Can we trust Microsoft?

I don''t think that microsoft is really into the making of games right now. I know you have MicroSoft Flight Simulator and all that but, correct me if I am wrong, I think these and others were made by others and just bought by microsoft. They do, however, controll the operating system that I would say over 90% of games run on and the API that most games use which is Windows and DirectX.

Nah, I doubt Microsoft cares much about games. Microsoft''s interest is in the OS business, and almost all their ventures are designed to promote their operating system. IMHO, Microsoft isn''t interested in killing something unless it poses a direct threat to their OS business (with a few exceptions).

Games aren''t really a threat to Microsoft''s main business. In fact, IMO games are a large reason why many people haven''t gone over to alternative OS''s yet. Anyway, I think we game developers can rest assured that Microsoft doesn''t have any interest in crushing us.

--TheGoop

"Nah, I doubt Microsoft cares much about games."

$4 billion says you are wrong. That is what MS are pumping into the X-Box launch over the first four years and their stated plan is to publish 30% of the games for the system. They are very very serious about games because they see this as a way to ensure the X-Box is in every living room. Bill''s stated aim is to "own the living room" because he believes that the next Internet will be a network into the TV that links your home to everything else (schools, work, entertainment etc) and he ewants to own it.


Dan Marchant
www.obscure.co.uk

Microsoft is a double edged sword. They were after all the ones who brought us Windows and DirectX, a great combo for making quality games. I know everybody has a beef with MS, but just look at what they did for game developers with DirectX. However, as Obscure points out, the X-Box could give them reason to purge all independent game developers. The best case scenario is that Microsoft remains as they are, and that X-Box fails wildly, teaching them a lesson not to screw with game developers. I think the X-Box might just flop too, because the playstation 2 looks just plain awesome. Besides, everybody has enough of windows on their PC, who wants it on there console too?

Yeah, but didn''t Microsoft just buy the Directx technology from some other company? I thought I''d heard that before.

Microsoft did buy directX from a smaller company, but at that time directX did not have directInput and other API''s it does now, only DirectDraw, DirectSound, Direct3D I think.

That kind of bullying is one of the things that the lawsuit against MS attempted to address (MS telling computer manufacturers that if they distributed any OS other than Windows, they would be cut off). Hopefully the lawsuit will not be caught up in appeals for decades, and MS will be forced to allow competition.

If the X-box does indeed become a reality, it''s highly unlikely it''s going to be a flop. From a purely hardware standpoint, the X-box is going to be much more capable then the PS2 is. It takes good games to make a console fly though, and Microsoft is well aware of this. They are actively seeking out many of the best PC game developers to create games for the X-box. The fact that the X-box architecture is going to be very much like your standard PC, it''s highly likely the development tools are going to be very similar to DirectX. Microsoft knows the easier it is to port PC games over the better. Microsoft has even purchased Bungie (The developer of the Myth series and the to be released Halo) to not only make games for their X-box, but to provide feedback from a developers perspective during the development of the X-box. The X-box a flop? I think not.

As for monopolies, conspiracies, and aspirations for world domination, some of us are watching a little too much X Files (No, I don''t think there''s any connection to the X-box).

Hopefully MS will be broken up and an alternative, or many alternative OSes will be looked at. Though, Linux is losing its coolness because of this, going to the mouse-clickers. Time for the hax0rz to move over to a *BSD to maintain their l33tn3ss.

-----------------------------

A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."

M$ has been fuming that it doesn''t control game entertainment for a few years now. Remember when they thought they were going to take over the arcade bussiness with their windows style arcade box? Anyway games are a risky bussiness, look at all the losses Sega has been reporting. For M$ to really fly they need more then 4 bil in 4 years. They need to go all out on the spending and put the whole company on the line. They won''t have the balls to do this though and will back out when it comes time to make the decision. About the x-box being more powerful that probably will be true, but I see overhead problems getting directX to work just like windows on the xbox, so will be slowed down. Also they won''t have the developers and games that PS2 does, and EVERYBODY is getting a PS2, so how many will step up for a XBox too? Probably the hard-core gamers who want the couple games that are xBox only.

That''s all just a silly paranoid fantasy. Microsoft is much more interested in controlling the technology behind the games (i.e. DirectX) than controlling the games themselves. In this regard, games are different than other software. Consider how many word processors or spreadsheet programs you need? One. But how many different kinds and varieties of games are available? There''s no possible way MS could monopolize a market like that. But, of course, there are other ways to control the market, and the main way is to control the technology behind the games, and that''s the reason behind DirectX and the X-box.
I wouldn''t be too worried about Microsoft ''using monopoly advantage'' to ''imitate our games''. Unless you try and actually sell your game to MS, they can''t really imitate your game until after its release. By that time, if you game is a success, everybody will be imitating it. On the other hand if you try and pitch your game to Microsoft, they reject it but a few months later start development on a very similar game.. well, they wouldn''t be the first publisher to do that. That is why you want a good lawyer.
Finally, can MS tell stores, "if you sell game Y in your store, I will not sell you Windows"? No. That was the entire point of the lawsuit, and Microsoft doesn''t care enough about individual games to go that far.
Don''t be so paranoid.

-RWarden (roberte@maui.net)

To answer the topic title - No. Microsoft have proven time and time again that they are willing to powerhouse othr companies out of business and virtually copy the idea/product.

I think that Microsoft have been ignored far too long and now the American Government has realised. No company should have that much power as it corrupts.

So, nope, I think we should not trust Microsoft.

-----------------------------------------------
All messages are of my own personal opinion and
not meant to offend. But if they do - tough

Neuro.

Edited by - Neuro on June 30, 2000 6:47:33 AM

A quick (probably off-topic) question:

Isn''t (or wasn''t) the entire point of DirectX to make programming for different brands and makes of hardware easier, among other things? And if the X-box can only use the hardware it''s shipped with, and isn''t interchangable like PCs are today, surely it would be utter foolishness to still put commands through the same procedure it puts commands when it doesn''t know the nature of the hadrware it''s sending it to, or recieving from?

So what is going to happen? Will DirectX still have the same functions and classes etc available to the user, but entirely different low-level implementation? Or is this entire post a moronic rambling?

I''d better shut up before I reveal some government secret...

The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive

A scarily good question, which no one else seems to have asked. I guess they are including it as an "ease of use" thing. Get games on the X-Box real easy cos it runs DX.

In addition the hardware companies like to avoid developers hitting the hardware directly. This is because the console does often go through hardware modifications during their life cycle. I think there was something stupid like 13 variants of the old "standards" NES. Sony certainly did this with the Playstation, insisting that developers work through their API. It means that all old games remain compatible with new mods and new games work on the old ones.



Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions

Quote "Bill''s stated aim is to "own the living room" because he believes that the next Internet will be a network into the TV that links your home to everything else (schools, work, entertainment etc) and he ewants to own it."

This is incorrect. Sony, with their Psx2 stated that it was their goal to control people''s living rooms, not MS. MS then teamed with several other companies (Intel and NVidia) because it posed a direct threat to each of their businesses. MS also stated that they weren''t going to have expansions because it wasn''t interested in that, but rather, operating systems. Sony threatened the other two in the same way--by trying to control the people. IMO, MS isn''t interested in taking over games, but they don''t want to punish the game developers. I''m not saying MS doesn''t use monopolistic tactics (while on the same hand, I''m not saying they do--it''s not for this thread), but I don''t believe they want to punish game developers or anything.

Here''s some food for thought...

Microsoft tried to censor a webpage called Slashdot due to articals written in their forums like this one. Check it out here:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247&mode=thread

This isn''t directed at the CG Industry, but its pretty close to home if you know what i mean? Or you will if you have a good look at this webpage.



We are their,
"Children of the Free"

Taking the DirectX onto other platforms discussion a little further. I was reading somethng, think it was a interview with Loki but could be wrong. They surgested that even if Microsoft released DirectX onto other platforms it would not be used.

Mainly due to it would not be as upto date as say the windows version and so porting would be nasty. They prefer to use OpenGL which has, compared to DirectX, a larger platform support.

-----------------------------------------------
All messages are of my own personal opinion and
not meant to offend. But if they do - tough :)

Neuro.

quote:

---

Original post by Frag_Daddy_

Quote "Bill''s stated aim is to "own the living room" because he believes that the next Internet will be a network into the TV that links your home to everything else (schools, work, entertainment etc) and he ewants to own it."

This is incorrect. Sony, with their Psx2.....

---

I assume you have not read Bill''s books then. He clearly states that he believes the future is in owning the livingroom. At least one of these references pre-dates the PS2 and any anouncements relating to it. I also got the same company line from one of the Senior VPs in the X-Box division when I was last up in Seattle.



Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions

Stealth: The Silent Operation

With a revolutionary style of gameplay, Stealth: The Silent Operation pits you as a Night Crawler, an elite member of the MegaCorps. Your job is to infiltrate enemy compounds, and retrieve, kill and/or maim your way to your objective.

Despite the First-Person Shooter look of the game, it involves little shooting and far more tactics. A sneaker instead of a shooter will prevail.

The realistic lighting system will show you just how visible you are, and coupled with the unique volume system, you have all you need to tackle any task.

Remind you of anything?

Games are NOT applications. The entire purpose of a game is to give the player a fun experience... something usually not done by business tools. Completely unlike games, they provide a set of instruments which one uses to achieve some specific goal, be it to send an E-Mail, or to create a spreadsheet.

By sheer nature, each and every single one does exactly what it was designed for. Therefore, again by sheer nature, they do not represent plots, or play elements, but rather carrying out specific tasks.
In order to create an application similar to all other applications designed for the same purpose, all you need to do is make the application.

Good games are unique. Sure, you get clones. But who buys them? Not I. They carry you along a journey, a journey unique to the game. How do you imitate this? Anyone?

The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive