Support NeoGAF

[twobear]

What has MS done other than attempt to turn console gaming into some bizzaro bastard child of PC gaming that they can extract unjustified economic rent from?

I mean, if you think that the PS4 and Xbone are consoles that are in any way designed in PS3's image rather than the 360's—an image that we have no reason to believe Sony wouldn't have stuck with if the 360 hadn't appeared on the scene and given them a severe kick in the teeth—then there's no conversation to be had here.

 

[dsk1210]

The digital foundry guy is one of them

Where you getting that from?

 

[digoutyoursoul]

Where you getting that from?

Himself, he said it here a few months back then edited it

 

[Humdinger]

For what it's worth, I don't know any developers that have had a positive experience working directly with Microsoft. They're extremely controlling and hands-on, and everything is designed by committee and requires huge levels of executive buy-in. They are so desperate for success that everything becomes a giant exercise in avoiding risk, to the point that they don't even trust the developer they hired to make the game.

The main issue, though, is that MS is constantly changing overall strategies on a whim, and that impacts the products. Because everything has to fit the overall strategy, even if there was nothing really wrong with the original product before.

i.e. Signing a game as a single player game, then adding co-op later because the overall company strategy changed.

They also know that they're Microsoft, and they have a lot of clout and can't be easily sued. So they really play hardball on prices, contract renegotations, etc. even when they're in the wrong or drastically change the scope of a project.

Interesting insight, thanks for sharing. It lines up with what I've heard elsewhere.

So far getting the feeling a lot of fans on a certain system would prefer Xbox gets out the console business. Has to be the only business where fans wish the competition would just disappear

Nah. No one would benefit from their exit from the console game space, least of all Sony fans. We need them to keep Sony on their toes.

 

[ResidentDante]

The saying in Silicon Valley for decades has been "Microsoft is a vampire."

It's a shame that game devs are just now learning what the Valley has known since the 1990's.

Gaming was better before MS entered the industry and it will be better if they leave.

The PS4 is mostly unchallenged this gen and we're looking at a gaming resurgence not seen since the PS2 days. The PS360 gen where MS was competing heavily was a poor one in terms of quality and diversity of games and many of the reasons for this can be directly traced back to MS.

These have to be some of the most blatant fanboy posts I've seen for months here on Gaf. I can never understand people fueling so much hate against brands.

Just. Enjoy. The. Fucking. Games.

Brand loyalty won't give you some warm felt room in Sony's heart. You gain nothing, and lose out on lots of cool games.

 

[KampferZeon]

Nah. No one would benefit from their exit from the console game space, least of all Sony fans. We need them to keep Sony on their toes.

if the console business follows the GPU hardware business. starts with lots of companies making GPU card, then down to big 3 ( ATI, Nvidia, S3 )
then down to the current big Nvidia and small AMd market

if the console market business equilibrium follows the same conclusion and only 2 companies can survive only. I think most in Gaf would like that to be Sony Nintendo combo.

I mean without XB, thereotically Nintendo can sell a bit more hardware and Nintendo business could be a bit better

 

[Caipirinha]

It's not mismanagement, the Xbox division is being completely repurposed. The big boys in Redmond aren't interested in home consoles and they certainly aren't interested in first party game development. Going forward, third party efforts will slow down massively and those that are announced will be as the Phantom Dust debacle, husks of games designed to promote other software and services.

They're trying to desperately hold onto their enterprise and (already faltering) consumer OS monopolies, the Xbox is nothing but a brand with minor potential to aid in the retention of the latter and not through console manufacturing or game development but through service provision.

 

[rakanishu]

if the console business follows the GPU hardware business. starts with lots of companies making GPU card, then down to big 3 ( ATI, Nvidia, S3 )
then down to the current big Nvidia and small AMd market

if the console market business equilibrium follows the same conclusion and only 2 companies can survive only. I think most in Gaf would like that to be Sony Nintendo combo.

I mean without XB, thereotically Nintendo can sell a bit more hardware and Nintendo business could be a bit better

And you think that the GPU market is all good and healthy now that there are only two (you seem to be forgetting the largest one, Intel 70% of the market)? The high end GPU marked is horrible now, and it is just because of the lack of competition. They can charge whatever they want because there is no competition. I really prefer Nvidia in the graphics market, but I love that AMD is a competitor. People who think any kind of competition is hurting their brand of choice have no idea how a market like this works.

 

[Humdinger]

if the console business follows the GPU hardware business. starts with lots of companies making GPU card, then down to big 3 ( ATI, Nvidia, S3 )
then down to the current big Nvidia and small AMd market

if the console market business equilibrium follows the same conclusion and only 2 companies can survive only. I think most in Gaf would like that to be Sony Nintendo combo.

I mean without XB, thereotically Nintendo can sell a bit more hardware and Nintendo business could be a bit better

Well, that's one scenario, but having 3 viable companies is another. Or 2 of them in one part of the market, and a third in a somewhat different part (that's sort of how I see it now, with MS and Sony direct competitors and Nintendo targeting a somewhat different market segment).

I would prefer MS stay in the race. I say that not only because I've enjoyed a lot of good games on the original Xbox and the 360, but because I believe Sony is doing a much better job this generation, due in large part to MS's presence in the last generation. I think the 360's success set them back on their heels, got them out of a sort of complacent or entitled mindset, and provided a wake up call. They learned their lessons, and they're much better now because of it. I don't think Nintendo teaches those kind of lessons (instead we got the Move).

 

[Unknown Soldier]

These have to be some of the most blatant fanboy posts I've seen for months here on Gaf. I can never understand people fueling so much hate against brands.

Just. Enjoy. The. Fucking. Games.

Brand loyalty won't give you some warm felt room in Sony's heart. You gain nothing, and lose out on lots of cool games.

Microsoft is a corporation and is not immune to criticism. My posts are specifically criticisms of Microsoft. Considering I've owned both an OG Xbox and a 360 I don't feel like anyone can claim I'm a fanboy of anything besides good corporate citizenship. I liked my 360 too, I enjoyed the original Gears of War trilogy and felt it was some of Epic's best work.

Microsoft has long been criticized for many things that I've brought up. There are many good reasons why they are so widely disliked in the Silicon Valley and the nickname for the company there is "the Beast from Redmond". They have decades of reputation for being a ruthless monopolist which enters markets to crush competition which they deem as threats to their Windows monopoly. None of this is new news, Microsoft has been a well-understood malevolent corporate entity for nearly as long as I've been alive.

 

[Cranster]

Microsoft is a corporation and is not immune to criticism. My posts are specifically criticisms of Microsoft. Considering I've owned both an OG Xbox and a 360 I don't feel like anyone can claim I'm a fanboy of anything besides good corporate citizenship. I liked my 360 too, I enjoyed the original Gears of War trilogy and felt it was some of Epic's best work.

Microsoft has long been criticized for many things that I've brought up. There are many good reasons why they are so widely disliked in the Silicon Valley and the nickname for the company there is "the Beast from Redmond". They have decades of reputation for being a ruthless monopolist which enters markets to crush competition which they deem as threats to their Windows monopoly. None of this is new news, Microsoft has been a well-understood malevolent corporate entity for nearly as long as I've been alive.

Your fanboyish posts are still idiotic. Microsoft for all of their faults have done good in the videogame industry aswell and have set standards since the original Xbox launched. Sony and Nintendo are not immune to criticisms either. To outright state the videogame industry would be better off without Microsoft is simply not true.

 

[Caipirinha]

I would prefer MS stay in the race. I say that not only because I've enjoyed a lot of good games on the original Xbox and the 360, but because I believe Sony is doing a much better job this generation, due in large part to MS's presence in the last generation.

Personally there is little I need from a console manufacturer other than to put out a reasonably priced and powerful box with a decent controller and multiplayer infrastructure. That's not what makes the PS4 the PS4, it's not what made the PS2 the PS2 or the NES the NES. What made those consoles great was software and marketing, the latter also being an art form.

Even if Sony and Nintendo came together an put out a single console and Microsoft left the market entirely, Sony's worldwide studios would have to compete with the rest of the developers in the world. That wouldn't change. The Betamax/VHS war had no impact on the quality of Sony's movie output, even if the company had a vested interest in that hardware war.

What would change is that everybody in the world would know that they only need buy one box and it will grant them access to the entirety of modern games. Much like you can buy a Blu Ray player and be sure that near enough every single movie will be available on that format. Whether you're a 12year old kid wanting to play Pokemon or a 35 year old wanting to play God of War, the whole family will be using a single machine without compromise in what content they have access to - exactly like a Blu Ray player.

That's what I want from gaming, and that will see gaming explode into the mainstream in a way it can't when the market is pointlessly divided up between different hardware.

 

[nekkid]

Personally there is little I need from a console manufacturer other than to put out a reasonably priced and powerful box with a decent controller and multiplayer infrastructure. That's not what makes the PS4 the PS4, it's not what made the PS2 the PS2 or the NES the NES. What made those consoles great was software and marketing, the latter also being an art form.

Even if Sony and Nintendo came together an put out a single console and Microsoft left the market entirely, Sony's worldwide studios would have to compete with the rest of the developers in the world. That wouldn't change.

What would change is that everybody in the world would know that they only need buy one box and it will grant them access to the entirety of modern games. Much like you can buy a Blu Ray player and be sure that near enough every single movie will be available on that format.

That's what I want from gaming, and that will see gaming explode into the mainstream in a way it can't when the market is pointlessly divided up between different hardware.

Imagine an Xbox being made by Panos' team and XBL run by MS, and the games publishing and development managed by Disney.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Your fanboyish posts are still idiotic. Microsoft for all of their faults have done good in the videogame industry aswell and have set standards since the original Xbox launched. Sony and Nintendo are not immune to criticisms either. To outright state the videogame industry would be better off without Microsoft is simply not true.

Sure OK. I guess this is your level of discourse, so goodbye forever.

 

[Caipirinha]

Imagine the box being made by Panos' team and XBL run by MS, and the games publishing and development managed by Disney.

So long as I can play Sony and Nintendo games on it then I really don't care who makes the hardware. As far as I'm concerned gaming is in it's infancy until the day that you can play Mario and The Last of Us on the same console, just as home videos were in their infancy until after a single platform had become the standard and the world could move on to appreciating the content ov er the hardware - the problem is we have been stuck in this ridiculous limbo for decades, it only took home video a few years.

 

[nekkid]

So long as I can play Sony and Nintendo games on it then I really don't care who makes the hardware.

I was specifically talking about Xbox.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Personally there is little I need from a console manufacturer other than to put out a reasonably priced and powerful box with a decent controller and multiplayer infrastructure. That's not what makes the PS4 the PS4, it's not what made the PS2 the PS2 or the NES the NES. What made those consoles great was software and marketing, the latter also being an art form.

Even if Sony and Nintendo came together an put out a single console and Microsoft left the market entirely, Sony's worldwide studios would have to compete with the rest of the developers in the world. That wouldn't change. The Betamax/VHS war had no impact on the quality of Sony's movie output, even if the company had a vested interest in that hardware war.

What would change is that everybody in the world would know that they only need buy one box and it will grant them access to the entirety of modern games. Much like you can buy a Blu Ray player and be sure that near enough every single movie will be available on that format. Whether you're a 12year old kid wanting to play Pokemon or a 35 year old wanting to play God of War, the whole family will be using a single machine without compromise in what content they have access to - exactly like a Blu Ray player.

That's what I want from gaming, and that will see gaming explode into the mainstream in a way it can't when the market is pointlessly divided up between different hardware.

Maybe if everyone just made PC games instead this vision could be reality.

However there is direct profit from being a platform holder and releasing games specifically for your platform versus just developing PC games. That's why Sony and Nintendo are doing what they are doing.

 

[ResidentDante]

Microsoft is a corporation and is not immune to criticism. My posts are specifically criticisms of Microsoft. Considering I've owned both an OG Xbox and a 360 I don't feel like anyone can claim I'm a fanboy of anything besides good corporate citizenship. I liked my 360 too, I enjoyed the original Gears of War trilogy and felt it was some of Epic's best work.

Microsoft has long been criticized for many things that I've brought up. There are many good reasons why they are so widely disliked in the Silicon Valley and the nickname for the company there is "the Beast from Redmond". They have decades of reputation for being a ruthless monopolist which enters markets to crush competition which they deem as threats to their Windows monopoly. None of this is new news, Microsoft has been a well-understood malevolent corporate entity for nearly as long as I've been alive.

You criticise MS of crushing and getting rid of competition, clearly lighting as a bad thing. Yet you want Sony monopoly on the other side of the coin, and MS gotten rid of. You make no sense.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Sony designed the PS4 based on developers feedback, not the 360. That was the whole point of their reveal conference.

In all fairness, did you expect Sony to say "The 360 kicked our ass and taught us a thing or two, so instead of splitting the memory pool like we did on PS3, we unified it. We made our focus on gaming, not media and ensured our architecture was as efficient as possible".

They literally took the 360 blueprint and re-used it. They're obviously going to disguise "Our competition did this so we copied" as "We spoke to developers".

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You criticise MS of crushing and getting rid of competition, clearly lighting as a bad thing. Yet you want Sony monopoly on the other side of the coin, and MS gotten rid of. You make no sense.

I see, so there were never companies named 'Nintendo' and 'Sega' which were competitors to Sony before Microsoft entered the industry.

I swear that most Xbox fans were born after 2001, it's the only way they could be completely unaware that the gaming industry existed before Microsoft entered it. They probably don't know that a world once existed where Nintendo was the dominant player in gaming, having first pushed Atari out in the 1980's, and that Sony didn't even enter the industry until 1994.

 

[dragonelite]

You criticise MS of crushing and getting rid of competition, clearly lighting as a bad thing. Yet you want Sony monopoly on the other side of the coin, and MS gotten rid of. You make no sense.

In what branch has a monopoly ever been good or the perfect solution.

 

[rakanishu]

I see, so there were never companies named 'Nintendo' and 'Sega' which were competitors to Sony before Microsoft entered the industry.

I swear that most Xbox fans were born after 2001, it's the only way they could be completely unaware that the gaming industry existed before Microsoft entered it. They probably don't know that a world once existed where Nintendo was the dominant player in gaming, having first pushed Atari out in the 1980's, and that Sony didn't even enter the industry until 1994.

So you think that Sega leaving the hardware market was a good thing, and now Microsoft should do the same? Otherwise that's a pretty stupid argument to make. What are you really saying? Can you please explain your logic behind thinking less competition is better?

 

[runnin_blue]

So long as I can play Sony and Nintendo games on it then I really don't care who makes the hardware. As far as I'm concerned gaming is in it's infancy until the day that you can play Mario and The Last of Us on the same console, just as home videos were in their infancy until after a single platform had become the standard and the world could move on to appreciating the content ov er the hardware - the problem is we have been stuck in this ridiculous limbo for decades, it only took home video a few years.

You know, I saw an interesting interview once of someone who, years ago, travelled to the U.S.A from the Soviet Union.

He said that walking through an American mall one day, he was confused and astounded when he saw a cheese shop.

"What is that?" he asked his American friend.

"It's a cheese shop. They sell cheese." his friend responded.

"But how can a shop sell nothing but cheese?" the tourist asked.

"Well, they have many different types of cheese. Carambert, Ricotta, Bocconcini, Mozarella, Fetta, Cheddar etc."

"Amazing." said the traveller.

"In the Soviet Union we have only one type, it's just cheese."

 

[anothertech]

Absolute 100% truth. Back when Xbox was its own division under Gates and Ballmer, gaming had its own independent culture at MS. Under Nedella Xbox is an extension of the whole company. The sole existence is to help the company maintain its profit levels and stem decreasing market share.

Gaming will always be a part of MS but at the same time it'll never be a part of MS, if you understand what I mean.

I agree with this.

 

[Joni]

Sony could have a monopoly but it wouldn't mean they don't have competition. Nintendo has an effective handheld monopoly, but they face competition from other sectors, like console gaming and smartphone gaming. If Sony had a monopoly and they would fuck up by asking $1000 for a next console, they will quickly be punished by people going to PC or smartphone or thousands of other entertainment options. This isn't like let's say search engines where you cannot really function without one and there are no real alternatives. There are plenty other gaming options out there, even if there is only one console.

 

[Behlel]

So you think that Sega leaving the hardware market was a good thing, and now Microsoft should do the same? Otherwise that's a pretty stupid argument to make. What are you really saying? Can you please explain your logic behind thinking less competition is better?

SEGA was struggling before leaving, they made the right choice when they closed their hardware section. it was useless in the market and when the customer don't buy your product you have to consider even to say goodbye and leave.

 

[Maxrunner]

It's not mismanagement, the Xbox division is being completely repurposed. The big boys in Redmond aren't interested in home consoles and they certainly aren't interested in first party game development. Going forward, third party efforts will slow down massively and those that are announced will be as the Phantom Dust debacle, husks of games designed to promote other software and services.

They're trying to desperately hold onto their enterprise and (already faltering) consumer OS monopolies, the Xbox is nothing but a brand with minor potential to aid in the retention of the latter and not through console manufacturing or game development but through service provision.

If Nintendo would bid for Rare now i wonder what would be Ms answer...it seems the gaming division is being ordered to lower costs and thats probably why scalebound went down

 

[ResidentDante]

I see, so there were never companies named 'Nintendo' and 'Sega' which were competitors to Sony before Microsoft entered the industry.

I swear that most Xbox fans were born after 2001, it's the only way they could be completely unaware that the gaming industry existed before Microsoft entered it. They probably don't know that a world once existed where Nintendo was the dominant player in gaming, having first pushed Atari out in the 1980's, and that Sony didn't even enter the industry until 1994.

Thanks for making your answer personal. I was not born in 2001 for your information.

What are you really getting at as a point here? You end up further illustrating a clearly frustrated hate against the Xbox brand as you further collectively put them all together as people born in 2001.

Competition has always been healthy for the industry and yes I am completely aware of earlier companies that have come and gone. Yet I have never wished for any of these to go, but business made it this way.

Take the NES dominance that Sega tried to get into with it's Master System, but didn't really succeed on until Sega of America cleverly marketed the Mega Drive/Geneis and gained back at least almost 50% of the market in the US. It kept Nintendo on their toes. Same with Sony, they made the others rethink the rules and market themselves differently. Sega died and in came Microsoft.

Why on earth would you want a competitor that keeps Sony from going lazy again away? It will merely end up in one company getting a far to large share in the market. Take one look at launch PS3 and it's arrogant and lazy launch which was a result of a over-dominated Sony lead with it's PS2 and then compare it to late generation PS3 offerings. Sony were forced to change and incorporate from their competitors new ideas. You can't keep something the same forever and ignore innovation that competition brings to the table. It's healthy.

 

[InquisitorAles]

Thanks for making your answer personal. I was not born in 2001 for your information.

What are you really getting at as a point here? You end up further illustrating a clearly frustrated hate against the Xbox brand as you further collectively put them all together as people born in 2001.

Competition has always been healthy for the industry and yes I am completely aware of earlier companies that have come and gone. Yet I have never wished for any of these to go, but business made it this way.

Take the NES dominance that Sega tried to get into with it's Master System, but didn't really succeed on until Sega of America cleverly marketed the Mega Drive/Geneis and gained back at least almost 50% of the market in the US. It kept Nintendo on their toes. Same with Sony, they made the others rethink the rules and market themselves differently. Sega died and in came Microsoft.

Why on earth would you want a competitor that keeps Sony from going lazy again away? It will merely end up in one company getting a far to large share in the market. Take one look at launch PS3 and it's arrogant and lazy launch which was a result of a over-dominated Sony lead with it's PS2 and then compare it to late generation PS3 offerings. Sony were forced to change and incorporate from their competitors new ideas. You can't keep something the same forever and ignore innovation that competition brings to the table. It's healthy.

Well said.

 

[rakanishu]

SEGA was struggling before leaving, they made the right choice when they closed their hardware section. it was useless in the market and when the customer don't buy your product you have to consider even to say goodbye and leave.

Yeah... That has nothing to do with my questions, but okay. SEGA didn't leave because they just chose to give up. They HAD to give up because there was no way they could keep bleeding money. That's business, and it sucks when competition dies, but that's just the order of things. I just want to know how there are people on GAF who wants to see the competition fail to the point of having to leave the industry.

 

[nekkid]

Yeah... That has nothing to do with my questions, but okay. SEGA didn't leave because they just chose to give up. They HAD to give up because there was no way they could keep bleeding money. That's business, and it sucks when competition dies, but that's just the order of things. I just want to know how there are people on GAF who wants to see the competition fail to the point of having to leave the industry.

Because that means they "won".

 

[ViciousDS]

For what it's worth, I don't know any developers that have had a positive experience working directly with Microsoft. They're extremely controlling and hands-on, and everything is designed by committee and requires huge levels of executive buy-in. They are so desperate for success that everything becomes a giant exercise in avoiding risk, to the point that they don't even trust the developer they hired to make the game.

The main issue, though, is that MS is constantly changing overall strategies on a whim, and that impacts the products. Because everything has to fit the overall strategy, even if there was nothing really wrong with the original product before.

i.e. Signing a game as a single player game, then adding co-op later because the overall company strategy changed.

They also know that they're Microsoft, and they have a lot of clout and can't be easily sued. So they really play hardball on prices, contract renegotations, etc. even when they're in the wrong or drastically change the scope of a project.

For example, a friend's studio signed their indie game with MS. It was for a new MS platform, and they had to constantly renegotiate the contract to get paid. Why? Because they technically kept missing milestones because Microsoft wasn't delivering the APIs for that platform on time.

Oh, I wouldn't doubt if a lot of their policies fucked things up.

Scalebound for example probably wasn't meant to have a lot of things but HAD to be put in their.

I wouldn't doubt if a microtransaction store had to be there for the multiplayer and customization to make more money. Microsoft probably kept changing the vision to fit their live service needs.

Everything has to be a service to microsoft these days......and I have no doubt this came down to huge disagreements between Kamiya being the director and his vision vs microsofts vision.

 

[theindieboy]

Had a very interesting conversation with my boss who used to work for Microsoft (not in xbox division but has worked in gaming elsewhere) basically Windows and Office divisions are the big boys at MS, that get to boss everyone around, I think this is what happening here. Microsoft also has a really cut throat culture where you have to meet your goals at the expense of everyone else and are rewarded for it. However they basically shake up the company every six months so won’t be too long before XBOX is hopefully out the Windows division, which I think is causing the current focus/troubles. The Windows Division probably just needed to cut costs and the games were big line items to eliminate, even though they would have likely made a return. I feel sorry for Phil I am sure he is trying his best but when his marching orders change every year/6 months makes it hard to build momentum/games. Games take longer than most software to develop and when compared to other MS software are probably much higher investment and not as great return % which when some accountant is looking at a spread sheet does not look good but they miss the fact the games sell hardware at a far greater percentage than the new MS Project software would encourage people to buy Windows 10.

This has been presented without bias, the best I can. I
am a big Sony fan but I never want Xbox to fail and thing a strong Xbox, Sony & Nintendo is only good for the industry even if you only own ones hardware. Monopolies are never good as stifle innovation, and to be honest feel like Sony have been slacking in 2016 on the OS front in particular as they are doing so well, don’t want to see a return to the launch of PS3 days. Anyway thought this might be interesting to some.

 

[lukeskymac]

RDR 2 with the best visuals will sell Scorpio. Picture the sun setting in HDR and a nice folk song playing....

SOLD.

If Microsoft continues pushing "REAL 4K" instead of checkered rendering, the difference is going to be very small.

 

[E92 M3]

Fanboys are ridiculous: "I don't want competition in the gaming industry."

 

[lukeskymac]

Fanboys are ridiculous: "I don't want competition in the gaming industry."

Microsoft's "competition" has arguably harmed this industry more than benefited it.

 

[Outrun]

Microsoft's "competition" has arguably harmed this industry more than benefited it.

No it hasn't.

Lots of good games to compliment that of the competition. You know, that is the way it is supposed to be, right?

 

[lukeskymac]

No it hasn't.

Lots of good games to compliment that of the competition. You know, that is the way it is supposed to be, right?

Name me one single good IP Microsoft's responsible for aside from Forza.

 

[Kill3r7]

If Microsoft continues pushing "REAL 4K" instead of checkered rendering, the difference is going to be very small.

I think their best bet moving forward will be to have developers make all X1 games with adaptive resolution and offer an unlocked frame rate option. Actually this would be the best option for both Scorpio and Pro.

 

[LukasTaves]

Very well.

-Digital storefront: 360 did not pioneer the digital storefront.

It predates the iPhone app store, and predates the first publisher releasing a game on steam.

-Operating Console: what? And if Collingwood means what I think they mean, it's still not true because devices like the PSP came before 360.

He means the first console OS that you could have access to a store, see trailers and news on the console itself, send messages to friends, take a look at your library, go to your friends list and start playing together, to have apps (Netflix came to 360 long before even the ipad version)

-360 is the reason the PS4 is how it is? What is even meant by this?

Back before 360 sony was all about using proprietary components on their consoles, even if it meant bad dev support in exchange for a little bit extra performance. Whereas Ms option to go to more off shelf designs were frowned upon. Ps4 is a complete shift for that line of though going to a proven well documented architecture.

-The indie game scene existed before Microsoft even entered the games business, let alone the Xbox line. More fan delusions. What "ushered" in the indie game scene is widespread adoption of digital distribution, which was helped by more than just XBLA.

Indies existed before, but the indies that exploded the indie revolution were all on 360. You have to remember that we could download bite sized games on 360 before even the app store on ios was launched.

Valve opened up steam for self publishing in may 2008 (but still curated). Braid launched in august 2008, steam only started becoming a sales juggernaut in 2009. You can definitely say 360 was right at the center of the indie scene when it all begun.

 

[Branduil]

I don't see MS completely abandoning the Xbox brand as long as they own it, but I suppose selling it off might be possible. Who would buy it, though? At this point Xbox is almost entirely an American brand, with little appeal elsewhere. Maybe someone can buy Sega at the same time and give us the Xbox Dreamcast 2, heh.

 

[LukasTaves]

Name me one single good IP Microsoft's responsible for aside from Forza.

Mass Effect.

 

[onemanasylum]

Mass Effect.

Bioware...nothing to do with MS.

 

[PuppetMaster]

I think their best bet moving forward will be to have developers make all X1 games with adaptive resolution and offer an unlocked frame rate option. Actually this would be the best option for both Scorpio and Pro.

A lot of people strongly dislike unlocked frame rates. Thats why most games lock or at least give the option to lock.

 

[LukasTaves]

Bioware...nothing to do with MS.

No, they greenliting, funding and putting the market muscle behind the game had nothing to do with them

 

[onemanasylum]

No, they greenliting, funding and putting the market muscle behind the game had nothing to do with them

They greenlight/funded ME? Source? Marketing it doesn't mean they were responsible for the ip. It is on Playstation, if they funded it that is doubtful. . If it were an MS ip it would not be on PS now, MS didn't make Mass Effect at all.

By your logic Sony is responsible for GTA 3.

 

[Outrun]

Name me one single good IP Microsoft's responsible for aside from Forza.

Are we doing list warz?

Don't be silly.

XBL is just one way that MS made console gaming better.

 

[LukasTaves]

They greenlight/funded ME? Source? Marketing it doesn't mean they were responsible for the ip. It is on Playstation, if they funded it that is doubtful. . If it were an MS ip it would not be on PS now, MS didn't make Mass Effect at all.

They published the first ME for Christ sake.

Just because they didn't required the IP like Sony doesn't make their contribution any less than what it was. If anything it shows how much more Ms has made for the market for funding projects they didn't even own.

 

[onemanasylum]

They published the first ME for Christ sake.

Just because they didn't required the IP like Sony doesn't make their contribution any less than what it was. If anything it shows how much more Ms has made for the market for funding projects they didn't even own.

Publish, k, still waiting for your source they greenlit/funded it, plus they never made ME. Being a publisher does not make them responsible for the ip. Just because it was a third party publishing deal doesn't make them responsible for the ip. Bioware was making it regardless if MS swooped up the marketing.

 

[rakanishu]

Microsoft's "competition" has arguably harmed this industry more than benefited it.

Name one way competition has harmed the industry as a whole. Also, try reading up on quotation marks.