Okay, that's fine. But here's my problem with people saying that: their products are not sub-par. If they were, it doesn't matter how much money they have, they would not be as popular as they are today. Windows is probably used by (now this is a guess, so if I am off, I'm sorry) 90-plus% of the people who have a PC. Now that has to say something for their product. Okay, once again, I agree. They have monopolized the PC industry and Windows could be better, but Microsoft is not going to overtake Sony in this generation or the next(IMO). The Playstation brand is too popular with the average gamer. IMO, they will be a lot closer with the Xbox2 against the PS3. You have to admit, without Microsoft or the Xbox, the PS2 would (most likely) still be $300, or $250 at the least.

Why not?

Who wins because of that? We do, the consumers. And, do you honestly think that if Sony or Nintendo were in the same position, they wouldn't do the same thing?

Okay, fine, but people can argue that since the Xbox, is Sony's main competitor, without the Xbox, Sony would have a "near monopoly", just as they did when the Ps1 went up against the Nintendo64.

I may have been out of the loop when this happened but how did MS buy its way into the console businnes? I had always assumed that to sell a product first you have to design it then then manufature it. Did MS "buy" any of these from a third party?

Wow. I almost died when I read that. Ever hear of a little operating system called Windows?

Because they have a nice monopoly to keep them in the black.

It's different when the world's richest and most ruthless company does it.

In a way but the Xbox isn't really selling all that well. I think the Cube's a bigger threat, especially in Japan.

Do you really see this as a battle for set-top box supremacy? I hope your wrong becuse I just want to play games, not have my living room controlled by M$.

Bungie springs to mind. I believe they raided several companies for employees as well. But pretty much what everybody else has done. Its just the evil empire doing. Like Kellehair alluded to, perception.

Do you use Windows?

They spent $1B on advertsing and they sell each Xbox at a $125 loss. Plus they bought a bunch of exclusives.

I dont think anybody wants to see that except for MS. But do you really see Joe Six Pack running Linux? Or Jobs pulling his head out of his arrogant ass? MS can continue to turn the OS into a media outlet because they can. And really is the alternative so great anyway? You dont think Sony will license out the little developer?

Over the past 2 years, Microsoft has lost 50% of its value. Over the past year, about 25%. I do believe he said year or two, which the 50% number falls into.

Logitech has actually gone up 34% since July 18, 2000.

The Xbox is not accountable for the entire stock value loss. Pending lawsuits, monopoly regulations, skittish investors, Xbox losses, among many other factors have brought down the value. Does Microsoft have cash reserves?, sure. The point is, investors (myself being one) do not like to see projects with negative returns. That is what the Xbox is. Losses affect earnings, which in turn affect stock price. They are expecting to lose some $750-900 million this year, and I'm gonna be happy? I think not. The stock price is supposed to reflect the expected value of all future earnings. Now the Xbox is losing me money, and I'm getting pissed. Do you believe me to be alone? I think not. Much more of this, and investors will pressure Bill to pull the plug.

Oh, but it's okay if Sony controls your living room?

Thats not buying your way into business, thats called market penetration...(read: unavoidable business strategy). When entering a market(in this case the video game market), there are certain barriers to entry. To be successful in said entry you have to negotiate those barriers. Microsoft would have been happy to charge $325 or even $500 for their console in order to turn a profit, and I guess to make YOU happy. Unfortunately they couldnt, because PS2 and GC were at a much lower price. The market designated the price not Msoft. The advertising was also necessary to create brand awareness.

Go home and read your Intro to Econ book, then come back and bitch that we only had to pay $200 or $300 for console.

Absurd.

If Windows was that bad, would most of the PC community be using it? Why wouldn't they use one of the alternatives?

And which of those factors (throw in the general tech sector economy as well) has the least effect on the bottom line?

Plus the XBox is more about synergy and getting MS out of the office and into the living room. Hailstorm, .net, Freestyle, pile all of those costs on top of the boxs and look at what theyre spending to get there. Theyre thinking greener pastures and new markets.

None of which is much different from what Sony did when they rolled out the Playstation. They lost money on every system they sold for the first for years, and advertised the hell out of the system.

Sony and Nintendo have huge adverstising budgets as and both of them bought exclusives too (Resident Evil and Grand Theft Auto ring any bells?)

All of these companies are there to make money. Each wants to demolish their competition and "win" the console war. If you think Sony or Nintendo is any different from Microsoft in their business practices, you're being naive. They didn't get where they are today by being benevolent. They'll under-price they're products and buy out the competition with equal abandon. Since Microsoft is an American company, we're more familiar with the way they do business.

Windows is that bad. There's simply no alternative. It's a huge monopoly. No one really bothers inventing new OSs because they have no chance of succeeding as all the programs people need to use are windows or MAC based.

So basically the only choice anyone has is a version of Windows, or buying a much more stable MAC with OS 10 and limiting their software choices.


As for the settop box thing, I think it sucks. I have no interest in one and won't buy one regardless of who it's from. I don't care if it's from MS, Sony or Nintendo. I want my gaming machine to just play games. I don't need a stupid box that does everything. No company needs to have that kind of control over my entertainment center. I'd give up gaming before buying a set-top box.

Thanks for bringing us back on topic Josh. I had to hop on a soapbox there for a minute =).

Im not really sure about this settop box thingy. Although, I have heard rave reviews for TIVO. I dont watch enough TV to rationalize the price of a standalone TIVO/PVR. But I love having a dvd integrated with my XBOX, its a space saver and the XBOX menus are neato. So I guess if I was looking for a new console, I would be more apt to buy this one if it had additional accesories I could use. It works for me b/c I am a part-time gamer.

-Jordan

How? I use it and think it's fine. Someone please tell me how Windows is terrible.

It's clunky, it freezes up all the time, and crashes way more than it should. All those can be applied to my experience with Windows 3.x, 95, 98, 2000 and ME. I haven't bothered upgrading to XP as ME so far has been the most stable of the ones I've used, which isn't saying much.

Anyway, my fiance has a brand new MAC with OS10 (she's a graphic designer) and it's stable as a rock. Enough so that when my computer is obsolete I'll just share hers and maybe get myself an Apple notebook. I'm not very fond of computers and only use them for typing papers, balancing my check book, and surfing the net, so having less software isn't a concern of mine. Especially when the trade off is stability.

Okay, thanks Josh! Heh, for some reason, my computer runs Windows 98 Second Edition and it doesnt freeze very often.

I had a Tivo that I won in a contest, the modem got fried and I didn't bother paying the $90 to get it repaired and chucked it in the dumster.

I simply didn't use it for anything other than the onscreen guide, as digital cable wasn't available in my area at the time and my landlord wouldn't let me put in a satellite.

Being able to pause was cool as well, but I hardly ever taped anything. There simply isn't much on TV that interest me enough to tape.

So I'm not willing to spend money on this crap, and don't want to have to pay more for a console that does this (and whatever else the incorporate into a set top box).

2000 was unstable for you? ME is considered the most unstable OS ever made while Windows 2000 *is* a rock. So is Windows XP.

Not that I don't agree with the current Windows is suck, but shouldn't we be talking about the new Xbox?

Ill give up gaming when they pry that spice controller from my cold dead hands. Im platform agnostic (or game whore, depending on your perspective) Ill go where the games are. PC, MS, Sony, or the big N.

I'm platform agnostic as well. I don't care about the brand, I just don't want a set top box period, regardless of who puts it out.

Gallant:

I used 2000 for a couple months on a lap top I borrowed off my brother, and it froze fairly often. It was better than 98. Strangly for me, Me rarely freezes or crashes. Maybe once a week, compared to once or more a day with the other OS's I tried.

As I said, I haven't bothered with XP, it's too expensive for me given that ME works pretty well on my comp, and I honestly am adverse to spending a single cent on anything MS puts out, aside from Office which is solid and better than the competition.

Hey if Microsoft wants to buy its way into the video game industry then let them!! They already caused the PS2 to drop to $199 and Gamecube to $149. IF Xbox wasnt there and we only had a choice of PS2 or Gamecube Why would either company drop their prices? Now with MS,Nintendo and Sony the next generation consoles should be even better. Let's see if MS can come out with a better console/game library than the other 2. Just because MS has billions of dollars and Windows doesn't mean jack when it comes to video games, They cant force us to play on their console.