Darwinianevolution said:
The thing is that Micrososft had to make a choice. Microsoft released their consoles as a way to compete against Sony. The first XBox was utterly unable to hurt the giant that was the PS2, even though it beat the Gamecube by a few million. Up until that point, Mucrosoft invested a decent amount on PC gaming because they had total control on PC, but their consoles were beaten by the PS2. When their console started to get really popular, they moven most of their effords on consoles. If they had started their digital distribution services on PC before, they could have created a very important lead, maybe combining the XBox live accounts to Windows Live, but giving to WLive way more features that it had. Now Microsoft has to fight on three fronts: Consoles, PC and Tablets, and it isn't dominating any of them. Nintendo has their handhelds, Sony has their home consoles, Apple has the tablet market cornered, Valve is the king of digital distribution on PC, Mac and Linux... This was something similar to Nintendo with the N64: If they had used CDs instead of cartridges, and allowed more freedom to 3rd parties, PlayStation wouldn't have been suh a threat, and Nintendo would have kept their dominance over handheld and home console a decade more. Also, Valve is too big and profitable. They won't be bought by Microsoft any time soon. |
It's a bit like sony should have made the ps3 similar to the xbox 360. Or Nintendo should have been the ones who invented the iPhone or sony should have made iTunes and as you say Microsoft should have created steam and left consoles alone. It's funny how lack of foresight and vision comes back to bite companies in the ass!