then it's your fault every bit as much as the component vendors'

Originally Posted by schticker

That never happens though. You assume that these decisions happen in a vacuum. The ease to maximize the programmer's vision is a definite factor, and PS2/PS3 consoles are absolutely notoriously difficult to program for, capabilities aside.

It has happened. It most definitely has not "never" happened. It has also happened in the other extreme. I prefer it when the developer choses rather than have it chosen for him/her.

I do not assume these decisions are made in a vacuum. However, I prefer it when the decisions are not made due to the leverage of the large vendor.

Originally Posted by schticker

Well, that and the fact that Apple doesn't/didn't have a console. Although a lot of the design of the 360 is based on Macs--be we won't go there.

Not having a console is not even close to the point. It didn't matter that Apple did not have a console (and the Pippin never counted)! Bungie was going to do Halo as a Mac exclusive game knowing that Apple did not have a console. Microsoft bought them specifically to kill any Mac development and keep Halo exclusive to Microsoft systems.

And a lot of the Xbox 360's design is NOT based upon Macs. It is true that during early development stages -- before many prototypes were available for software design and testing -- both Microsoft and developers used Macs to write the code to run on the Xbox 360. This was predominantly because of the PPC heritage of the CPU in the Xbox 360. It had virtually nothing to do with the actual hardware design of the Xbox 360 itself or the Mac's hardware design as during that era the Mac hardware design was very proprietary to Apple. During that era Apple even did their own, proprietary glue chips for the Mac even further exemplifying that the Xbox 360 was very different hardware wise from the Mac.

Originally Posted by schticker

Which was bogus.

Only a blind Microsoft apologist, fool or someone who does not know the history of the suit (and the prior anti trust suit settled out of court ... see it was NOT Microsoft's first brush with the law on this) would claim that it was a bogus suit. Even the pro industry appeals court agreed that Microsoft was guilty. Microsoft knew they would never, ever get the conviction over turned on the merits of the case and after the appeals court's ruling only fought the punishment.

Originally Posted by schticker

Part of how that is typically ensured is that companies are "split" into separate business entities on paper (and as a result, in function).

Then you don't know how the ruling came down and how it was enforced. It had absolutely nothing to do with any kind of "split" into separate business entities. Please give a list of the business units that were split up as a direct result of the conviction, or admit that no such thing happened.

Originally Posted by schticker

Do your homework. MS operates LIKE a group of small companies, in that each division is granted their own budget a huge degree of autonomy. Anyone working at MS will tell you that, and frankly there's no real reason to say so otherwise.

No. Actually YOU need to do your homework. Even the Mac business unit -- one of the most independent business units Microsoft has -- takes it orders from Redmond. Get beyond the purely PR part of that unit (or any other unit) and you will find out that Redmond calls the long term shots of every Microsoft business unit. They have short term autonomy, but the long term goals and finances are definitely controlled by Redmond. Stating otherwise just shows how little you know about Microsoft.

Microsoft has been a "long term player" since the mid 80s (and definitely since the late 80s). Everything is guided in that long term goal.

Originally Posted by schticker

This is called good planning and foresight, not collusion or unfair play.

I never said it was "collusion or unfair play". It is just a fact. Microsoft went with a lower capability CPU and OS in an attempt to make cross platform development easier. It was not foresight since at early stages of development Microsoft had to by Macs to develop the system because of the CPU's PPC heritage.

Sony basically said, "Screw it. We're going with the most powerful CPU we can."

There are pluses and minuses to both stances.

The biggest plus on the Xbox side and minus on the PS3 side is the level of difficulty in generating the next generation of games.

The biggest negative on the Xbox side and positive on the PS3 side is that the PS3 is more future proof than the Xbox 369.

Originally Posted by schticker

Not really. There is an assumption that MS handed off a suitcase full of cash to buy this deal. It is after all easy to pick on MS, when BRs only hope is in the form of a game console that competes directly with a MS product. I'm aware of the roots of hostility here in this regard, and it's for good reason. Anyone (other than Apple) has to fight uphill against MS, because they in the end churn out good, usable product that enjoys mass-adoption.

Then you must agree that Microsoft has a history of using its huge financial clout to get what it wants when it wants it... usually legally, but sometimes not so.

Also I completely disagree that "BRs only hope is in the form of a game console that competes directly with a MS product". There are several vendors making Blu-ray players. Sony is only one of them and only one line is the PS3. Besides, even though Toshiba has been buying into the market with very low prices the stand alone player Blu-ray vendors have been holding their own.

And finally, as far as Microsoft "in the end churn[ing] out good, usable product that enjoys mass-adoption"... That is almost too funny to respond to seriously. A few years back there was a web site by a Microsoft fanatic that tried to prove that Microsoft innovated several things. He challenged people to prove that proposed items were not innovated or invented at Microsoft. People beat up on the list sending him details that everything -- save one thing -- was innovated or invented elsewhere. That one thing? Microsoft Bob.

Also I would not say corporations running Microsoft software is an example of anything that "enjoys mass-adoption". I have yet to meet an IT person who actually "enjoys" running Microsoft systems. I'd also posit that half of the people who have Microsoft software at home do so because that is what they use at work or at other related organizations.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by schticker

I hope not. Right now, that machine is outselling everything else BR manufacturers have to offer.

Hope? Hope?

I'd take Gary's statement over your "hope" any day of the week.

Originally Posted by schticker

I suppose Paramount was in a trance over the paltry (big picture here) $150 million? C'mon.

Unfortunately most, but not all, major corporations (and consequently senior executive bonuses) are tracked more closely on a quarterly basis than on a yearly or five year or ten year basis. The board often takes the stand of "what have you done for the company lately".

A $150 million infusion is a hell of a motivator in that light. Making he company very profitable for even a couple quarters makes the stock rise and along with it executive compensation.

It's not the way I wish major corporations were run, but it is fact. I sincerely doubt Paramount (and Dreamworks) is very different.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by schticker

I hope not. Right now, that machine is outselling everything else BR manufacturers have to offer.

Well, I wouldn't expect that to change for many years. The PS/3 is simply the better sell. So it will dominate the Blu-ray player sales until and if general adoption of Blu-ray occurs.

Originally Posted by schticker

I suppose Paramount was in a trance over the paltry (big picture here) $150 million? C'mon.

The bigger picture involves a studio in the red and $150 mil landing in their lap. But, the even bigger picture involves respecting the customer, and maintaining the respect of directors who choose (note that word) to work on movies for Paramount. And those directors have friends and they have friends.

There are a lot of angry people right now in the biz, for nothing more than being in the same boat as all of us: Blu-ray fans that got shafted.

Gary