Hmmm well they where not doing this at first otherwise I would of heard of it there where many complaining about this issue and I highly doubt they always did the reset, they may have but I still doubt itt. And that still does not change the fact that microsloft only cares about the money and what I was saying about windows xp and vista.
I have never liked Microsoft. Anyone who does is a fool.
They got big by smart business deals – not because of quality products. Back when windows 3.1 was around, there were many better OS’s. I could name about 5 at least. But because of business deals it became the most popular. Once it became the most popular – that became the reason to use it, not the quality.
So what OS do you use just out of curiosity?
That`s the question for all of them.....
O and yes,unless you are using the ORIGINAL software you prolly don`t have a clue how good windows really is becouse there is a diference between a hacked version and the original one.
and if you are using the original version and you still think it sucks......go linux....i`m sure there are lots of mmo`s for linux too
I have never liked Microsoft. Anyone who does is a fool.
They got big by smart business deals – not because of quality products. Back when windows 3.1 was around, there were many better OS’s. I could name about 5 at least. But because of business deals it became the most popular. Once it became the most popular – that became the reason to use it, not the quality.
So what OS do you use just out of curiosity?
Microsoft - I use it, but I don't like it. I don't like any of the choices at the moment - I'm waiting for an Amiga revival.
I think most tech savvy people have always know there were better alternatives out there. But that means your not main stream which creates conflicts with compatibility. You begin to feel like an outsider when nothing runs on your computer. So you have run windows inside you os anyways just to make anything work. i am personally happy that people are starting to realize there are alternative like Linux which run much better. windows 3.1 man thats old. But that was when Windows did have the market at it's feet. Everyone had a chance to become top dog Microsoft just did it best. Good try though apple!
Originally posted by BattleFelon In theory Microsoft could use Vista to hijack your computer or make sure your rig blows up as soon as a new operating system comes out. But they would absolutely get slaughtered in the press, in the federal court, and in the court of public opinion. Fortunately, Microsoft is one of the behemoth corporations that's actually afraid enough of federal oversight to not pull some of the stunts they've done in the past. Yes I understand Microsoft has a monopoly on an important product for global trade and productivity, but so does big oil. And guess which industry is more likely to get slapped for unfair trade practices or abusing their monopoly?
If you were to take a look at how long MS supported old OS, you would find the time is getting shorter. While they won't "blow up your rig" "as soon as" their new OS is released, it's a fair bet that after the media hype has died down about MS's next big thing they will quietly announce they won't support the old OS. Care to guess how much longer XP will be supported?
"that's actually afraid enough of federal oversight"
That's a laugh. What happened in their big US court case? Oh that's right, it died out when a MS-friendly President took office.
MS is not a monopoly, but migrating from Windows is such a headache that in many ways it acts like one. As for who is more likely to "get slapped", are you saying that if one industry can do it worse that makes it OK for another industry to do it not as badly? That's like saying that if there's someone who can kill you, then it's acceptable for someone else to come into your house and beat the crap out of you. Unfair trade practices are bad no matter the magnitude.
Derrrr. of course I know its business, but then business can be both logical and illogical, good and evil, smart and stupid. Saying its just business says that if its business, its some how ok. Like if you walk into your house and someone is doing your wife, they give your wife some money afterwards and she tells you , "dont take it so hard honey, its just business".
Actually, no, nothing like this.
Matey sold out his business to Microsoft who used it to promote their XBox.
Not Illogical, not stupid, (good or evil WTF? I now have a mental image of you in a pulpit making rattlesnakes bite your arm), and not even remotely comparable finding out your wife is a prostitute.
Matey didn't stay on with Microsoft after he sold the company to them, very soon after the brains drained, the studio folded. Regardless of the Publishing companies name, or platform they sought to develop on, this is just regular every day business. Happens all the time.
Luckily, it's a well paid and growth industry, new up and coming talent outweighs old retiring talent. The rewards available to a games developer increase by the day.
Maybe those immensely humorless nerds over at Frontier will finally finish Elite IV and no one will ever care about Freelancer again.
If you were to take a look at how long MS supported old OS, you would find the time is getting shorter. While they won't "blow up your rig" "as soon as" their new OS is released, it's a fair bet that after the media hype has died down about MS's next big thing they will quietly announce they won't support the old OS. Care to guess how much longer XP will be supported?
"that's actually afraid enough of federal oversight"
That's a laugh. What happened in their big US court case? Oh that's right, it died out when a MS-friendly President took office.
MS is not a monopoly, but migrating from Windows is such a headache that in many ways it acts like one. As for who is more likely to "get slapped", are you saying that if one industry can do it worse that makes it OK for another industry to do it not as badly? That's like saying that if there's someone who can kill you, then it's acceptable for someone else to come into your house and beat the crap out of you. Unfair trade practices are bad no matter the magnitude.
Well seeing as how they supported Windows '98 up until the time they released Vista, I would say they'll support it up until the time that they release their next OS which is probably several years down the line. I think supporting an OS one release behind the current one is pretty decent. And in fact you can still get updates to Windows '98 if you go to the update page, they just aren't releasing any new updates for '98 so in fact Windows '98 is still being supported, it's just not still being updated.
Actually the case died out when Microsoft won on appeals and the Government decided not to pursue it any further. Even Bush knows when he's beat.
And actually Microsoft IS a monopoly. Somehow people think being a monopoly is a bad thing. It's not. We have had tons of them over the years. Do you drink Coke or Pepsi? They have a monopoly. Do you eat at McDonalds? Monopoly. Does that prevent others from attempting to get into the market? No. It's tough though. So why do we let these monopolies get away with it? The answer is because they aren't doing anything wrong. The only time a monopoly becomes a bad thing is when the monopolist tries to abuse their power. If McDonalds suddenly started charging twice as much as everyone else, would you continue to buy from them? What about Coke and Pepsi. If it was twice as much for one of their products as it was for anything else, would you continue to use them? So what about Microsoft? Have they raised their prices? Made it impossible to buy a computer because of the prices they charge? When you consider inflation, the cost of their software has stayed pretty consistent over the years. Do you cry when Coke/Pepsi LOWER their prices? Why not? I mean that could put some other company out of business couldn't they? So why cry when Microsoft GIVES away internet explorer? Is that a bad thing?
People try to point to Microsoft abusing it's monopoly in the Netscape deal, but the anti-trust laws do not attempt to protect businesses from a monopoly, they try to protect the consumer. Please tell me how you were harmed by Microsoft including a free browser with their operating system. Did that prevent you from logging onto the internet? Did it prevent you from installing and using Netscape? Did Microsoft raise it's prices so that PC manufacturers had to pay more to get this new technology? The answer to all of those is no. So you the consumer were not harmed. If you believed that Netscape was a superior product to Internet Explorer you were free to install it and use it. If you were not willing to pay for it, then obviously you didn't think it was enough of a better product to warrant the purchase. That's how capitalism works. You have to have a better product if you want people to pay for it. Netscape didn't. That's why they didn't succeed. Not because Microsoft forced them out, but because they offered a similar product for less money and Netscape couldn't compete. That's not against the law. That's what this country is founded on. Free enterprise. And why? Because it's good for YOU the consumer. That way you get the best products at the cheapest prices.
So please, if you really want to help Netscape, do them a favor and go purchase the Navigator. That will keep them in business, not whining about it here on these forums. And pick yourself up a copy of Linux while you're at it.
Consider what Microsoft is doing now with respect to gaming:
To play the latest and greatest PC games you must buy Vista. DX10 is exclusive. MS published games do not have a DX9 option.
Microsoft is charging $50/year so people can play online in exactly the same manner that PC players have been doing so for free for ages. Artifacts like "host advantage" are easy proof that users are hosting these games So what does this $50/year go to pay for? Not a damn thing. They charge it because Microsoft has a monopoly on the Xbox and they can get away with it. Microsoft's next plan is to bring this same subscription-for-nothing model to the PC, using popular games like Halo 2 to do it.
Microsoft offers new better performing accessories. And, despite technological improvements, charges more for these benefits. The $40 64 MB card is now a $50 512 MB card, despite that 1 gig flash drives (the same technology) cost only $25, if that. Likewise, a 120 gig HD for $180, where similar notebook HDs can be purchased for $70. On top of the fact that the Xbox will only use "authorized" storage devices for a good many features like profiles and game saves, preventing one from using an even cheaper USB hard drive.
Microsoft is trying to charge $70 or more for games. Extra content, something PC gamers typically get for free, instead gets charged for $5+ or more for content that is typically mostly developped at product release. Worse yet, this can encourage developers to release a game with only some of the content and offer the rest for an additional price. Games devalue rapidly in retail, but these downloaded content prices never change because shelf space is never at a premium. Games that can be had for $20 might still have $10 worth of downloadable content which add 2%, if that, to the value of the game.
Microsoft's downloadable content scheme obscures prices with its own currency and forces users to buy more than they intend to use, leaving leftover points that either encourages people to spend it on frivolous stuff or purchase more points to spend the ones they have.
Yeah... There's not a lot of what Microsoft is doing that I agree with. Yet, I own a 360... I just won't be buying the Xbox 3 when that comes out.
The entire reason MicroSoft can get away with alienating and annoying their customer base and still HAVE a customer base... compatibility. The average american citizen goes to 24 hour Wal-Mart at 3am... sees a PC game on a shelf... and has the urge to impulse buy... what OS can you impulse buy for at 3am? Yep... you have no choice whatsoever.
BUT WAIT! Here comes Vista... now you go to Wal-Mart at 3am... and you buy a $9.99 game... take it home, and low and behold IT HAS COMPATIBILITY ISSUES! So, you take it back and find out you cannot exchange open box software for anything except a replacement of the same title... to prevent piracy.
As a customer, you feel betrayed, but it was only $10, so you suck it up. You see Halo 2 for "Windows Vista"... you never played it on X-Box so you have no idea what a weak game it really is, you decide you DESERVE a new game, and shell out the $40 for it. Hey, at least it is 100% compatibile with Vista, right?
Until you get it home and learn that hot-rod new video card in your Vista machine is having issues with Vista Drivers...
Next day, new Vista Owner hits forums angry. Flames. Is full of MicroSoft hate. They look at the "alternatives"...
OS X... Linux... and in all honesty, that is about it.
They start looking at their favorite retailer... Wal-Mart... and check the VAST SELECTION of software available for OS X and Linux, to make an educated decision about what OS they are going to switch to now... and go home in misery empty handed.
MicroSoft's "monopoly" of the market has alot of factors that contribute. But I do suspect the reason consoles are still such stable sellers to gamers has more than a little do do with the entire situation. Nobody wants to fight compatibility issues at 3am. But that shiny new Wii is like the perfect girlfriend. It never says "No"... it never says "I don't like that"... and it never says on the box "works for Vista" and fails to work on the first try.
So... Opticaleye... do we use Windows? Yes. We do. but many of us wish we had a choice. And we are waiting, and hoping for a day we can exercise the ability to use a choice without cutting our own throats. In the meantime, MicroSoft can apply all the unfair pressure, bullcrap EULAs, and cutthroat business practices it likes, because for all intentions and effects, it does have an ironclad monopoly on the market.
If you were to take a look at how long MS supported old OS, you would find the time is getting shorter. While they won't "blow up your rig" "as soon as" their new OS is released, it's a fair bet that after the media hype has died down about MS's next big thing they will quietly announce they won't support the old OS. Care to guess how much longer XP will be supported?
"that's actually afraid enough of federal oversight"
That's a laugh. What happened in their big US court case? Oh that's right, it died out when a MS-friendly President took office.
MS is not a monopoly, but migrating from Windows is such a headache that in many ways it acts like one. As for who is more likely to "get slapped", are you saying that if one industry can do it worse that makes it OK for another industry to do it not as badly? That's like saying that if there's someone who can kill you, then it's acceptable for someone else to come into your house and beat the crap out of you. Unfair trade practices are bad no matter the magnitude.
WinXP is more stable than Vista atm and will be supported for some time to come. MS is still working the 'bugs' out of Vista on their End user side and PC makers the are struggling to keep up while making and selling PCs with defects.
If you're serious about XP, and gaming trends, check out WinXP Pro x64 Trial Kit, Free! ($6.41 S&H).
Normally I'd always jump the bandwagon when it comes to huge, evil companies forcing little, good pc software companies to become console companies or simply taking them apart, because I've seen it all too often but in this case I'm not so sure. Of course MS want to bump their xbox, but considering that they are still very much dependent on Windows as an OS I'd think they actually want to keep the pc game's market alive since it improves their overall sales. Personally I believe that people who don't own a console by now probably never will, so I can't see their interest in destroying the pc core all together.
That aside though, I do dislike the fact that in recent years all too many good pc game developers have been used for making console games, and when and if they get converted to pc they're often a clunky mess of a game not really taking advantage of a pc's capabilities. I don't believe the pc is dead as one hears from time to time but it really is a long shot back from those days in the 90's when one really hade a wide variety of great titles to choose from. So I really hope there will be some sort of revival for the pc games industry, because while I'm not saying console games are lame (I had loads of fun on my NES/SNES, RE on PS) overall I'd probably lose interest in gaming all together if I weren't able to play a strategy game or something more profound than the action orientated console titles.
Consider what Microsoft is doing now with respect to gaming: To play the latest and greatest PC games you must buy Vista. DX10 is exclusive. MS published games do not have a DX9 option. Microsoft is charging $50/year so people can play online in exactly the same manner that PC players have been doing so for free for ages. Artifacts like "host advantage" are easy proof that users are hosting these games So what does this $50/year go to pay for? Not a damn thing. They charge it because Microsoft has a monopoly on the Xbox and they can get away with it. Microsoft's next plan is to bring this same subscription-for-nothing model to the PC, using popular games like Halo 2 to do it. Microsoft offers new better performing accessories. And, despite technological improvements, charges more for these benefits. The $40 64 MB card is now a $50 512 MB card, despite that 1 gig flash drives (the same technology) cost only $25, if that. Likewise, a 120 gig HD for $180, where similar notebook HDs can be purchased for $70. On top of the fact that the Xbox will only use "authorized" storage devices for a good many features like profiles and game saves, preventing one from using an even cheaper USB hard drive. Microsoft is trying to charge $70 or more for games. Extra content, something PC gamers typically get for free, instead gets charged for $5+ or more for content that is typically mostly developped at product release. Worse yet, this can encourage developers to release a game with only some of the content and offer the rest for an additional price. Games devalue rapidly in retail, but these downloaded content prices never change because shelf space is never at a premium. Games that can be had for $20 might still have $10 worth of downloadable content which add 2%, if that, to the value of the game. Microsoft's downloadable content scheme obscures prices with its own currency and forces users to buy more than they intend to use, leaving leftover points that either encourages people to spend it on frivolous stuff or purchase more points to spend the ones they have. Yeah... There's not a lot of what Microsoft is doing that I agree with. Yet, I own a 360... I just won't be buying the Xbox 3 when that comes out.
Wow, lots of incomplete information 1) DX10 is Vista exclusive for a reason. They would have had to gimp it with all kinds of backwards compatibility to make it work on XP that would have taken a lot out of the capabilities of DX as well as made it much harder to develop for. 2) Microsoft is not charging $50 to play pc games online just as before. It's still free. $50 is for cross platform play between pc and 360. If you don't want that, you can play with other pc gamers for free.
3) Charging higher prices for console accessories. Yeah, that was Microsoft's idea. Isn't it funny that Nintendo has been ding that for long before Microsoft got into the console business, but because it's Nintendo it's ok.
4) Higher game costs are due to higher development costs. Prices for the extra content are set by developers, not Microsoft. Most free extras for PC games are made my modders, not the developers. The difference is that there are more downloads available instead of just holding off to put out an expansion pack.
It always amazes me how as soon as Microsoft's name is mentioned everyone starts making up complete bull just so they have a reason to whine and complain about everything.
"Wow, lots of incomplete information 1) DX10 is Vista exclusive for a reason. They would have had to gimp it with all kinds of backwards compatibility to make it work on XP that would have taken a lot out of the capabilities of DX as well as made it much harder to develop for. 2) Microsoft is not charging $50 to play pc games online just as before. It's still free. $50 is for cross platform play between pc and 360. If you don't want that, you can play with other pc gamers for free.
3) Charging higher prices for console accessories. Yeah, that was Microsoft's idea. Isn't it funny that Nintendo has been ding that for long before Microsoft got into the console business, but because it's Nintendo it's ok.
4) Higher game costs are due to higher development costs. Prices for the extra content are set by developers, not Microsoft. Most free extras for PC games are made my modders, not the developers. The difference is that there are more downloads available instead of just holding off to put out an expansion pack.
It always amazes me how as soon as Microsoft's name is mentioned everyone starts making up complete bull just so they have a reason to whine and complain about everything."
Point 1) DirectX10 could have very easily been made for full XP 64 compatibility. The prime reason MicroSoft did not go that route is because they are having ALOT of issues getting people to move to Vista from XP at all. This tactic is their only real hope to gain any credibility on the Vista platform. It is a cheap tactic, and may even work eventually. But there is NOTHING Vista can do for a gamer that XP 64 cannot do (except waste alot of your system resources and make your $4000 PC handle like a $2000 PC)... until MicroSoft implemented that retarded DX10 you are championing.
Point 2) His point was that M$ is charging people per year to use what is already there and basically free. Another cheap tactic. But when your newest OS cost you so much to make and has really poor sales, and your "superconsole" is getting owned left and right by the little Wii... well you do what you can.
Point 3) Nintendo has not historically been the gouging company. Heck, look at Wii. Or GameCube. Or back to the N64... I think you meant to say "Sony" and were thinking of how badly the system and accessories for the PS2, PS3, and even PSP have raped people's wallets. And in that you would have been 100% correct.
Point 4) If the end results of the "Higher Development Costs" yielded games with better spit, polish, and finish than other console's games, I would agree with you completely. But when you compare the MicroSoft $60+ first party games with the Nintendo Wii's $39-$49 first party games... well your arguement no longer holds water. The M$ titles ARE in fact overpriced. Period. I hate to sound like a broken record, I am really a Sega fan, not a nintendo fan... but compare the Wii's downloadable retro game content to M$'s... and suddenly you kinda feel silly even saying M$ is not overcharging, don't you?
"Wow, lots of incomplete information 1) DX10 is Vista exclusive for a reason. They would have had to gimp it with all kinds of backwards compatibility to make it work on XP that would have taken a lot out of the capabilities of DX as well as made it much harder to develop for. 2) Microsoft is not charging $50 to play pc games online just as before. It's still free. $50 is for cross platform play between pc and 360. If you don't want that, you can play with other pc gamers for free.
3) Charging higher prices for console accessories. Yeah, that was Microsoft's idea. Isn't it funny that Nintendo has been ding that for long before Microsoft got into the console business, but because it's Nintendo it's ok.
4) Higher game costs are due to higher development costs. Prices for the extra content are set by developers, not Microsoft. Most free extras for PC games are made my modders, not the developers. The difference is that there are more downloads available instead of just holding off to put out an expansion pack.
It always amazes me how as soon as Microsoft's name is mentioned everyone starts making up complete bull just so they have a reason to whine and complain about everything."
Point 1) DirectX10 could have very easily been made for full XP 64 compatibility. The prime reason MicroSoft did not go that route is because they are having ALOT of issues getting people to move to Vista from XP at all. This tactic is their only real hope to gain any credibility on the Vista platform. It is a cheap tactic, and may even work eventually. But there is NOTHING Vista can do for a gamer that XP 64 cannot do (except waste alot of your system resources and make your $4000 PC handle like a $2000 PC)... until MicroSoft implemented that retarded DX10 you are championing.
Point 2) His point was that M$ is charging people per year to use what is already there and basically free. Another cheap tactic. But when your newest OS cost you so much to make and has really poor sales, and your "superconsole" is getting owned left and right by the little Wii... well you do what you can.
Point 3) Nintendo has not historically been the gouging company. Heck, look at Wii. Or GameCube. Or back to the N64... I think you meant to say "Sony" and were thinking of how badly the system and accessories for the PS2, PS3, and even PSP have raped people's wallets. And in that you would have been 100% correct.
Point 4) If the end results of the "Higher Development Costs" yielded games with better spit, polish, and finish than other console's games, I would agree with you completely. But when you compare the MicroSoft $60+ first party games with the Nintendo Wii's $39-$49 first party games... well your arguement no longer holds water. The M$ titles ARE in fact overpriced. Period. I hate to sound like a broken record, I am really a Sega fan, not a nintendo fan... but compare the Wii's downloadable retro game content to M$'s... and suddenly you kinda feel silly even saying M$ is not overcharging, don't you?
Your fist point is complete bull. Just because you don't want to live in reality don't mean you should make stuff up. The decision to make DX10 Vista only was made a long time before Vista came out. The only way that makes sense is that yes, it's hard to sell an operating system before it's released. Make a $4000 computer run like a $2000 one. I'd be willing to bet you never used the final release version of Vista or you would know what bull that is. You don't even need a $2000 computer to run Vista well. Then again, I'm sure the world you see with your head shoved so far up your ass is very different than the real one.
Again, Microsoft is not charging pc users to play online. That is fact, deal with it. It's for cross platform only. What does the wii have to do with that?
Three, obviously you are a biased fanboy. Nintendo overcharged for console accessories before Sony got into the market as well. Then again from the points your making, you might not have been born yet during those days.
Once again, biased fanboy crap. More money is getting put into developing games for the 260 because of the higher quality graphics. The Wii is the same power level as the original X-Box. Last gen development teams = last gen development costs. It costs more to put a game on 360 than it does the Wii. It's comparing apples to oranges.
Here's some quotes directly from the "Competitive Impact Statement" that can be found on the Department of Justice website. It's a pretty good summary of what went on in the browser wars between Microsoft and Netscape. My comments are in red.
"In December 1994, Netscape first marketed a Web browser called Navigator. Within months, Navigator was the preeminent Web browser. Microsoft became deeply concerned that Netscape was moving its business in a direction that could diminish the applications barrier to entry and thus decided to eliminate the threat that Navigator would become a viable alternative platform for applications. Microsoft first tried to reach an agreement with Netscape in June 1995, pursuant to which Netscape would have stopped efforts to develop Navigator into "platform-level" (i.e., API-exposing) browsing software for the Windows 95 operating system that was to be released later that summer; in return, Microsoft proposed to refrain from competing with Netscape in developing browsers for other operating systems. "
"Microsoft warned Netscape that timely access to critical technical information about Windows APIs information that Netscape needed to make its browser run well on Windows 95 depended on its acquiescence. Had Netscape acquiesced in Microsoft's proposal, it would have become all but impossible for Navigator or any other browser rival to pose a platform threat to Windows. "
Typical business meeting. If you don't think this type of stuff goes on at every single meeting between 2 large competing businesses you're simply naive.
"Netscape did not accept Microsoft's proposal, and in response, Microsoft withheld from Netscape crucial Windows-related technical information that it routinely provided to others, and delayed the provision of necessary APIs, so that Netscape was excluded from most of the 1995 holiday selling season. Moreover, once it became clear to senior executives at Microsoft that Netscape would not abandon its efforts to develop Navigator into a platform, Microsoft focused its efforts on ensuring that few developers would write their applications to rely on the APIs that Navigator exposed. "
Ok, so this is pretty dirty, but Microsoft is under no obligation to make sure that Netscape received that documentation in a timely manner. What they did was not against the law, merely dirty tactics.
"Microsoft understood that software developers would only write to the APIs exposed by Navigator in numbers large enough to threaten the applications barrier if they believed that Navigator would emerge as the standard software employed to browse the Web. If Microsoft could demonstrate that Netscape would not become the standard and that Microsoft's browser, Internet Explorer, would meet or exceed Netscape's browser usage share, developers would continue to focus their efforts on the Windows platform. Therefore, to protect the applications barrier to entry, Microsoft embarked on a multifaceted campaign to maximize Internet Explorer's share of usage and to minimize Navigator's. "
Nothing here but good business decisions. Of course they realized that Netscape was a threat and made plans to deal with it. That's what every good business does. It's HOW you do that, that's important. This doesn't say HOW they planned to do it, only that they planned to do it.
"Decision-makers at Microsoft worried that simply developing its own attractive browser product, providing it to consumers free of charge, and promoting it vigorously would not divert enough browser usage from Navigator to neutralize Navigator as a platform. Thus, rather than confine itself to improving and promoting Internet Explorer as a competitor to Navigator, Microsoft decided to constrict Netscape's access to the two distribution channels that led most efficiently to browser usage: installation by OEMs on new personal computers and distribution by Internet Access Providers ("IAPs"). Users rarely switched from whatever browsing software was placed most readily at their disposal, which was usually the browsing software installed on their computer by the OEM or supplied by their IAP when they signed up for Internet service. Microsoft thus sought to ensure that, to as great an extent as possible, OEMs and IAPs bundled and promoted Internet Explorer to the exclusion of Navigator. "
Again, nothing but smart business decisions here. Nothing inherently dirty or underhanded here.
"Microsoft largely succeeded in exiling Navigator from the crucial OEM distribution channel. By January 1998, Microsoft executive Joachim Kempin was able to report to CEO Bill Gates that Navigator was being shipped through only 4 of the 60 OEM distribution sub-channels, and even then most often in a position much less likely to lead to usage than would Internet Explorer's position. By early 1999, Navigator was present on the desktop of only a tiny percentage of the personal computers that OEMs shipped. "
Whoa!!!! Back this thing up please. All this says is that they succeeded. It' doesn't mention HOW they did it, only that they did it.
"Similarly, Microsoft's IAP channel restrictions significantly hampered Netscape's ability to distribute Navigator: they caused Internet Explorer's usage share to surge; they caused Navigator's usage share to plummet; they raised Netscape's own costs; and they sealed off a major portion of the IAP channel from the prospect of recapture by Navigator. "
More of the same, simply WHAT they did, not HOW they did it. They are trying to imply dirty tactics, but have not made mention of any other than the withholding of technical documentation. I mean really, if someone is competing against you are you gonna simply hand over the tools to allow them to do it? Wouldn't you yourself only do the bare minimum of what you had to do? Wouldn't ANY company do this?
"To help ensure that developers would not view Navigator as truly cross-platform middleware, Microsoft also pressured Apple to make Navigator less readily accessible on Apple personal computers. As leverage to obtain Apple's compliance, Microsoft threatened to cancel development of its "Office for Macintosh" software, which, as Microsoft recognized, was critical to Apple's business. Microsoft required Apple to make Internet Explorer its default browser and restricted Apple's freedom to feature and promote non-Microsoft browsing software, in order to protect the applications barrier to entry. "
Ok, here again this is the type of stuff that happens all over the world between competing companies. Microsoft has every right to cancel development of it's products at any time for any reason they deem appropriate. In other words, they simply let Apple know that it would be in there best interests to work with them rather than against them. It's called business people, you don't get anywhere just simply bending over and letting people stick it to ya.
"As part of its effort to hamper distribution of Navigator and to discourage the development of software that used non-Microsoft technology, Microsoft also targeted Independent Software Vendors ("ISVs"). Microsoft contractually required ISVs to use Internet Explorer-specific technologies in return for timely and commercially necessary technical information about Windows, and precluded important ISVs from distributing Navigator with their products. "
Ok, again this is a going a bit far maybe, but still they were within the law. No where does it say they illegally withheld information, only that it's wasn't "timely".
"Microsoft's actions succeeded in eliminating the threat that the Navigator browser posed to Microsoft's operating system monopoly. Foreclosed from effectively using the OEM and IAP distribution channels by Microsoft's exclusionary conduct, Navigator was relegated to more costly and significantly less effective modes of distribution. The adverse business effects of these restrictions also deterred Netscape from undertaking technical innovations in Navigator that might have attracted consumers and revenues. "
I don't know about you, but I don't believe that simply witholding documentation and having some "heart to heart" sessions with Apple, Netscape and the OEM's was completely responsible for this. Microsoft put out a very capable browser and included it with it's operating system. You don't think the fact that there was already a browser included with the operating system had something to do with the fact that Netscape couldn't get a foothold with OEM's? It's not possible? Sorry, but I think that was the MAIN reason that Netscape failed, not withholding documentation and scare tactics.
"Because of its reduced access to efficient distribution channels, Navigator's share of browser use fell precipitously. Even though Navigator's installed base of users increased during the browser war, the population of browser users expanded so quickly that Navigator's usage share fell dramatically even as its installed base grew. Navigator lost its ability to become the standard software for browsing the Web because Microsoft had successfully -- and illegally -- excluded Navigator from that status. "
Ok, agree with everything except those 2 words, "and illegally". What exactly did Microsoft do that was illegal? Witheld documentation that they were not required legally to provide in a timely fashion? Sure, they flexed their muscles a bit, but they didn't do anything illegal, a least not anything they've talked about up to this point.
Like I've said before I've read most of the court documents and it's all pretty much the same as this. There are allegations of wrongdoing, but no proof of any laws being broken. Sure Microsoft played hardball with Netscape and Apple. And yes, they've played hardball with a bunch of other competitor's too. All it's proved is that Microsoft is good at playing hardball. Sure, Gates and company see how far the line can be pushed, but they are careful not to cross it. You may not like them for that, but when there are millions and millions of dollars on the line, what do you expect? Everyone to just sit and play nicely with each other? LOL
You KEEP calling me a fanboy... just WTF am I a fanboy of??? I don't like M$, sure, but Nintendo is guilty of several of the same practices M$ has been over the years... all I said is the Wii is a much better value for the money, and owns the hell out of 360 these days... I openly took a shot at Sony... several in fact... so WTF am I such a fanboy of???
Little bit about me... I own my own business... I write custom PC applications... two of them in the last 3 years I wrote for MicroSoft. I know a LITTLE bit about software. Software has no inherent limitations. None. Zilch. The only limit is HARDWARE limitations, and the capability of the software's creator. Therefore there is NO POSSIBLE REASON IN THE WORLD for DX10 to not work on XP 64, from a design viewpoint. MicroSoft DECIDED to make it Vista exclusive. Why? I don't know, unless MicroSoft decided to use it for leverage people to Vista. But as far as any technical reason? there is none whatsoever.
Have I used Vista?
I have 6 PCs at home. 2 of them nearly identical. Same 3700+ San Diego proc, same 2 gig of memory, same 512 memory card, one with Vista Ultimate 64, the other with XP Pro 64... running World of Warcraft the XP pro machine gets 11 Frames per Second better performance. All the settings are the same on both machines as far as WoW settings go. The Vista OS is just that wasteful of power. If I 2 box on the Vista machine I get NOTABLE slowdown on both instances of WoW. On the XP machine, I note no slowdown at all. The XP machine I can 3 box EverQuest before I note any real slowdown. Vista I start choking on the third EQ box.
Do not assume I don't own multiple OS versions, legitimate, just because I do not agree with you. It is possible you are just misinformed.
As far as cross platform expense... thats a pretty stupid thing to charge for in the first place. If you cannot grasp that, it is your defect.
Where my comments about the Wii came in were about the price of products. You claim the MicroSoft games are correctly priced at $70 a pop because they are better games, with more production value. Go look at Twilight Princess. What you are saying is just plain untrue. The X-box games are really NOT any better than PS3 or Wii... they just cost more. As far as the graphics... the cost of graphic design is in the hardware. The writing of the game itself takes the same rough amount of time no matter... and the 360's graphics are not really much better than Wii... and THEY ARE NOT better than PS3. The 360 is INFERIOR to PS3.
And as far as your claim that Nintendo gouged people in the first place.... Nintendo has been cutthroat and vicious in their business plan, and I have not approved of most of what they have done over the years. However, they have ALWAYS set a top end price for their hardware and accessories... NES Power Set? $250... SNES Super Scope set? $250... N64 Pikachu Limited Edition? $250... GameCube Platinum LE? $250.... Nintendo Wii? $199... do we see a trend yet? My PS2 set me back $399... have you seen the price of PS3? Nintendo has done alot wrong, but base prices of hardware, accessories, and games has never been out of line at all. They SET the standard. Plus, the Wii's downloadable content is COMPLETE GAMES.... you should go look at what they charge for the service. You will see why MicroSoft is ripping people off on the cost per download for yourself.
The only thing I am a fanboy of is EverQuest... maybe Sega... but man, if you wanna talk of "heads up asses" and Fanboy attitudes, you should really go look in the mirror. I only see you nonstop making love to MicroSoft.
Originally posted by Nevarion Business as usual. What do you expect? Money makes the world go round and that goes especially for Microsoft. Among other companies of course.
I'll never forget that MS purchased Bungie so they could steal Halo away from fine upstanding dedicated desktop gamers... (no need to tell me that Halo was released on PC/Mac- only about 3 years too late!)
----------------------- Past MMOs- Planetside, WoW. Current MMO: Current Games: L4D, Skyrim Tried- ATITD, EQ2, SoR, Vanguard,SL,LOTRO,SotNW,SWTOR. Anticipating- GW2, Planetside2
What do you expect? Money makes the world go round and that goes especially for Microsoft. Among other companies of course.
I'll never forget that MS purchased Bungie so they could steal Halo away from fine upstanding dedicated desktop gamers... (no need to tell me that Halo was released on PC/Mac- only about 3 years too late!)
3 years too late, and by then WAY behind the Unreal series in graphics and in gameplay.
I agree totally, had it come out on PC on schedule Halo would have been INCREDIBLE... instead, by the time it made it to PC, it was just sad.
again, apparently Digital Anvil was just looking for a publisher. Microsoft want to use it to support their xbox instead and bam the guys company and its assets dissapeared and were in microsoft control. Upset he leaves company. Fed up, he now works in film instead.
Where my comments about the Wii came in were about the price of products. You claim the MicroSoft games are correctly priced at $70 a pop because they are better games, with more production value. Go look at Twilight Princess. What you are saying is just plain untrue. The X-box games are really NOT any better than PS3 or Wii... they just cost more. As far as the graphics... the cost of graphic design is in the hardware. The writing of the game itself takes the same rough amount of time no matter... and the 360's graphics are not really much better than Wii... and THEY ARE NOT better than PS3. The 360 is INFERIOR to PS3.
This must be the most hilarious paragraph I've ever read on mmorpg.com
Even funnier is it's been written by someone who claims to be in the software business
kinda reminds me of Westwood...used to make great RTS games in CnC+Red Alert..the games actually had some challenges in them to make them hard..ever since EA bought them its become too easy to beat the campaigns in just a few days time. Thats business though.
Makes me miss E&B
"If we don't attack them, they will attack us first. So we'd better retaliate before they have a chance to strike"
You KEEP calling me a fanboy... just WTF am I a fanboy of??? I don't like M$, sure, but Nintendo is guilty of several of the same practices M$ has been over the years... all I said is the Wii is a much better value for the money, and owns the hell out of 360 these days... I openly took a shot at Sony... several in fact... so WTF am I such a fanboy of???
Little bit about me... I own my own business... I write custom PC applications... two of them in the last 3 years I wrote for MicroSoft. I know a LITTLE bit about software. Software has no inherent limitations. None. Zilch. The only limit is HARDWARE limitations, and the capability of the software's creator. Therefore there is NO POSSIBLE REASON IN THE WORLD for DX10 to not work on XP 64, from a design viewpoint. MicroSoft DECIDED to make it Vista exclusive. Why? I don't know, unless MicroSoft decided to use it for leverage people to Vista. But as far as any technical reason? there is none whatsoever.
Have I used Vista?
I have 6 PCs at home. 2 of them nearly identical. Same 3700+ San Diego proc, same 2 gig of memory, same 512 memory card, one with Vista Ultimate 64, the other with XP Pro 64... running World of Warcraft the XP pro machine gets 11 Frames per Second better performance. All the settings are the same on both machines as far as WoW settings go. The Vista OS is just that wasteful of power. If I 2 box on the Vista machine I get NOTABLE slowdown on both instances of WoW. On the XP machine, I note no slowdown at all. The XP machine I can 3 box EverQuest before I note any real slowdown. Vista I start choking on the third EQ box.
Do not assume I don't own multiple OS versions, legitimate, just because I do not agree with you. It is possible you are just misinformed.
As far as cross platform expense... thats a pretty stupid thing to charge for in the first place. If you cannot grasp that, it is your defect.
Where my comments about the Wii came in were about the price of products. You claim the MicroSoft games are correctly priced at $70 a pop because they are better games, with more production value. Go look at Twilight Princess. What you are saying is just plain untrue. The X-box games are really NOT any better than PS3 or Wii... they just cost more. As far as the graphics... the cost of graphic design is in the hardware. The writing of the game itself takes the same rough amount of time no matter... and the 360's graphics are not really much better than Wii... and THEY ARE NOT better than PS3. The 360 is INFERIOR to PS3.
And as far as your claim that Nintendo gouged people in the first place.... Nintendo has been cutthroat and vicious in their business plan, and I have not approved of most of what they have done over the years. However, they have ALWAYS set a top end price for their hardware and accessories... NES Power Set? $250... SNES Super Scope set? $250... N64 Pikachu Limited Edition? $250... GameCube Platinum LE? $250.... Nintendo Wii? $199... do we see a trend yet? My PS2 set me back $399... have you seen the price of PS3? Nintendo has done alot wrong, but base prices of hardware, accessories, and games has never been out of line at all. They SET the standard. Plus, the Wii's downloadable content is COMPLETE GAMES.... you should go look at what they charge for the service. You will see why MicroSoft is ripping people off on the cost per download for yourself.
The only thing I am a fanboy of is EverQuest... maybe Sega... but man, if you wanna talk of "heads up asses" and Fanboy attitudes, you should really go look in the mirror. I only see you nonstop making love to MicroSoft.
lol, thanks for the laugh. You sound like you're barely in your teens. You obviously didn't bother to actually read what I wrote, and I'd be willing to bet good money that at least half of what you've posted about yourself is complete BS. The software development is obvious just because of the obviously false info there. Please just give up and be quit before you really make yourself sound stupid. No one will think less of you.
Comments
That`s the question for all of them.....
O and yes,unless you are using the ORIGINAL software you prolly don`t have a clue how good windows really is
becouse there is a diference between a hacked version and the original one.
and if you are using the original version and you still think it sucks......go linux....i`m sure there are lots of mmo`s for linux too
Microsoft - I use it, but I don't like it. I don't like any of the choices at the moment - I'm waiting for an Amiga revival.
I think most tech savvy people have always know there were better alternatives out there. But that means your not main stream which creates conflicts with compatibility. You begin to feel like an outsider when nothing runs on your computer. So you have run windows inside you os anyways just to make anything work. i am personally happy that people are starting to realize there are alternative like Linux which run much better. windows 3.1 man thats old. But that was when Windows did have the market at it's feet. Everyone had a chance to become top dog Microsoft just did it best. Good try though apple!
MAGA
If you were to take a look at how long MS supported old OS, you would find the time is getting shorter. While they won't "blow up your rig" "as soon as" their new OS is released, it's a fair bet that after the media hype has died down about MS's next big thing they will quietly announce they won't support the old OS. Care to guess how much longer XP will be supported?
"that's actually afraid enough of federal oversight"
That's a laugh. What happened in their big US court case? Oh that's right, it died out when a MS-friendly President took office.
MS is not a monopoly, but migrating from Windows is such a headache that in many ways it acts like one. As for who is more likely to "get slapped", are you saying that if one industry can do it worse that makes it OK for another industry to do it not as badly? That's like saying that if there's someone who can kill you, then it's acceptable for someone else to come into your house and beat the crap out of you. Unfair trade practices are bad no matter the magnitude.
Actually, no, nothing like this.
Matey sold out his business to Microsoft who used it to promote their XBox.
Not Illogical, not stupid, (good or evil WTF? I now have a mental image of you in a pulpit making rattlesnakes bite your arm), and not even remotely comparable finding out your wife is a prostitute.
Matey didn't stay on with Microsoft after he sold the company to them, very soon after the brains drained, the studio folded. Regardless of the Publishing companies name, or platform they sought to develop on, this is just regular every day business. Happens all the time.
Luckily, it's a well paid and growth industry, new up and coming talent outweighs old retiring talent. The rewards available to a games developer increase by the day.
Maybe those immensely humorless nerds over at Frontier will finally finish Elite IV and no one will ever care about Freelancer again.
Well seeing as how they supported Windows '98 up until the time they released Vista, I would say they'll support it up until the time that they release their next OS which is probably several years down the line. I think supporting an OS one release behind the current one is pretty decent. And in fact you can still get updates to Windows '98 if you go to the update page, they just aren't releasing any new updates for '98 so in fact Windows '98 is still being supported, it's just not still being updated.
Actually the case died out when Microsoft won on appeals and the Government decided not to pursue it any further. Even Bush knows when he's beat.
And actually Microsoft IS a monopoly. Somehow people think being a monopoly is a bad thing. It's not. We have had tons of them over the years. Do you drink Coke or Pepsi? They have a monopoly. Do you eat at McDonalds? Monopoly. Does that prevent others from attempting to get into the market? No. It's tough though. So why do we let these monopolies get away with it? The answer is because they aren't doing anything wrong. The only time a monopoly becomes a bad thing is when the monopolist tries to abuse their power. If McDonalds suddenly started charging twice as much as everyone else, would you continue to buy from them? What about Coke and Pepsi. If it was twice as much for one of their products as it was for anything else, would you continue to use them? So what about Microsoft? Have they raised their prices? Made it impossible to buy a computer because of the prices they charge? When you consider inflation, the cost of their software has stayed pretty consistent over the years. Do you cry when Coke/Pepsi LOWER their prices? Why not? I mean that could put some other company out of business couldn't they? So why cry when Microsoft GIVES away internet explorer? Is that a bad thing?
People try to point to Microsoft abusing it's monopoly in the Netscape deal, but the anti-trust laws do not attempt to protect businesses from a monopoly, they try to protect the consumer. Please tell me how you were harmed by Microsoft including a free browser with their operating system. Did that prevent you from logging onto the internet? Did it prevent you from installing and using Netscape? Did Microsoft raise it's prices so that PC manufacturers had to pay more to get this new technology? The answer to all of those is no. So you the consumer were not harmed. If you believed that Netscape was a superior product to Internet Explorer you were free to install it and use it. If you were not willing to pay for it, then obviously you didn't think it was enough of a better product to warrant the purchase. That's how capitalism works. You have to have a better product if you want people to pay for it. Netscape didn't. That's why they didn't succeed. Not because Microsoft forced them out, but because they offered a similar product for less money and Netscape couldn't compete. That's not against the law. That's what this country is founded on. Free enterprise. And why? Because it's good for YOU the consumer. That way you get the best products at the cheapest prices.
So please, if you really want to help Netscape, do them a favor and go purchase the Navigator. That will keep them in business, not whining about it here on these forums. And pick yourself up a copy of Linux while you're at it.
Consider what Microsoft is doing now with respect to gaming:
To play the latest and greatest PC games you must buy Vista. DX10 is exclusive. MS published games do not have a DX9 option.
Microsoft is charging $50/year so people can play online in exactly the same manner that PC players have been doing so for free for ages. Artifacts like "host advantage" are easy proof that users are hosting these games So what does this $50/year go to pay for? Not a damn thing. They charge it because Microsoft has a monopoly on the Xbox and they can get away with it. Microsoft's next plan is to bring this same subscription-for-nothing model to the PC, using popular games like Halo 2 to do it.
Microsoft offers new better performing accessories. And, despite technological improvements, charges more for these benefits. The $40 64 MB card is now a $50 512 MB card, despite that 1 gig flash drives (the same technology) cost only $25, if that. Likewise, a 120 gig HD for $180, where similar notebook HDs can be purchased for $70. On top of the fact that the Xbox will only use "authorized" storage devices for a good many features like profiles and game saves, preventing one from using an even cheaper USB hard drive.
Microsoft is trying to charge $70 or more for games. Extra content, something PC gamers typically get for free, instead gets charged for $5+ or more for content that is typically mostly developped at product release. Worse yet, this can encourage developers to release a game with only some of the content and offer the rest for an additional price. Games devalue rapidly in retail, but these downloaded content prices never change because shelf space is never at a premium. Games that can be had for $20 might still have $10 worth of downloadable content which add 2%, if that, to the value of the game.
Microsoft's downloadable content scheme obscures prices with its own currency and forces users to buy more than they intend to use, leaving leftover points that either encourages people to spend it on frivolous stuff or purchase more points to spend the ones they have.
Yeah... There's not a lot of what Microsoft is doing that I agree with. Yet, I own a 360... I just won't be buying the Xbox 3 when that comes out.
The entire reason MicroSoft can get away with alienating and annoying their customer base and still HAVE a customer base... compatibility. The average american citizen goes to 24 hour Wal-Mart at 3am... sees a PC game on a shelf... and has the urge to impulse buy... what OS can you impulse buy for at 3am? Yep... you have no choice whatsoever.
BUT WAIT! Here comes Vista... now you go to Wal-Mart at 3am... and you buy a $9.99 game... take it home, and low and behold IT HAS COMPATIBILITY ISSUES! So, you take it back and find out you cannot exchange open box software for anything except a replacement of the same title... to prevent piracy.
As a customer, you feel betrayed, but it was only $10, so you suck it up. You see Halo 2 for "Windows Vista"... you never played it on X-Box so you have no idea what a weak game it really is, you decide you DESERVE a new game, and shell out the $40 for it. Hey, at least it is 100% compatibile with Vista, right?
Until you get it home and learn that hot-rod new video card in your Vista machine is having issues with Vista Drivers...
Next day, new Vista Owner hits forums angry. Flames. Is full of MicroSoft hate. They look at the "alternatives"...
OS X... Linux... and in all honesty, that is about it.
They start looking at their favorite retailer... Wal-Mart... and check the VAST SELECTION of software available for OS X and Linux, to make an educated decision about what OS they are going to switch to now... and go home in misery empty handed.
MicroSoft's "monopoly" of the market has alot of factors that contribute. But I do suspect the reason consoles are still such stable sellers to gamers has more than a little do do with the entire situation. Nobody wants to fight compatibility issues at 3am. But that shiny new Wii is like the perfect girlfriend. It never says "No"... it never says "I don't like that"... and it never says on the box "works for Vista" and fails to work on the first try.
So... Opticaleye... do we use Windows? Yes. We do. but many of us wish we had a choice. And we are waiting, and hoping for a day we can exercise the ability to use a choice without cutting our own throats. In the meantime, MicroSoft can apply all the unfair pressure, bullcrap EULAs, and cutthroat business practices it likes, because for all intentions and effects, it does have an ironclad monopoly on the market.
WinXP is more stable than Vista atm and will be supported for some time to come. MS is still working the 'bugs' out of Vista on their End user side and PC makers the are struggling to keep up while making and selling PCs with defects.
If you're serious about XP, and gaming trends, check out WinXP Pro x64 Trial Kit, Free! ($6.41 S&H).
That aside though, I do dislike the fact that in recent years all too many good pc game developers have been used for making console games, and when and if they get converted to pc they're often a clunky mess of a game not really taking advantage of a pc's capabilities. I don't believe the pc is dead as one hears from time to time but it really is a long shot back from those days in the 90's when one really hade a wide variety of great titles to choose from. So I really hope there will be some sort of revival for the pc games industry, because while I'm not saying console games are lame (I had loads of fun on my NES/SNES, RE on PS) overall I'd probably lose interest in gaming all together if I weren't able to play a strategy game or something more profound than the action orientated console titles.
member of imminst.org
"Wow, lots of incomplete information
1) DX10 is Vista exclusive for a reason. They would have had to gimp it with all kinds of backwards compatibility to make it work on XP that would have taken a lot out of the capabilities of DX as well as made it much harder to develop for.
2) Microsoft is not charging $50 to play pc games online just as before. It's still free. $50 is for cross platform play between pc and 360. If you don't want that, you can play with other pc gamers for free.
3) Charging higher prices for console accessories. Yeah, that was Microsoft's idea. Isn't it funny that Nintendo has been ding that for long before Microsoft got into the console business, but because it's Nintendo it's ok.
4) Higher game costs are due to higher development costs. Prices for the extra content are set by developers, not Microsoft. Most free extras for PC games are made my modders, not the developers. The difference is that there are more downloads available instead of just holding off to put out an expansion pack.
It always amazes me how as soon as Microsoft's name is mentioned everyone starts making up complete bull just so they have a reason to whine and complain about everything."
Point 1) DirectX10 could have very easily been made for full XP 64 compatibility. The prime reason MicroSoft did not go that route is because they are having ALOT of issues getting people to move to Vista from XP at all. This tactic is their only real hope to gain any credibility on the Vista platform. It is a cheap tactic, and may even work eventually. But there is NOTHING Vista can do for a gamer that XP 64 cannot do (except waste alot of your system resources and make your $4000 PC handle like a $2000 PC)... until MicroSoft implemented that retarded DX10 you are championing.
Point 2) His point was that M$ is charging people per year to use what is already there and basically free. Another cheap tactic. But when your newest OS cost you so much to make and has really poor sales, and your "superconsole" is getting owned left and right by the little Wii... well you do what you can.
Point 3) Nintendo has not historically been the gouging company. Heck, look at Wii. Or GameCube. Or back to the N64... I think you meant to say "Sony" and were thinking of how badly the system and accessories for the PS2, PS3, and even PSP have raped people's wallets. And in that you would have been 100% correct.
Point 4) If the end results of the "Higher Development Costs" yielded games with better spit, polish, and finish than other console's games, I would agree with you completely. But when you compare the MicroSoft $60+ first party games with the Nintendo Wii's $39-$49 first party games... well your arguement no longer holds water. The M$ titles ARE in fact overpriced. Period. I hate to sound like a broken record, I am really a Sega fan, not a nintendo fan... but compare the Wii's downloadable retro game content to M$'s... and suddenly you kinda feel silly even saying M$ is not overcharging, don't you?
Again, Microsoft is not charging pc users to play online. That is fact, deal with it. It's for cross platform only. What does the wii have to do with that?
Three, obviously you are a biased fanboy. Nintendo overcharged for console accessories before Sony got into the market as well. Then again from the points your making, you might not have been born yet during those days.
Once again, biased fanboy crap. More money is getting put into developing games for the 260 because of the higher quality graphics. The Wii is the same power level as the original X-Box. Last gen development teams = last gen development costs. It costs more to put a game on 360 than it does the Wii. It's comparing apples to oranges.
member of imminst.org
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm
"In December 1994, Netscape first marketed a Web browser called Navigator. Within months, Navigator was the preeminent Web browser. Microsoft became deeply concerned that Netscape was moving its business in a direction that could diminish the applications barrier to entry and thus decided to eliminate the threat that Navigator would become a viable alternative platform for applications. Microsoft first tried to reach an agreement with Netscape in June 1995, pursuant to which Netscape would have stopped efforts to develop Navigator into "platform-level" (i.e., API-exposing) browsing software for the Windows 95 operating system that was to be released later that summer; in return, Microsoft proposed to refrain from competing with Netscape in developing browsers for other operating systems. "
"Microsoft warned Netscape that timely access to critical technical information about Windows APIs information that Netscape needed to make its browser run well on Windows 95 depended on its acquiescence. Had Netscape acquiesced in Microsoft's proposal, it would have become all but impossible for Navigator or any other browser rival to pose a platform threat to Windows. "
Typical business meeting. If you don't think this type of stuff goes on at every single meeting between 2 large competing businesses you're simply naive.
"Netscape did not accept Microsoft's proposal, and in response, Microsoft withheld from Netscape crucial Windows-related technical information that it routinely provided to others, and delayed the provision of necessary APIs, so that Netscape was excluded from most of the 1995 holiday selling season. Moreover, once it became clear to senior executives at Microsoft that Netscape would not abandon its efforts to develop Navigator into a platform, Microsoft focused its efforts on ensuring that few developers would write their applications to rely on the APIs that Navigator exposed. "
Ok, so this is pretty dirty, but Microsoft is under no obligation to make sure that Netscape received that documentation in a timely manner. What they did was not against the law, merely dirty tactics.
"Microsoft understood that software developers would only write to the APIs exposed by Navigator in numbers large enough to threaten the applications barrier if they believed that Navigator would emerge as the standard software employed to browse the Web. If Microsoft could demonstrate that Netscape would not become the standard and that Microsoft's browser, Internet Explorer, would meet or exceed Netscape's browser usage share, developers would continue to focus their efforts on the Windows platform. Therefore, to protect the applications barrier to entry, Microsoft embarked on a multifaceted campaign to maximize Internet Explorer's share of usage and to minimize Navigator's. "
Nothing here but good business decisions. Of course they realized that Netscape was a threat and made plans to deal with it. That's what every good business does. It's HOW you do that, that's important. This doesn't say HOW they planned to do it, only that they planned to do it.
"Decision-makers at Microsoft worried that simply developing its own attractive browser product, providing it to consumers free of charge, and promoting it vigorously would not divert enough browser usage from Navigator to neutralize Navigator as a platform. Thus, rather than confine itself to improving and promoting Internet Explorer as a competitor to Navigator, Microsoft decided to constrict Netscape's access to the two distribution channels that led most efficiently to browser usage: installation by OEMs on new personal computers and distribution by Internet Access Providers ("IAPs"). Users rarely switched from whatever browsing software was placed most readily at their disposal, which was usually the browsing software installed on their computer by the OEM or supplied by their IAP when they signed up for Internet service. Microsoft thus sought to ensure that, to as great an extent as possible, OEMs and IAPs bundled and promoted Internet Explorer to the exclusion of Navigator. "
Again, nothing but smart business decisions here. Nothing inherently dirty or underhanded here.
"Microsoft largely succeeded in exiling Navigator from the crucial OEM distribution channel. By January 1998, Microsoft executive Joachim Kempin was able to report to CEO Bill Gates that Navigator was being shipped through only 4 of the 60 OEM distribution sub-channels, and even then most often in a position much less likely to lead to usage than would Internet Explorer's position. By early 1999, Navigator was present on the desktop of only a tiny percentage of the personal computers that OEMs shipped. "
Whoa!!!! Back this thing up please. All this says is that they succeeded. It' doesn't mention HOW they did it, only that they did it.
"Similarly, Microsoft's IAP channel restrictions significantly hampered Netscape's ability to distribute Navigator: they caused Internet Explorer's usage share to surge; they caused Navigator's usage share to plummet; they raised Netscape's own costs; and they sealed off a major portion of the IAP channel from the prospect of recapture by Navigator. "
More of the same, simply WHAT they did, not HOW they did it. They are trying to imply dirty tactics, but have not made mention of any other than the withholding of technical documentation. I mean really, if someone is competing against you are you gonna simply hand over the tools to allow them to do it? Wouldn't you yourself only do the bare minimum of what you had to do? Wouldn't ANY company do this?
"To help ensure that developers would not view Navigator as truly cross-platform middleware, Microsoft also pressured Apple to make Navigator less readily accessible on Apple personal computers. As leverage to obtain Apple's compliance, Microsoft threatened to cancel development of its "Office for Macintosh" software, which, as Microsoft recognized, was critical to Apple's business. Microsoft required Apple to make Internet Explorer its default browser and restricted Apple's freedom to feature and promote non-Microsoft browsing software, in order to protect the applications barrier to entry. "
Ok, here again this is the type of stuff that happens all over the world between competing companies. Microsoft has every right to cancel development of it's products at any time for any reason they deem appropriate. In other words, they simply let Apple know that it would be in there best interests to work with them rather than against them. It's called business people, you don't get anywhere just simply bending over and letting people stick it to ya.
"As part of its effort to hamper distribution of Navigator and to discourage the development of software that used non-Microsoft technology, Microsoft also targeted Independent Software Vendors ("ISVs"). Microsoft contractually required ISVs to use Internet Explorer-specific technologies in return for timely and commercially necessary technical information about Windows, and precluded important ISVs from distributing Navigator with their products. "
Ok, again this is a going a bit far maybe, but still they were within the law. No where does it say they illegally withheld information, only that it's wasn't "timely".
"Microsoft's actions succeeded in eliminating the threat that the Navigator browser posed to Microsoft's operating system monopoly. Foreclosed from effectively using the OEM and IAP distribution channels by Microsoft's exclusionary conduct, Navigator was relegated to more costly and significantly less effective modes of distribution. The adverse business effects of these restrictions also deterred Netscape from undertaking technical innovations in Navigator that might have attracted consumers and revenues. "
I don't know about you, but I don't believe that simply witholding documentation and having some "heart to heart" sessions with Apple, Netscape and the OEM's was completely responsible for this. Microsoft put out a very capable browser and included it with it's operating system. You don't think the fact that there was already a browser included with the operating system had something to do with the fact that Netscape couldn't get a foothold with OEM's? It's not possible? Sorry, but I think that was the MAIN reason that Netscape failed, not withholding documentation and scare tactics.
"Because of its reduced access to efficient distribution channels, Navigator's share of browser use fell precipitously. Even though Navigator's installed base of users increased during the browser war, the population of browser users expanded so quickly that Navigator's usage share fell dramatically even as its installed base grew. Navigator lost its ability to become the standard software for browsing the Web because Microsoft had successfully -- and illegally -- excluded Navigator from that status. "
Ok, agree with everything except those 2 words, "and illegally". What exactly did Microsoft do that was illegal? Witheld documentation that they were not required legally to provide in a timely fashion? Sure, they flexed their muscles a bit, but they didn't do anything illegal, a least not anything they've talked about up to this point.
Like I've said before I've read most of the court documents and it's all pretty much the same as this. There are allegations of wrongdoing, but no proof of any laws being broken. Sure Microsoft played hardball with Netscape and Apple. And yes, they've played hardball with a bunch of other competitor's too. All it's proved is that Microsoft is good at playing hardball. Sure, Gates and company see how far the line can be pushed, but they are careful not to cross it. You may not like them for that, but when there are millions and millions of dollars on the line, what do you expect? Everyone to just sit and play nicely with each other? LOL
You KEEP calling me a fanboy... just WTF am I a fanboy of??? I don't like M$, sure, but Nintendo is guilty of several of the same practices M$ has been over the years... all I said is the Wii is a much better value for the money, and owns the hell out of 360 these days... I openly took a shot at Sony... several in fact... so WTF am I such a fanboy of???
Little bit about me... I own my own business... I write custom PC applications... two of them in the last 3 years I wrote for MicroSoft. I know a LITTLE bit about software. Software has no inherent limitations. None. Zilch. The only limit is HARDWARE limitations, and the capability of the software's creator. Therefore there is NO POSSIBLE REASON IN THE WORLD for DX10 to not work on XP 64, from a design viewpoint. MicroSoft DECIDED to make it Vista exclusive. Why? I don't know, unless MicroSoft decided to use it for leverage people to Vista. But as far as any technical reason? there is none whatsoever.
Have I used Vista?
I have 6 PCs at home. 2 of them nearly identical. Same 3700+ San Diego proc, same 2 gig of memory, same 512 memory card, one with Vista Ultimate 64, the other with XP Pro 64... running World of Warcraft the XP pro machine gets 11 Frames per Second better performance. All the settings are the same on both machines as far as WoW settings go. The Vista OS is just that wasteful of power. If I 2 box on the Vista machine I get NOTABLE slowdown on both instances of WoW. On the XP machine, I note no slowdown at all. The XP machine I can 3 box EverQuest before I note any real slowdown. Vista I start choking on the third EQ box.
Do not assume I don't own multiple OS versions, legitimate, just because I do not agree with you. It is possible you are just misinformed.
As far as cross platform expense... thats a pretty stupid thing to charge for in the first place. If you cannot grasp that, it is your defect.
Where my comments about the Wii came in were about the price of products. You claim the MicroSoft games are correctly priced at $70 a pop because they are better games, with more production value. Go look at Twilight Princess. What you are saying is just plain untrue. The X-box games are really NOT any better than PS3 or Wii... they just cost more. As far as the graphics... the cost of graphic design is in the hardware. The writing of the game itself takes the same rough amount of time no matter... and the 360's graphics are not really much better than Wii... and THEY ARE NOT better than PS3. The 360 is INFERIOR to PS3.
And as far as your claim that Nintendo gouged people in the first place.... Nintendo has been cutthroat and vicious in their business plan, and I have not approved of most of what they have done over the years. However, they have ALWAYS set a top end price for their hardware and accessories... NES Power Set? $250... SNES Super Scope set? $250... N64 Pikachu Limited Edition? $250... GameCube Platinum LE? $250.... Nintendo Wii? $199... do we see a trend yet? My PS2 set me back $399... have you seen the price of PS3? Nintendo has done alot wrong, but base prices of hardware, accessories, and games has never been out of line at all. They SET the standard. Plus, the Wii's downloadable content is COMPLETE GAMES.... you should go look at what they charge for the service. You will see why MicroSoft is ripping people off on the cost per download for yourself.
The only thing I am a fanboy of is EverQuest... maybe Sega... but man, if you wanna talk of "heads up asses" and Fanboy attitudes, you should really go look in the mirror. I only see you nonstop making love to MicroSoft.
I'll never forget that MS purchased Bungie so they could steal Halo away from fine upstanding dedicated desktop gamers... (no need to tell me that Halo was released on PC/Mac- only about 3 years too late!)
-----------------------
Past MMOs- Planetside, WoW.
Current MMO:
Current Games: L4D, Skyrim
Tried- ATITD, EQ2, SoR, Vanguard,SL,LOTRO,SotNW,SWTOR.
Anticipating- GW2, Planetside2
I'll never forget that MS purchased Bungie so they could steal Halo away from fine upstanding dedicated desktop gamers... (no need to tell me that Halo was released on PC/Mac- only about 3 years too late!)
3 years too late, and by then WAY behind the Unreal series in graphics and in gameplay.I agree totally, had it come out on PC on schedule Halo would have been INCREDIBLE... instead, by the time it made it to PC, it was just sad.
again, apparently Digital Anvil was just looking for a publisher. Microsoft want to use it to support their xbox instead and bam the guys company and its assets dissapeared and were in microsoft control. Upset he leaves company. Fed up, he now works in film instead.
This must be the most hilarious paragraph I've ever read on mmorpg.com
Even funnier is it's been written by someone who claims to be in the software business
Makes me miss E&B
"If we don't attack them, they will attack us first. So we'd better retaliate before they have a chance to strike"
lol, thanks for the laugh. You sound like you're barely in your teens. You obviously didn't bother to actually read what I wrote, and I'd be willing to bet good money that at least half of what you've posted about yourself is complete BS. The software development is obvious just because of the obviously false info there. Please just give up and be quit before you really make yourself sound stupid. No one will think less of you.
member of imminst.org