Author Topic: Microsoft , not so bad after all?  (Read 7203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kairon

  • T_T
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 48
    • View Profile
Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« on: June 14, 2005, 08:43:14 AM »
I'm throwing my opinion behind XBox 360 vs. PS3.

Reading the recent May 23 Time cover story on Mixrosoft's XBOX 360, I can't help but feel that Microsoft may actually be a good, if not great, thing for gaming. The article talked a bit about the inner workings of Microsoft's XBOX division, and it's clear that this division has been well insulated from the rest of Microsoft's corporate thinking. J Allard, who heads Microsoft's XBOX efforts, seems an able visionary (who convinced MS in 1993 to take a closer look at a thing called the internet), and someone who can hold Bill Gate's attention, enough so that their division, more of it's own entity/company, doesn't seem to answer directly to any of the more distatseful aspects of Microsoft's nasty corporate side.

That is to say, when Microsoft makes investments in videogames, as with the XBox and the various other PC developers they own, they seem to let the developers do their own thing. At least, I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

In fact, I remember watching a documentary of the development of a Microsoft Crimson Skies XBox game, and it looked like Microsoft was truly content to let the developers go in directions they wanted to go. Of course, Microsoft's representative always kept an eye on the budget, but it was more like they were willing to spend the money if they could be convinced that it was being used wisely. In fact, they delayed that particular game in the documentary for 6 months and scrapped the lead designer because the developers felt the game wasn't going where it needed to go. This is a gutsy thing, and can only benefit from comparison to Nintendo-esque delays.

Anyways, what this insulation and support from MS bigwigs means is that the Microsoft games unit seems to be much more open to what types of gaming the future will need as opposed to Sony's thinking on the matter.

This is suggested also by the Microsoft technology analysis press release that came out after E3 comparing the PS3 and X360. Whereas the Cell processor with it's multi-tudes of different processor entities was optimized solely for non-flexible pure graphical power, the XBox 360 looked superior in ease of development AND in more essential and more important areas such as the unique processing capabilities that AI programming would require.

This shows some level-headedness and future-sense from the XBox team compared to Kutagari. Whereas Kutagari has built a straight-up number-crunching monster and has the gall to call it a supercomputer that sounds ominously like Skynet (see: the Terminator movies), Microsoft is instead finding out where gaming has exploded in this last generation (the enemy and squad AI in games like Halo) and didn't forget that in addition to their quest to up the technological ante.

Basically, while Sony sees technology as a way to pump out more polgyons, Microsoft interprets technology more freely based on what the games of today need.

Add this software-oriented hardware design with an insulated game division within microsoft that has and probably shares developmental freedoms, and I don't care whether Bill Gates sees $ signs with a MS console in my living room, it simply looks like the XBox 360 will be a good thing for gaming, and offers a positive direction as opposed to Sony's one-sided view.

For those Nintendo fans out there looking for a more moderate choice than "Innovation-at-all costs" Nintendo and "Graphics-at-all costs" Sony, Microsoft, an American company in a traditionally Japanese world, may be worth taking a look into.

I already feel that the XBox 360 will compete powerfully and could even beat the PS3. Maybe if I have the money, I might pick it up a year or two into the life-cycle. That's in addition to my revolution of course, lol.

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

P.S. The shortening of game console generations is sadly a byproduct of not only technology's leaps and bounds, but Microsoft's need to make a virgin sacrifice, the first XBox, to the videogame industry monster. The first XBox existed not to make money, but test gaming ideas, markets, and show that Microsoft wasn't an "oogie-boogey" doomsday-bringing demon after all. And it's succeeded. Microsoft has my respect now, whereas in 2001 they had only my wary caution.
Carmine Red, Associate Editor

A glooming peace this morning with it brings;
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head:
Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished:
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Sega and her Mashiro.

Offline vudu

  • You'd probably all be better off if I really were dead.
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: -19
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2005, 09:01:38 AM »
Quote

In fact, I remember watching a documentary of the development of a Microsoft Crimson Skies XBox game, and it looked like Microsoft was truly content to let the developers go in directions they wanted to go. ... In fact, they delayed that particular game in the documentary for 6 months and scrapped the lead designer because the developers felt the game wasn't going where it needed to go. This is a gutsy thing, and can only benefit from comparison to Nintendo-esque delays.
Do you remember when Microsoft pulled out of publishing Psychonauts at the very last minute because they decided the game wasn't marketable?  This isn't a company that's interested in expanding the market by changing the way we think about video games.  This is a company that's going to make as many high-budget, cookie-cutter games as possible in order to capitalize on those who feel they need a gaming console to be cool.  Microsoft is perfectly happy to kill off all innovation in the industry and release nothing but generic shooters, racers, fighters and sports games.
Why must all things be so bright? Why can things not appear only in hues of brown! I am so serious about this! Dull colors are the future! The next generation! I will never accept a world with such bright colors! It is far too childish! I will rage against your cheery palette with my last breath!

Offline Kairon

  • T_T
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 48
    • View Profile
RE:Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2005, 09:26:43 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: vudu
Quote

In fact, I remember watching a documentary of the development of a Microsoft Crimson Skies XBox game, and it looked like Microsoft was truly content to let the developers go in directions they wanted to go. ... In fact, they delayed that particular game in the documentary for 6 months and scrapped the lead designer because the developers felt the game wasn't going where it needed to go. This is a gutsy thing, and can only benefit from comparison to Nintendo-esque delays.
Do you remember when Microsoft pulled out of publishing Psychonauts at the very last minute because they decided the game wasn't marketable?  This isn't a company that's interested in expanding the market by changing the way we think about video games.  This is a company that's going to make as many high-budget, cookie-cutter games as possible in order to capitalize on those who feel they need a gaming console to be cool.  Microsoft is perfectly happy to kill off all innovation in the industry and release nothing but generic shooters, racers, fighters and sports games.


Have we actually played Psychonauts? Hmmm... I'm wondering whether "not markettable" is a nice way of saying "it sucked?"

But while Microsoft is definitely in this for money, I'm proposing that they're much more open to innovation, in both hardware and software, than their rival Sony.


Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Carmine Red, Associate Editor

A glooming peace this morning with it brings;
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head:
Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished:
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Sega and her Mashiro.

Offline Arbok

  • Toho Mikado
  • Score: 5
    • View Profile
    • Toho Kingdom
RE:Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2005, 09:47:04 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Kairon
P.S. The shortening of game console generations is sadly a byproduct of not only technology's leaps and bounds, but Microsoft's need to make a virgin sacrifice, the first XBox, to the videogame industry monster. The first XBox existed not to make money, but test gaming ideas, markets, and show that Microsoft wasn't an "oogie-boogey" doomsday-bringing demon after all. And it's succeeded.


Microsoft took a loss beacuse they could, and beacuse they had to. You can't enter the console race as a newcomer and charge top dollar for your system, it just won't fly, as seen in the past with Jaguar and what not. I also ask what gaming ideas did Microsoft themselves test to great effect on the Xbox? Blinx?

Quote

Originally posted by: Kairon
But while Microsoft is definitely in this for money, I'm proposing that they're much more open to innovation, in both hardware and software, than their rival Sony.


That's not a very hard possition to be in.
Toho Kingdom

@romero_tk

Offline TMW

  • The Man Whore, if you're wondering.
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2005, 09:53:08 AM »
So...Sony is stuck in the past (grafickal powaar!), Microsoft is sticking to the present (Hey, these games are popular right now where they weren't 3 years ago. Lets design a console around them!), and Nintendo is stuck in the future (What can we do to push gaming to it's limits, even if no one is ready for it yet)?  
Jesus saves! Everyone else, roll for damage.<BR><BR>Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there's not an invisible monster about to eat your face off.

Offline vudu

  • You'd probably all be better off if I really were dead.
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: -19
    • View Profile
RE:Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2005, 10:05:57 AM »
Quote

Have we actually played Psychonauts? Hmmm... I'm wondering whether "not markettable" is a nice way of saying "it sucked?"
The game's average rating is right at about 90% on gamerankings.com.  It's not that the game didn't come out.  Majesco picked it up after Microsoft dropped it.  They also ported it to PS2 and PC.
Why must all things be so bright? Why can things not appear only in hues of brown! I am so serious about this! Dull colors are the future! The next generation! I will never accept a world with such bright colors! It is far too childish! I will rage against your cheery palette with my last breath!

Offline PaLaDiN

  • I'm your new travel agent!
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2005, 10:19:59 AM »
"The game's average rating is right at about 90% on gamerankings.com."

That's just evidence of nostalgia (and rooting for the underdog) blinding objectivity. Also happened with BG&E, another crappy overrated game.

You may not agree that it's crappy but let's not make ridiculous claims. It's not innovative in the least. It's just a typical platformer with an abundance of charm that would be far better used in an adventure game.

Unfortunately the critical acclaim might encourage Tim Schafer to deliver another waste of his talents.  
<BR><BR>It shone, pale as bone, <BR>As I stood there alone...

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2005, 10:28:57 AM »
Microsoft is bad news for ANY market they enter. Look at what they do, they attempt to gain a monopoly position and lock you into their products so you cannot possibly go without them if you want to continue using your stuff. They are ruthless when it comes to eliminating all opposition, they push out stuff vastly under value to make it reach everyone and get them to adapt it, then they tighten the screws and make sure anyone attempting to make money off a product in the same market gets ignored. That's the point where they themselves turn profitable, with everyone locked in and switching being even more expensive than keeping buying their products. Competition is something that must be crushed swiftly and surely, they will try everything to eliminate a competitor, be it patent law suits, dumping, denying interoperability, buyouts or whatever else it takes to nuke them (Sendo vs. Microsoft, anyone?). Which is why only opensource can compete with them in the OS market, they cannot destroy an amorphous threat like that.
Besides, the XBox isn't the main problem, neither is the X360. Microsoft never gets anything right in two tries, they always take three tries to capture a market. The third XBox will take the monopoly and teach gamers the true horrors of total Microsoft dominance, as surely as somethig will go wrong during the unveilling of Longhorn (another part of MS history, all OS unveillings result in a crash or a desaster).

MS is the enemy of innovation and choice, you don't want them in the console space.

Offline Kairon

  • T_T
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 48
    • View Profile
RE:Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2005, 10:58:02 AM »
Ok, I recant, I am excessively fearful of Microsoft now KDR!

I still believe that their game division harbors pure intentions... but now I get a sense that as soon as things go sweet, Microsoft will swoop in for the kill and the honeymoon will be over...

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@ool.com
Carmine Red, Associate Editor

A glooming peace this morning with it brings;
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head:
Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished:
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Sega and her Mashiro.

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2005, 11:01:14 AM »
MS is playing nice now not because they're dedicated to gaming but because they're smart.  Gaming is entertainment and entertainment is not an essential service.  If MS in the console market acted like they do in the PC market people would just not buy games.  People however NEED PCs so MS is more able to act like a dick because for most people there just isn't an alternative.

The Xbox started out with nothing.  They had no developers on board and no userbase so obviously they had to play nice.  MS sucked up to devs and consumers and their market share grew until it was bigger than Nintendo's.  As Nintendo's rather poor showing in the console wars demonstrates acting like a bossy jerk doesn't accomplish squat without a position of power that goes with it.  Nintendo had no power and acted like they did so their market share shrunk.  MS was smart enough to know they had no power so they acted accordingly.

Plus it's good business to give developers some creative freedom.  Franchise games don't sell consoles.  Nintendo doesn't realize that anyone who didn't buy an N64 for Mario won't buy a Cube for Mario or a Rev for Mario.  Killer apps are almost all of the time new properities.  So by giving developers more creative freedom MS increased their chances of having a killer app and they did in Halo.  The Xbox launch lineup was a scattershot of ideas.  Aside from Oddworld and DOA the launch lineup was a variety of new properties in different genres.  Most flopped but one worked really well.

MS was also very consumer friendly.  They took a bath on their console, heavily promoted online gaming despite the risks, and made deals to get third party titles.  They even got games like Shenmue II, Panzer Dragoon Orta, and Metal Slug 3 that realistically were not going to be huge sellers.  But fans appreciated the variety and I see almost unanimous praise for the Xbox from fans.  Compare this to the Cube userbase.  Nintendo made minimal effort to appeal to consumers and the fanbase is pretty critical as a result.  This was a smart move by MS.  They needed to establish a foothold so they sucked up to consumers and now they're in a position where people are talking about them overtaking Sony.  They wouldn't be in that position if they didn't act so user-friendly.

Once MS has that power they don't have to be nice anymore and judging by how they act in the PC industry it's fair to say they won't be.  MS has a sound business strategy: get on top by being better than everyone and then stay on top by abusing your power.  MS hasn't been innovative or ground breaking.  They've just been giving devs and consumers whatever they want so they can get on top.  They're like a politician promising whatever will get them elected.

Offline couchmonkey

  • I tye dyed my Wii and I love it
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2005, 11:21:30 AM »
I believe there's respect for gaming in Microsoft's games division, maybe more so than Sony, but that doesn't change the fact that both Xboxes are plagued with games that I find boring and unoriginal.  Too much of the stuff I've played on Xbox feels like more Halo - it seems like shooters are just about the only thing Xbox fans are interested in.  Bearing that in mind, I think the best I can say about either Sony or Microsoft is maybe they aren't making videogaming any worse.  If I buy another console, it will depend mainly on third party support.
That's my opinion, not yours.
Now Playing: The Adventures of Link, Super Street Fighter 4, Dragon Quest IX

Offline Deguello

  • Cards makes me ill.
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2005, 01:53:12 PM »
Microsoft also bought the High Heat Baseball License from a dying 3DO, made their internal sports dev scrap their original baseball game in favor of 3DO's code and license, but instead of making the game, they sold off their sports studio and made it possible for Xbox-exclusive games to be ported to other consoles.

Say what you will of odd Nintendo's business decisions.  MS takes the cake.

and then there is the metter with the old company Curlymonsters and their burgeoning F-Zero clone Quantum Redshift.  MS published it, curlymonsters wanted to make a sequel with Luive support and allt his new jazz, but MS said no and the company went under.
It's time you saw the future while you still have human eyes.

... and those eyes see a 3DS system code : 2750-1598-3807

Offline Flames_of_chaos

  • Dancing News Panda
  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2005, 04:36:54 PM »
"Microsoft dominance, as surely as somethig will go wrong during the unveilling of Longhorn (another part of MS history, all OS unveillings result in a crash or a desaster)."

Hey KDR remember that fun OS called Windows ME. Each time it crashed and how many useless drivers it had equals how much people love it . </end sarcasm>

" Microsoft also bought the High Heat Baseball License from a dying 3DO, made their internal sports dev scrap their original baseball game in favor of 3DO's code and license, but instead of making the game, they sold off their sports studio and made it possible for Xbox-exclusive games to be ported to other consoles."

Maybe because Microsoft thought it was a waste of time versing EA with sports titles so they wanted to toss them for some money I suppose after all the game would be bound to be on microsoft's console anyways, plus I dont think any of them sold anyway since they sucked compared to EA's offering.

"and then there is the metter with the old company Curlymonsters and their burgeoning F-Zero clone Quantum Redshift. MS published it, curlymonsters wanted to make a sequel with Luive support and allt his new jazz, but MS said no and the company went under."

Just shows another example of Microsoft burying a weak IP that wasnt advertised at all and just burying it with no signs of evidence.

My point is that Microsoft doesnt really like publishing or committing a game without a M rating or something that isn't a FPS or a racer with the word "Kudos" as the main mechanic in it. Also I dont think they like any risky IPs at all and just dump them to 3rd parties here are some examples:

Psychonauts: Majesco
Tork: Prehistoric Punk: Ubisoft
Phantom Dust: Majesco

And in all fairness outside of Xbox Live I wouldn't call Microsoft that much of a risk taker, they rely mainly too much on safe franchises and that is evident with most of the 360 titles currently announced.
PM me for DS and Wii game friend codes
Wii: 6564 0802 7064 2744
3DS: 4124-5011-7289
PSN: Flames_of_chaos XBL tag: Evulcorpse
http://twitter.com/flames_of_chaos/

Former NWR and PixlBit staff member.

Offline stevey

  • Young HAWNESS
  • Score: 15
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2005, 05:20:02 PM »
"Microsoft may actually be a good, if not great, thing for gaming."

Word can not say the feeling of hate I have for you! ggggggggaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
urge to kill peeking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My Demands and Declarations:
nVidia is CRAP!!!
BOYCOTT Digest mode and LEGEND OF OO!

Your PM box will be spammed with Girl Link porn! NO EXCEPTION!
Wii want WaveBirds

Stevey Duff
NWR HAWTNESS Inspector
NWR Staff All Powerful Satin!

Offline Myxtika1 Azn

  • The Master of the Fists
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2005, 09:18:21 PM »
Who's Peeking? And why would you want to kill him?

I'm with what other's are saying about MS's strategy.  Do whatever it takes to get into the business, then strike when the time is right.  Meh.  
500 years ago, I shook the Pillars of Heaven.  Why should I fear a runt like you?

Offline anubis6789

  • famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2005, 10:58:59 PM »
While I believe that Xbox Live was one of the greatest things to happen to the industry this generation, and don't trust MS as far as I could through them. I am sure though that the Xbox division hasn't been corrupted...yet. Just wait for them to start making money and having more market penetration. That is when the head office will take control.

I feel the same way for Sony. I feel that they are the worst thing to happen to the industry since the crash of 83. They, like Microsoft want to use their games division as a way to sell things from other divisions such as TV's, audio systems, software, etc...

Not to say Nintendo is perfect or only about the fans. They have been fined for fixing prices in Europe after all. Nintendo is a business, first and foremost, so their job is to make money, but at least I don't have them shoving stuff from their other divisions down my throat.

Man I miss the days when it was Nintendo vs. Sega, and when NEC and SNK roamed freely in the realm of video game hardware.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." - Francis Bacon

Offline Ymeegod

  • Score: -16
    • View Profile
RE:Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2005, 07:09:36 PM »
"o you remember when Microsoft pulled out of publishing Psychonauts at the very last minute because they decided the game wasn't marketable"

And nintendo hasn't done this?  Why do you think there was such a huge gap between Super Metroid and Metroid Prime?  Or what about poor little Earthbound?  Or what about Animal Leader or Doshin the Giant or whatever that was called.  And was any of this reasonable?  Yeah, Earthbound wasn't very popular and Animal Leader and Giant weren't killer apps either so why bother porting it.

So was MS wrong?  Nope, Psychonauts bombed in terms of sales--I loved it though, I also loved BG&E--real shame what happened to that.  


Offline Deguello

  • Cards makes me ill.
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2005, 06:58:52 AM »
Not the same thing, dude.  There is quite a difference between being reluctant to publish one's own game and being a publisher who promises to publish another company's game and then pulling out at the last second.
It's time you saw the future while you still have human eyes.

... and those eyes see a 3DS system code : 2750-1598-3807

Offline vudu

  • You'd probably all be better off if I really were dead.
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: -19
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2005, 09:09:53 AM »
Exactly what Deguello said.

Besides, we weren't talking about whether Psychonauts was going to be profitable.  Kairon suggested that Microsoft was interested in bring new and unique games to the table just for the sake of gaming as an artform.  If Microsoft pulled support for Psychonauts because they thought it would bomb in terms of sales, then they obviously weren't thinking about anything other than profit potential.
Why must all things be so bright? Why can things not appear only in hues of brown! I am so serious about this! Dull colors are the future! The next generation! I will never accept a world with such bright colors! It is far too childish! I will rage against your cheery palette with my last breath!

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2005, 09:29:26 AM »
Or what about Animal Leader or Doshin the Giant

Doshin the Giant even got dubbed for the various languages. They don't do that with Mario titles! It's a nice game though a bit uninteresting. There's not that much interaction with the humans or any other object in the world.

Offline skyfire

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2005, 03:46:02 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"The game's average rating is right at about 90% on gamerankings.com."

That's just evidence of nostalgia (and rooting for the underdog) blinding objectivity. Also happened with BG&E, another crappy overrated game.

You may not agree that it's crappy but let's not make ridiculous claims. It's not innovative in the least. It's just a typical platformer with an abundance of charm that would be far better used in an adventure game.

Unfortunately the critical acclaim might encourage Tim Schafer to deliver another waste of his talents.


You should be shot.


Offline Galford

  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2005, 04:16:30 PM »
Some people seem to have selective memory.  

Nintendo during the late 80s and early 90s ruled the console market in a way MS now rules the OS market.  Remember Mr.Y's rule for third parties?  Work for us or else.

MS is not much different then Nintendo in some ways.
Wii Code - 8679 5256 1008 2077

Offline Caillan

  • Token New Zealander
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2005, 05:15:25 PM »
But Nintendo has changed: now they're beggers, not choosers and Yamauchi isn't in charge any more. The fact is that all evidence suggests that Microsoft would be willing to use tactics not illegal but perhaps immoral to control the industry if they were in a position to do so, while Nintendo couldn't because if they tried they'd face an all-out revolt after what happened last time. I didn't support Nintendo way back then and I don't support Microsoft now. Sony seems fine, anyway.

Offline PaLaDiN

  • I'm your new travel agent!
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2005, 07:58:23 PM »
"You should be shot."

Ooh. Did I touch a nerve?

Go ahead and tell me that Psychonauts is better than Grim Fandango. I've got a GF icon after all. That would have been a better personal attack.

And I want your word of honor that you kept a straight face while saying it.

Face it, Psychonauts is just another platformer and you're just cutting Tim Schafer a whole lot of slack instead of getting on his ass to make a proper game.

As for BG&E, sorry, poorly made Zelda/Starfox ripoffs with thoroughly unenjoyable stealth sections don't do it for me.
<BR><BR>It shone, pale as bone, <BR>As I stood there alone...

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: Microsoft , not so bad after all?
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2005, 09:07:15 PM »
Galford: Their behaviour regarding competition, i.e. Sega, was not as aggressive. Microsoft plays dirty. Nintendo only abused their monopoly to control their platform, MS aggressively uses monopolist tactics to destroy any competition (buyouts, dumping, lock in, ...)

Caillan: Ms would use tactics that ARE illegal, they just hope that by the time the lawsuit ends their competitor has long gone out of business. Look at how long the IE lawsuit took, they basically killed all competition in the browser market and it took the law five years or something to act, Netscape was already a distant memory by then. Besides, the "seattlement" was so bad MS actually profitted from it. There's a reason Microsoft is sued by pretty much all major governments on the planet.