Microsoft ruined gaming

[Archibald]

Except we aren't talking about the PS2 you lying faggot. We are talking about the Xbox. You know, when making a game multiplatform suddenly translated to making a game for consoles first with PC as a distant afterthought.

So your idea is that if xbox didn't exist then nothing would have happened?

 

[ghostdog]

PAC-MAN ruined gaming.

Gaming is like every other commercial entertainment product. The more money are involved, the more polished, shiny, accessible and dumbed-down is the final product.

As soon as big-ass executives enter the screen, you can be sure they'll constantly search for and find new ingenious ways to make more money and milk every idea and franchise to death.

That reminds me


Reminder Cristopher Walken has a oscar

Best line in gaming history:

 

[Telengard]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/06/why-microsoft-got-into-the-console-business

Joachim Kempin, who was VP of Windows Sales at Microsoft for 20 years starting in 1983, made the claim in an interview with IGN that will be published in full on Friday.

When asked why Microsoft decided to enter the console space, he asserted that, "The main reason was to stop Sony. You see, Sony and Microsoft…they never had a very friendly relationship, okay? And this wasn’t because Microsoft didn’t want that.

"Sony was always very arm’s length with Microsoft. Yeah, they bought Windows for their PCs but when you really take a hard look at that, they were never Microsoft’s friend. And Microsoft in a way wanted them to be a friend because they knew they had a lot of things we could have co-operated on because they are, in a way, an entertainment company, you know? I mean, at least a portion of Sony is and they had some really good things going there, but as soon as they came out with a video console, Microsoft just looked at that and said 'well, we have to beat them, so let’s do our own.'”

This decision supposedly came right from the top of the company, with Bill Gates himself even chipping in. Despite initial reservations, Kempin claims that Gates always had qualms that the living room computer would, at some stage, metamorphosise into an alternative PC that could threaten Microsoft's dominance of the traditional market. As a result, it was eventually felt the company had to try and tackle Sony head-on.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/6/5385716/sony-vaio-iconic-pcs-photo-essay

Sony has announced plans to sell off its iconic VAIO brand of PCs to a Japanese investment fund. While Japan Industrial Partners (JIP) will continue selling VAIO-branded computers in Japan, Sony plans to now focus on its mobile lineup of smartphones and tablets. VAIO, which stands for Visual Audio Intelligent Organizer, was first introduced 18 years ago in 1996.

While VAIO and bio sound identical in Japanese, the VAIO name also has a phonetic connection to the word violet. Sony started building its PCs with purple color schemes, and the firm has transformed the brand into a name that has been associated with high-end computers ever since.

VAIO might not be dead yet, but take a moment to look back at some of Sony’s historic, beautiful, expensive, and crazy PC creations...

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

It's typical for a commie like Trotsky to lay blame solely at the feet of a megacorp, when we the consumers collaborated directly with Microsoft by demanding cheap console game systems.

 

[Ellef]

This topic is almost as tiresome as "what is an rpg?"

 

[DemonKing]

Microsoft ruined gaming back in 1995, by allowing in the stupid people who cannot into editing autoexec.bat.

That's not far from the mark...developers could make challenging games in the DOS era because you actually had to be pretty bright just to get games to run in the first place.

The PC used to be a constant space for innovation and bleeding edge tech until the console wars set in. I remember up until the mid-2000s replacing my video cards religiously every 1.5 years to keep up with the demands of the latest titles. Now I've had my current rig for almost four years now and still haven't found any titles that I can't run in ultra at 1080p because my graphic cards is still techwise miles better than what's in next-gen consoles. Almost every AAA title is now limited by console hardware so it's up to kickstarter to try and fill the niche that was once the PC mainstream.

 

[Archibald]

Kickstarters can't get enough funding to make games that graphically couldn't be made on consoles.

 

[Archibald]

As for Xbox, If I'm not mistaken original xbox was commercial failure for Microsoft (partially due to big costs of R&D) and while xbox 360 did better it didn't generate massive profits either. Before release of Xbox one there were rumors floating around that Microsoft might sell off their console division entirely to Amazon or someone else. But as Telengard posted, Microsoft felt (and still do) that they really needed home console to compete with Sony. All in all, its pretty funny idea to claim that console that sold only around 25-30 mil units (original Xbox) destroyed PC gaming when around the corner PS2 sold more than 150mil units. Change was going to happen regardless of Microsoft, we would just have more influence from Sony if Microsoft didn't enter the race.

 

[Higher Animal]

Don't you consider the Dreamcast to be Microsoft's first foray into consoles?

I know I do.

The comparison is off base. Sega's push for online ready games did not detract from their commitment to high quality. Sega's identity revolved around delivering difficult, arcade like game experiences to the home. They saw "PC technology" as a means of facilitating more of this kind of gameplay. Conversely, Microsoft's identity was in gimping PC type play for home users. Literally savaging what made PC games good in order to gain more profit. As a result, Sega is famous for legitimate hardware and software innovations while Microsoft is famous for additional fees for online access, moneyhats, DLC, and other abominations. So the similarities are not so apparent.

However, Microsoft did acquire an ex-Sega suit named Peter Moore. The man responsible for shutting down the dreamcast and laying off most of Sega's employees under the impression that the PS2 would blow them away in marketshare. The dreamcast had just launched its broadband adaptor and was about to receive ports of Half Life and the sequel to Shenmue when the decision was made to cut off life support.

It's not tinfoil-hatted to suggest that Peter Moore was perhaps fiscally enticed to wreck Sega's chances at survival in the console market because Microsoft wanted to reduce the amount of players in the field. Nintendo is an isolated Japanese fortress but Sega was always a decentralized company sensitive to infiltration. Peter Moore said the decision to destroy SoA was "a tough call" but found his way into an obese Microsoft benefits package and a cushy job for the next seven years of his life.

Then there were all those statements from former execs that Microsoft was even in negotiations to buy Sega at one point.

Sega's interest in excellence has no currency with the Microsoft culture. They would much rather vampire the assets of a company than capture and replicate its essence. The talents of the Microsoft leviathan lie in subterfuge, cheating, and political maneuvering. Creative industry leaders like Sega would distract from their purpose.

 

[zlocish]

It's not Microsoft's fault. At least, not entirely. They are simply giving consumers products from which they profit. The bad thing is the promotion. Dumbed down FPS and sports/action games are almost only games you can see advertised.

 

[Monocause]

The PC fell out of grace as a gaming platform 15 years ago for a number of reasons. Consoles were easier to use. They had standardized hardware as opposed to the madness the PC market is, which meant that one, it was easier to develop and optimise, particularly with the advent of 3D graphics, two, this enabled the user experience to be universal and manageable.

I do think that 3D becoming the new standard and the PC market failing to adapt fast enough was one of the main pushes in favor of consoles. All the console gamers arguments against the PCs that "oh but you need to upgrade every few months and that's gazillion dollars" came to exist back then. Nowadays you don't need to upgrade your rig as often for gaming. Back then the PC you blew couple thousand dollars on was at risk of becoming outdated really soon. I still remember a friend of mine who boasted about his rig being top of the line (it was an optimus-branded tower with a brand new Pentium 2 chip inside and Riva gfx!), with his dad spending X money to get it. Two years later my family spent far less money on a way more powerful rig while his dad still twitched in pain at the enormous expense that at that point seemed like an utter waste of money. And yeah, soon enough my friend got a console which kept both him and his dad happy.

Consider that before the advent of 3D it was far simpler. It was possible to play, say, HoMM 2 or the Fallouts on a 486. Plenty of games were totally playable if you were willing to stomach the shit performance. When 3D came - well, shit! If you didn't have a dedicated GFX card the games were completely unplayable unless they had the option of software rendering. And even if you used software rendering, it felt like shit to barely squeeze out enough FPS on a 400x300 screen knowing that your friends with better hardware were enjoying titles in their full 800x600 glory. Games also looked way, way worse when software rendered as all the cool 3D stuff like lighting was incredibly simplified so that your puny CPU can cope with all the extra calculations it wasn't really comfortable with and keep the game running at the same time. Then you got a GFX card - but which one? There were dozens of manufacturers on the market, and unless you were really savvy you could've bought a really shit one that half the games wouldn't really work on, or weren't optimised to run with.

Today people struggle with choosing between AMD and Nvidia - and they've the Internet and all the benchmarks and let's plays and whatnot, plus neither company is really the bad choice. At the time it was way more difficult to get informed which manufacturer is worth his salt. Gaming mags ran columns on hardware, but often enough these were sponsored. Your friends were a source of info but since you were all early teens confirmation bias worked its magic.

Then there's also the often omitted thing that back in the day the Internet wasn't as big and as ubiquitous so everything was far less reactive, and chain reactions had more consequences when that happened. I do know that certain game shops completely stopped carrying PC games at some point. That's a big thing as if you're a middle-sized studio without millions to spend on advertising, you really needed shelf exposure to boost those sales. So the more difficult distribution became for PC games, the less reasonable investment choice it seemed.

Back to the OP - did Microsoft ruin gaming? No. Microsoft owns two of the most popular gaming platforms (Windows and Xbox) and a handful of dev studios. Back in the time the PC began declining as a gaming platform, and the consoles started dictating the genre and control scheme, MS was hardly an influencer. Even nowadays Microsoft mostly provides a service rather than attempts to set any trends in gaming - and whenever they do try to set trends, they fail.

Someone's brought up Halo. The first Halo was developed by Bungie (yeah, the same guys who did Myth) back when it was still independent. The acquisition, IIRC, was a result of how successful Halo was.

Also, gaming is not ruined. Gaming is fine.

 

[KK1001]

Gaming is in a period of general stagnation that won't break unless major shifts in consumer preferences occur or the industry is shaken down.

Most of the innovation in the 3D era was frontloaded, but it took a little bit to work out most of the kinks. Still, all of the important genres and styles of playing were in place at the turn of the millennium. You've had financial innovations in terms of how games are monetized or funded, but you haven't had any underlying leap forwards. This is made worse by the fact that in most genres (FPS and RPGs come to mind) things have been severely dumbed down. Other genres have disappeared completely (RTS). You have lots of interesting, quirky indie games that aren't enough to really dig into - they lack the features and content that a real studio could offer them.

It's hard for new games to get traction, both because there's a flood of indie games and because the really popular games (CoD, Dota 2, LoL, Hearthstone, CS:GO) tend to suck up a ton of a player's time.

If we're going to see any shift away from AAA that isn't just replacing them with different AAA games or elevating a $50 million dollar game to a $200 million dollar game, it'll be when major developers and publishers realize that they can open small studios, staff them with 15 to 20 dudes, and still turn a profit.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Gaming is in a period of general stagnation that won't break unless major shifts in consumer preferences occur or the industry is shaken down.

I think we can draw parallels with the film industry/television which has also stagnated. The last really great innovation in film was CGI and that happened in the 70-80s. Even though cheap digital cameras and Youtube brought about a similar "indification" in video, it has only empowered individual chimps to fling so much shit, when before, flinging shit required the collusion of a whole tribe of degenerates.

There are only two ways the stagnation in media can break: a major technological revolution like virtual reality (not its gimmicky, modern iteration) or a major cultural revolution (the United States loses a large-scale and conventional war, the damn Marxists overthrow capitalism, etc.) and neither would guarantee positive developments.

 

[DraQ]

The more I analyze the problems in the industry the more I realize where the cancer comes from. This company has done almost nothing positive in the last ten years. I say that as someone who actually liked the original xbox and still view it as their only good console. All their top innovations from good hardware, online play, slick interface, and excellent exclusives came from that era as well. Since then its been nothing but downhill and all the warnings that xbox was a M$ Trojan horse into the industry have proven accurate. Now they're damaging both console and PC gaming in a multitude of ways. The future of gaming would be much brighter without them and I hope that day is somewhere on the horizon.

Xbox?
*Post*-Xbox even?
Dolan plz.

M$' first, and by far most significant blow to the gaming as a hobby, even if its effects weren't readily apparent for nearly a decade, was Windows 95.
It demolished the one fence that kept profoundly mentally challenged from becoming gamers, and when something becomes a mass market it's only question of time when it attracts big money aimed at lowest common denominator.

 

[pippin]

Best line in gaming history:

Christopher Walken is so fucking awesome. He "upgrades" everything he's in.
Also, every time kids get excited about AA actors appearing in videogames, I just show them Wing Commander - at one point, you had Luke Skywalker, Alex de Large and Gimli in a videogame. How fucking cool is that!?

 

[Telengard]

The comparison is off base. Sega's push for online ready games did not detract from their commitment to high quality. Sega's identity revolved around delivering difficult, arcade like game experiences to the home. They saw "PC technology" as a means of facilitating more of this kind of gameplay. Conversely, Microsoft's identity was in gimping PC type play for home users. Literally savaging what made PC games good in order to gain more profit. As a result, Sega is famous for legitimate hardware and software innovations while Microsoft is famous for additional fees for online access, moneyhats, DLC, and other abominations. So the similarities are not so apparent.

However, Microsoft did acquire an ex-Sega suit named Peter Moore. The man responsible for shutting down the dreamcast and laying off most of Sega's employees under the impression that the PS2 would blow them away in marketshare. The dreamcast had just launched its broadband adaptor and was about to receive ports of Half Life and the sequel to Shenmue when the decision was made to cut off life support.

It's not tinfoil-hatted to suggest that Peter Moore was perhaps fiscally enticed to wreck Sega's chances at survival in the console market because Microsoft wanted to reduce the amount of players in the field. Nintendo is an isolated Japanese fortress but Sega was always a decentralized company sensitive to infiltration. Peter Moore said the decision to destroy SoA was "a tough call" but found his way into an obese Microsoft benefits package and a cushy job for the next seven years of his life.

Sega's interest in excellence has no currency with the Microsoft culture. They would much rather vampire the assets of a company than capture and replicate its essence. The talents of the Microsoft leviathan lie in subterfuge, cheating, and political maneuvering. Creative industry leaders like Sega would distract from their purpose.

I was merely pointing out the Microsoft Windows is in the Dreamcast. That was MSs first move into the console sphere, not the Xbox 1. Xbox 1 was their second move.

Now, if you want to talk corporate tactics, interestingly every play that people complain about MS was used first by Sony against Nintendo and Sega (not surprisingly, since they both use corporate power plays to control the market). The best being buying exclusivity for Tomb Raider for 4 years back in '96. Oh, the butthurt back then. It was so strong, I can still smell it now. Now, people complain about Microsoft buying exclusivity for 6 months. And they complain when the 360 gets ahead of the Sony curve, and all the console developer kings switch over to MS. Like it's somehow shocking.

And most of all, they complain when PC devs sell their IPs to console kings like 2k, and those console kings then turn the IP into a console game. Like it's somehow MS's fault that nobody bought the PC version and the PC dev sold it off.

 

[Lyric Suite]

So your idea is that if xbox didn't exist then nothing would have happened?

So what you are saying is that the xbox didn't actually make things a whole lot worse?

See, i can do that shit too bro.

 

[Higher Animal]

I was merely pointing out the Microsoft Windows is in the Dreamcast. That was MSs first move into the console sphere, not the Xbox 1. Xbox 1 was their second move.

Now, if you want to talk corporate tactics, interestingly every play that people complain about MS was used first by Sony against Nintendo and Sega (not surprisingly, since they both use corporate power plays to control the market). The best being buying exclusivity for Tomb Raider for 4 years back in '96. Oh, the butthurt back then. It was so strong, I can still smell it now. Now, people complain about Microsoft buying exclusivity for 6 months. And they complain when the 360 gets ahead of the Sony curve, and all the console developer kings switch over to MS. Like it's somehow shocking..

Of course this was the post single system monopoly era of Sega and Nintendo. Sony needed content makers to adapt to a new corporate culture and hardware. Sony bought exclusivity rights for tons of franchises and game companies, but delivered them on a pretty good seventh generation product.

Microsoft's moneyhat and timed exclusivity strategy was far different. Rather than buy out companies to focus on a specific piece of hardware, Microsoft would intervene in third party game development and entice companies to drop multiplatform support or gimp alternate versions of the same product. While Sony was oftentimes pushing proprietary technology and novel disc formats, Microsoft was simply pushing low grade hardware.

 

[Telengard]

Sony was also courting PC devs onto ye olde Playstation, and asking them to do the very same thing. That's part of what started the rumors circling back in the 90s.

 

[Higher Animal]

Sony was also courting PC devs onto ye olde Playstation, and asking them to do the very same thing. That's part of what started the rumors circling back in the 90s.

Proprietary hardware vs pure marketing strategy.

 

[deuxhero]

Someone could argue that some other company would kill PC gamming anyway, there was too much profit involved, but I don't forgive Microsoft for their murder.

I don't think the Xbox division had actually made MS a profit overall at any point. It was a net loss all the way.

 

[Archibald]

So what you are saying is that the xbox didn't actually make things a whole lot worse?

See, i can do that shit too bro.

Well, thats exactly what I and some other are saying: change was going to happen regardless of Microsoft's involvement.

 

[Western]

Well, thats exactly what I and some other are saying: change was going to happen regardless of Microsoft's involvement.

Sounds like Microsoft saw a sick man then beat them to death with a club, but it's ok cause it probably would have happened anyway.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Sounds like Microsoft saw a sick man then beat them to death with a club, but it's ok cause it probably would have happened anyway.

This is an apt analogy because the Xbox was a terminal blow. It didn't just make PC gaming worse. It killed it altogether.

 

[Telengard]

Proprietary hardware vs pure marketing strategy.

Hey, if you're talking about a manufacturer going around to PC devs and asking them to come make for their console, or at least do multiplatform, (and maybe even offering a little sweetener), that's what they were doing. And I'm shocked - shocked - that a company would go and ask devs to build for their new console, so they could gain more market share. As well as looking to cut into MS's PC share, and so get even more money. And being amongst the first decliners to open up their PCs to entertainment center design and social media integration. It's like Sony is a regular corporation looking to open up new markets and make more money, or something.

I don't think the Xbox division had actually made MS a profit overall at any point. It was a net loss all the way.

Overall, big picture, true. Technically, there was a brief time with the 360 that they got into the green. But the xbox 1 was a multi-billion dollar loss that the 360 barely pulled them out of (mostly due to service sales, not game sales and certainly not hardware), and the Xbox One sent them doing a header right back into.

It's not profitable for them, it drains not only money, but time and manpower. More than one former exec has stated "it's a distraction" and thus shouldn't be continued.