The Gamer's Quarter

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

I'm wondering if anyone knows the implications of Microsoft having XBox live integrated into Windows Vista on top of the 360. Would that make Live more viable? Would it (unfairly?) double the 360's market? I mean... integration is neat and all, but shouldn't Sony and Nintendo have an opportunity to connect to PCs as well?

It seems like it is going to have a bigger impact than it should. I mean... if Microsoft makes a deal with a company like Dell and says, "hey guys, every Dell PC should have Vista," and no PC manufacturers sell PCs with XP anymore - doesn't it just benefit the hell out of Microsoft?
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

dhex · Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 11:02 am Post subject:

yes.

monopoly...no.
_________________

dark steve · . Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 1110

I like how consumers can't be persuaded to accept convergence at any cost, so now MS is trying to pull a fast one before they realize what's happening.

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

isn't windows considered a monopoly over computer OSes? i mean... it's not exactly like microsoft is making a new monopoly, but they're using their push power from their established one to boost their less than stellar 360, no?
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

dhex · Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

well, it's a monopoly in popular parlance, which is enough, i guess.

but not any more than nintendo is using their "monopoly" over the gamecube when they made it compatible/linkable with their handhelds. convergence is as convergence does.
_________________

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

GSL · Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject:

Microsoft has no monopoly over computer operating systems, no matter what sort of whining you hear to the contrary. Microsoft does not prevent others from making operating systems for the PC--the multitude of Linux flavors (as well as lesser-known OSes such as QNX and BeOS) proves as much. Granted, Microsoft as a company has a much larger foothold and much more in the way of resources, but I'd hardly consider that alone as signifying a monopoly. The main point is that none of the competition has yet created a good operating system. Yes, I know frothy-mouthed Linux fans will claim it's more secure and free and blah blah blah, but what sells operating systems currently is convenience, on both the corporate and the personal end, and let's face it--Linux is absolutely no fun to switch to from Windows, especially if you know nothing about computers. Lest I be thought of as a frothing Microsoft fanboy, I'm personally a fan of the beautiful BeOS, but even that was a bit difficult to get used to.

It all comes down to this: Make a good OS, and both consumers and other developers will support it. More support=more monies. Even Microsoft started out tiny, they just managed to get the important stuff right.

Live integration with Vista is just Microsoft jockeying for position to sell more OSes, 360's, or a combination thereof with its connectivity. That's not a monopoly practice--what would be is if Microsoft decided to charge Sony or Nintendo money for the development of any similar programs that ran on its OS, or if MS somehow locked the competition entirely out of Vista (I'm not sure how, just as a hypothetical example). Sure, Live support comes built-in, but there's nothing stopping Sony or Nintendo from making their own programs to work in a similar way. Heck, Nintendo's already got their WiFi USB dongle (though I digress slightly, as the handheld market currently isn't Microsoft's concern), though with shoddy as the damned thing is, Nintendo really needs no enemies.

dhex · Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject:

SuperWes · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 8:42 am Post subject: Re: THE MONOPOLY GAME

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

The argument would be false if it was an argument at all.

I'm merely making the claim that Nintendo and Sony should have equal opportunity to develop connectivity with Windows Vista as Microsoft. The reasoning goes as such:

Live is not integral to Windows Vista. But it is packaged in every version of Vista. That gives Microsoft an in on every computer. It is very much like Microsoft packaging Internet Explorer with every computer. It inhibits its competitors from doing the same service by putting them ahead one step. It's like starting a race halfway there.

On two levels Nintendo and Sony are lagging behind. First is that the program is integrated into every version of Windows Vista - the headstart argument. The second is that no matter what Nintendo and Sony do, they will never have anything that could be as integrated as efficient as Live.

Is it fair that Microsoft is using its OPERATING SYSTEM leverage to give it an advantage in VIDEO GAMES? Even if the impact is minimal (or even negligable), it still doesn't seem any different than the IE ruling considering the multibillion dollar business that is videogames and soon to be the encompassing home entertainment.

If Microsoft is game for convergence, fine. But I should still have the opportunity as a consumer to expect other companies to give me convergence. If my Nintendo Wii can interface with my laptop wirelessly - shouldn't Nintendo have the opportunity to connect them the same way as I would with an XBox 360?
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

ApM · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 11:25 am Post subject:

Microsoft's been using its operating system leverage in the videogame industry for as long as it's been around. Or do PC games not count in your mind?

The Internet Explorer thing was somewhat different in that it was specifically designed to crush Netscape. The idea of a web browser you have to pay for seems mostly unthinkable now (although Opera's still cruising along pretty well), but when IE came out and it was totally free, that was a fucking bombshell. That was massive. They commoditized a product still very much in its infancy and seemingly destroyed a growing industry -- the web browser industry.

Now, of course, the IE thing seems... stupid. Of course your web browser is free and comes with your OS. How would you even bootstrap yourself onto the 'net otherwise? WWW is something you expect your computer to just do. Microsoft just did it before people had really figured this web thing out.

The Xbox is essentially a Windows PC. The games are written in DirectX, just like Windows. Creating Live stuff for it means you already have a product that is pretty portable to the Windows world. You would be stupid not to start bundling it with the DirectX tools and throwing it into Vista. Microsoft is already stupid for not throwing it into XP years ago.

Hell, network game matching is already a commodity that no one paid for until Live showed up. So it's pretty much the opposite.

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

dhex · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject:

ApM · Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject:

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

The reason I insist on separating them is because Windows isn't a merely a video game platform. 90% of a console's viability is its penetration. With Microsoft putting Live (a videogame function) into Windows (more than a videogame platform) it's infiltrating every home and business that uses Windows Vista.

I mean, shit guys, by putting Live directly into Windows Vista Microsoft is pretty much usurping Valve's Steam and AOL's Playlink, too...
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

dhex · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 8:23 am Post subject:

steam?

what does this have to do with steam?
_________________

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

dhex · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 10:54 am Post subject:

sure.

different markets, however. there's convergence and there's convergence. the video game market is still very much divided between console sales and pc sales, despite the growing overlap.
_________________

Faithless · . Joined: 11 Sep 2005 Posts: 153

I was so hoping this was a thread about NES Monopoly.
_________________
www.call-to-adventure.com
Don't Refuse.

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

SuperWes · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject:

dessgeega · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject:

Swimmy · . Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 990 Location: Fairfax, VA

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

ApM · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject:

dhex · Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject:

so what's to stop sony or nintendo from developing their own windows clients?
_________________

purplechair · . Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 378 Location: in my pants

sawtooth · . Joined: 02 Nov 2005 Posts: 419

OtakupunkX · . Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 730

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

GSL · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 1:44 am Post subject:

helicopterp · . Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 1435 Location: Philadelphia

Probably gets pretty crappy mileage, too.
_________________
Like you thought you'd seen copter perverts before. They were nothing compared to this one.

SuperWes · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 7:24 am Post subject:

Yeah, I swear some people just like to argue. The monopoly cries over this strike me as pretty silly. Doesn't microsoft need a 90% share of the market to be a monopoly? Has anyone in this thread realized that Microsoft's "Monopoly" that they lost a shitload of money on and yet remained a monopoly for years with is probably no longer a monopoly? Firefox, Opera, and Mozilla are all doing really, really well. I don't know the stats, but it's safe to assume that they've taken over at least 10% of the Marketshare that Microsoft would need to be a monopoly.

If Microsoft's "convergence initiative" is able to take more than 90% of the Instant Messenger market away from AIM, G-Talk, Yahoo Messenger, and whatever else is out there I'll be amazed. I mean, Microsoft Messenger has been "intigrated into Windows" ever since Windows 95 and it hasn't helped them much. Why would this be any different? Because it works with the Xbox?

Just to clarify, I'm posting in this thread just because I like to argue.

-Wes
_________________

OtakupunkX · . Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 730

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

Yeah, well, I'm not complaining that he got a Ferrari, I'm complaining that he's racing his Ferrari against a Supra, but he's starting out ahead of it.

As for your examples, Wes, we're not looking at the same things. The reason why MS Messenger never hooked was because AOL's IM service is just amazingly simple on top of already having a huge userbase. MS Messenger only picked up on countries where AOL never really picked up... how do you figure that, huh?

Also: I don't know where you guys are getting your numbers. Is 90% legalese for "too much marketshare for a monopoly"? That seems pretty arbitrary. Monopolies have been broken up by the market for having well below 90% shares (Standard Oil was <70%, and I'm sure there are other examples). Btw, everytime I look up MS's Windows Marketshare I get ~90%.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

dhex · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 9:15 am Post subject:

i have no idea where this 90% thing comes from either. but we're not talking about monopolies - we're talking about fairness.

however, i also don't see what the big deal is. much like IM, an integrated live client is only useful to people with xboxes. being part of almost every pc on earth hasn't stopped internet explorer from getting whupped on by freeware. etc.

there's also no barrier to entry for sony or nintendo. they're going to be offering downloadable content, etc, and they could piggyback this on if they wanted or saw a need.
_________________

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

What I'm thinking of that Microsoft can do that Nintendo and Sony can't is some kind of super level of convergence. If the XBox 360 can hook up to your iPod, then what is stopping MIcrosoft from hooking up their 360 with a PC and its media capabilities. Three years ago I used to stream videos off other peple's computers, and now it looks like MS is giving the general populace the ability to do it.

But where can the other companies sign up?

What if I want to stream content from my laptop to my television - do I have to buy a 360 if I already have a Wii and a PS3?

On top of this - hypothetically, what if FF versus XIII turns out to be the new FF Online and the PS3 has to converge with the PC in order to compete with MS's XBox equivalent. Running from XBox 360 to PC won't be that big of a deal because all the connectivity features are integrated right into the shell. There are all kinds of messaging and interface options that Live has that will be at the fingertips of everyone with an XBox, but Sony will never be able to make something as good as MS because it's not right there in the shell. It will never be as efficient or clean or simple.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

dhex · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 9:58 am Post subject:

sounds like a good incentive for sony and nintendo to get crackin'.

though i doubt it's high on their lists. aren't all of the new consoles going to come with ethernet ports? why bother with the pc when you can just hook it up to your router and go nuts?
_________________

SuperWes · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 10:01 am Post subject:

Ok nevermind! I thought that a Monopoly required a 90% marketshare or something. I'm foolish, but my argument still stands. Microsoft Messenger < AIM and this isn't going to change because they package it in with Windows and throw in an online store. AIM has had downloadable, buyable, casual games for quite a few years now on top of PC/cell phone/pda convergence using the same friends list and customizable themes/avatars that you take with you. If Microsoft didn't do something like this it would basically mean they were giving up on trying to compete with MS Messenger. The fact that it works with the Xbox 360 is just extending their reach.

I have a strong feeling that Nintendo's going to do everything they can to strike a deal with AOL to add some sort of AIM chat functionality to the Wii. They've hinted at something like this in the past, and with their McDonalds wi-fi deal it's obvious that they're not settling for anything less than the most visible partners they can find.

-Wes
_________________