The Next Gen is Now

[Chaos Turtle]

Wasn't there another one? Something like IDO? It was manufactured by (I think) PhilipsMagnavox. Or mabe it was 3DO.

Gosh, it must have sucked pretty bad for me not to remember it.

 

[Istanbul]

Originally posted by Chaos Turtle
Okay, okay, I concede! Actually, the only TG16 game I ever played was some dorky thing about a kid who could play paper-rock-scissors with his oversized hand or weird crap.

But I will never admit to Neo Geo being anything more than a $400.00 hunk of useless plastic and circuitry.

Hear, hear.

Incidentally, you're thinking of Alex Kidd. And that was a Genesis game.

 

[Istanbul]

Ura - You're thinking of Dungeon Explorer. The one where there were a bunch of different character classes you could be, each with his own weapon, with a very Gauntlet feel to it. The only one with a code where you could win the game by taking over and sitting in Natas' place.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Originally posted by Istanbul
Hear, hear.

Incidentally, you're thinking of Alex Kidd. And that was a Genesis game.

Alex Kidd sounds familiar. Was there no TG16 version of that game? If not, then what the heck am I remembering?

I'm losing it in my old age.

 

[EricBess]

Originally posted by Istanbul


I'm DYING to know how Microsoft is a monopoly in the console gaming market. Please, elucidate!

Or are you talking about the OS market, where Microsoft is not only not a true monopoly (ever hear of Linux? Unix?), but doing something that is *totally* unrelated to the topic about which system is better, and which (IMHO) should not be brought up in this discussion?

It has nothing to do with what market you are talking about. It has to do with business practices. Monopoly laws are not in place just to protect against existing monopolies. They are in place to make sure that everyone has equal footing so that monoplies do not get introduced.

Personally, I don't think that Microsoft currently understands what people want enough to do anything, but that doesn't mean that their tactics are okay.

Look at it this way... What would you say if Microsoft scouted out all of the best up and coming games on the market and paid each of their designers $100,000 to only produce them for X-box? Would that be okay with you? After all, it's their money.

Granted, they are not doing that, but by producing a system that is vastly superior technologically and then taking a loss with every sale, they are hoping that the designers will jump at the opportunity to make games that no other system can compete with due to that technology gap. Nintendo and Sony don't have the kind of money it takes to take the hit that Microsoft can on the console sale.

 

[Azreal the Soulmaster]

Regarding the size of the controller....well I have pretty large hands, but I'm probably going to just get that keyboard controller that Almindhra posted a link for, I'm much more adept with a keyboard.

 

[Istanbul]

Originally posted by EricBess


It has nothing to do with what market you are talking about. It has to do with business practices. Monopoly laws are not in place just to protect against existing monopolies. They are in place to make sure that everyone has equal footing so that monoplies do not get introduced.

Personally, I don't think that Microsoft currently understands what people want enough to do anything, but that doesn't mean that their tactics are okay.

Look at it this way... What would you say if Microsoft scouted out all of the best up and coming games on the market and paid each of their designers $100,000 to only produce them for X-box? Would that be okay with you? After all, it's their money.

Granted, they are not doing that, but by producing a system that is vastly superior technologically and then taking a loss with every sale, they are hoping that the designers will jump at the opportunity to make games that no other system can compete with due to that technology gap. Nintendo and Sony don't have the kind of money it takes to take the hit that Microsoft can on the console sale.

Oh! You're so right!

The NERVE of Microsoft, designing a technologically superior system! They should be forced to produce inferior hardware so that they can't be competetive, because they also make computer software. Why, if they produce a technologically superior system, that means that...they've got a system worth buying! And we can't have people buying a Microsoft system!

And we certainly can't have people buying a system made by Microsoft unless it's technologically inferior! I mean, they do things in another totally unrelated market that some people mistakenly believe have the characteristics of a monopoly! That should CERTAINLY affect what they're allowed to do in the video game console market!

 

[Gerode]

I think the point EricBess is trying to make is that they are attempting to flood the market with their product. It is similar to what Microsoft did with IE, using their enormous OS profits to afford giving away their software for free. Netscape couldn't compete with that price, so Microsoft took over the internet browser market and has a monopoly in IE to do whatever they please with. Now Microsoft appears to be doing this in the console market, offering the X-Box at a price that a console with similar specs would have a difficult time to compete with. However, isn't it standard practice in the console industry to take a loss at hardware and gain the profit in game sales, as was mentioned before?

 

[Istanbul]

Yes. All hardware since the Super Nintendo has lost money on initial sales.

I just can't believe the arguments that are being made. Microsoft has a monopoly in IE? Well, that's news to me, since I'm using Netscape right now.

Microsoft is apparently using its nonexistent monopoly to produce a superior system. Know what I say? GOOD! I want a superior system! And I don't care who makes it.

 

[Apollo]

Ally--he wasn't saying that sports/extreme games are kiddy games, he was just saying that they shouldn't be rated "teen" or "mature," because there's nothing in them that's offensive. So they're ok for everybody, not just kids or just adults.

Isty--you're using sarcasm to avoid adressing the arguments. Every system does lose money at first, but not much, and not for very long. Microsoft is selling so cheap that they take mammoth losses, and will be for the next 4 years. They're just trying to drive the other companies out of business so they can create a monopoly and capitalize on it later.

 

[Spiderman]

I think you're nitpicking, Isty, in trying to literally apply the definition of "monopoly" to Microsoft. Sure there are other OS' out there, like Unix and Linux. But what the percentage of people using them? Better yet, how many are sold pre-installed on a PC?

Same thing with internet browsers. What the percentage of people using IE vs. Netscape? And why is it that if you buy a PC with Windows, the IE icon is already on the desktop? Not Netscape's, or both?

 

[EricBess]

Isty,

Sorry if you misunderstand what I am saying. It seems Gerode, Apollo, and Spidey all caught my point. Federal Courts in the IE vs. Netscape case rules that Microsoft was indeed using monopoly tactics. However, in the end, none of them had the nerve to actually do anything about it. They originally ordered a split up. Microsoft completely ignored that ruling and the courts decided to not persue the matter.

Bottem line is this, Isty: I think based on your previous post that you agree that competition in the market is a good thing. Well, how does it help us if Microsoft creates an environment where no one else can possibly compete.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to create a better system. I'm just saying they should have to fight fair. If they want to take a huge hit, they should be forced to get funding for that specific project the same way all other companies would have to. But they should not be able to self fund with mammoth bank accounts from the sale of their own products. If they can't stand in the market on their own merits, they shouldn't be allowed to compete.

And, to head off your next comment, what I mean by that is that no other company would be able to take that big a hit on every system sold without going under, no matter who was fronting the money...

 

[Istanbul]

Actually, it's a safe bet that Sony could do it. I assure you, they've got their fingers in a *lot* of pots.

But people use Windows because it's user-friendly, moreso than Linux/Unix/whatever. I have yet to actually hear of any monopoly tactics other than making a product so good that everyone wants to use it.

 

[Gerode]

Windows is so good that I actually want to use it?

ROFL

 

[Spiderman]

Have you followed the anti-monopoly trial, Isty? I only skimmed some news reports, but I remember:

• embedding IE in Windows and claiming it's an integral part now
• reports of Microsoft cutting off vendors if they did not pre-install Windows on their PCs
• reports of Microsoft cutting off vendors if they did not put the IE icon on the desktop instead of or with Netscape
• reports fo Microsoft cutting off vendors if they did not put Microsoft "ISP" (don't recall the name of it) on the desktop instead of or with AOL or another vendor

I'm sure there's plenty more in the exhaustive records of the trial.

 

[EricBess]

Originally posted by Istanbul
Actually, it's a safe bet that Sony could do it. I assure you, they've got their fingers in a *lot* of pots.

But people use Windows because it's user-friendly, moreso than Linux/Unix/whatever. I have yet to actually hear of any monopoly tactics other than making a product so good that everyone wants to use it.

I wasn't going to post again, but I had to respond to this...

Sony??? Sony has one small problem. While I agree that Sony could try, I disagree that they could do it. For one simple reason. If it didn't work, Sony would likely go under. If it doesn't work for Microsoft, just another day at the office...

If your Window's argument were true, why did people buy PCs in the first place? Apple computers were running a window style interface long before PCs and yet people were still buying the PC over the Mac. Why? After all, anyone who knows about the technology at the time knows that Apple computers were technologically supperior to IBMs.

The reason is simple and it has nothing to do with user friendliness. It has to do with the programs availible. Microsoft was shrewd enough as a company to realize that to become popular, you have to have people designing software. After all, without software, a computer is nothing more than an expensive paperweight.

Apple shot themselves in the foot when they didn't want to share system commands. They intentionally wanted to be the only developer for their own machine. By the time they saw the error of their ways, they were nearly out of the market.

Unix, and more specifically Lynex, have promoted the freeware concept. The goal is for nothing to cost anything, or as little as possible. Great idea, but try to get a serious developer to go along with it.

However, X-Windows runs very nicely on unix and gives a very nice look and feel. some would argue that it was a more user-friendly look and feel than Windows. I won't make that claim myself, but leave it up to the individual.

But besides all that, you say people use Windows because they like it. People prefer it over what, specifically? I'd guess that half of the computer users out there have never even heard of unix and another half of those who have have no idea what it is. Very few know what X-windows is. I'm guessing you have not used that either based on your posts, but I could be wrong.