By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Worst Moves in History (Microsoft)

endimion on 23 December 2012

well I think with xb it is obvious the RROD was the biggest fuck up.... second probably how they leveraged their IPs and 1st party studios..... beside that it's clearly a success..... now I wonder what it would have been without the RROD issues and if they had a bunch of RARE IPs and famous MSGS IPs like the madness series and all....



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 23 December 2012
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

XSN. They got their collective asses handed to them by the third party competition.


I don't see why any gamer would look back to XSN and call it a bad move or a mistake. The service was ahead of its time and it brought up amazing games like Links 2004, Top Spin, and Rallisport Challenge 2. Those 3 games alone you could throw up against any games in their genres today, 9 or 10 years later, and they are still great. The problem was the other 3 games in the main sports were not up to par and gamers didn't seem interested in sticking with the franchises while they were ironed out when you could buy Madden football or 2k basketball instead.

But the year after XSN games launched, Madden and 2k had online leagues so you could say XSN pioneered a lot of the online social competitive gaming we see in sports games today. Furthermore right after they closed XSN, MS partnered with EA Sports and it was a huge reason why Live took off so well.

They must have done a pretty amazing job over the years if they is one of their worst moves.


Madden and NBA Live were the kings back then (until 2k made NBA 2k's debut). The only exclusive team sports game that couldn't be beaten was MLB The Show. Microsofts efforts were sour and NBA 2k was a breath of fresh air on the Dreamcast. I remember playing that game and thinking this will be the end all be all of basketball videogames. Microsoft never owned TopSpin, they just published it exclusively for the Xbox and it was on the PS2 as well. XSN was a broken joke unless Microsoft could figure out how to keep every game exclusive to them that was worth a damn. Every single first party sports game that Microsoft funded failed. The only thing that was correct about XSN was the match making which was destined to come, but how can you control the stats and online playability of games you dont own? Since then their exclusives efforts have left a trail of cold or dead franchises.Tell me...out of the exclusives Microsoft started with, how many remain today? Thats right the same three. Forza, Fable and Halo. Twelve years for Halo, Nine for fable and eight for Forza. Please correct me if I am missing something.

PS

XSN exclusives werent even a threat. ESPN's sports titles were shit and even they were giving EA a hard time. Top Spin thrived for all the reasons I mentioned, without Microsoft to drop them, they survived multiple iterations.



killer7 on 23 December 2012

Xbox360. definitly! The games are awesome but the hardware is real bulshit! Even I would create a better one if i had the people and the money!! But the first Xbox was outstanding!! I am sure they knew about the RROD before but just wanted to be first! They wanted to sell it muliple times (One has RROD and buys next one)- so double buy! This is the way to keep the lead over PS3! This is how i can think of this! But good strategy :)



Soleron on 23 December 2012
Adinnieken said:
Soleron said:

Pissing off all the OEMs by making a Surface tablet and selling it in Best Buy, without the $100 fee they charge the OEMs for WinRT.

This will have a SERIOUS effect on the Windows monopoly, just watch.

It won't be, because it isn't monopolistic.  If it was then Apple would be a monopoly which, consequently, it isn't.

The Surface is, when compared to similar hardware, reasonably priced.  It isn't notably less expensive, and it notably more expensive.  As a corporation, Microsoft, even in its products, has to justify costs.  It can't offer a zero cost to Windows 8 RT/Pro, when in another part of the business they've calculated the an actual cost. 

That said, the actual cost isn't $100.  That's a flat out factually inaccurate.  The price is $50 for Windows 8 RT, $65 if Office 2013 is included.  That prices is the top tier price, with the fewest number of licenses being purchased.  Increase the quantity of devices and that price goes down.

The $100 price you cite is for Windows 8 Pro and Office 2013. 

Incorrect on a bunch of counts.

1. WinRT is forcibly bundled with Office and is $100/license.

2. It doesn't matter what MS thinks is a fair price, NOR that it isn't monopolistic, the OEMs are /still pissed/. Regardless of how fair it is, MS is undercutting them when it promised it would not.

The monopoly I am claiming it will affect is that of desktop PCs. MS angers HP -> HP starts looking at Android or Linux for desktops very seriously.



J_Allard on 23 December 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

XSN. They got their collective asses handed to them by the third party competition.


I don't see why any gamer would look back to XSN and call it a bad move or a mistake. The service was ahead of its time and it brought up amazing games like Links 2004, Top Spin, and Rallisport Challenge 2. Those 3 games alone you could throw up against any games in their genres today, 9 or 10 years later, and they are still great. The problem was the other 3 games in the main sports were not up to par and gamers didn't seem interested in sticking with the franchises while they were ironed out when you could buy Madden football or 2k basketball instead.

But the year after XSN games launched, Madden and 2k had online leagues so you could say XSN pioneered a lot of the online social competitive gaming we see in sports games today. Furthermore right after they closed XSN, MS partnered with EA Sports and it was a huge reason why Live took off so well.

They must have done a pretty amazing job over the years if they is one of their worst moves.


Madden and NBA Live were the kings back then (until 2k made NBA 2k's debut). The only exclusive team sports game that couldn't be beaten was MLB The Show. Microsofts efforts were sour and NBA 2k was a breath of fresh air on the Dreamcast. I remember playing that game and thinking this will be the end all be all of basketball videogames. Microsoft never owned TopSpin, they just published it exclusively for the Xbox and it was on the PS2 as well. XSN was a broken joke unless Microsoft could figure out how to keep every game exclusive to them that was worth a damn. Every single first party sports game that Microsoft funded failed. The only thing that was correct about XSN was the match making which was destined to come, but how can you control the stats and online playability of games you dont own? Since then their exclusives efforts have left a trail of cold or dead franchises.Tell me...out of the exclusives Microsoft started with, how many remain today? Thats right the same three. Forza, Fable and Halo. Twelve years for Halo, Nine for fable and eight for Forza. Please correct me if I am missing something.

PS

XSN exclusives werent even a threat. ESPN's sports titles were shit and even they were giving EA a hard time. Top Spin thrived for all the reasons I mentioned, without Microsoft to drop them, they survived multiple iterations.

Top Spin came to ps2 two years later and without Live/XSN, the online play was not the same. The Show and Dreamcast are irrelevant, neither were around for XSN. You're missing the point anyway. You seemed genuinely excited and proud that XSN was canceled. As a gamer that shouldn't be the case, it was an incredible servvice that brought us the gems I already mentioned. Plus it pioneered many of the features in sports games we take for granted today. Only a couple years after XSN allowed you to set up leagues and such and use a website to track results and customize settings, both Madden 2k both had the feature. And MS already controls matchmaking for most Live games, always have. The exception is a company like EA, who wants to run their own stuff because they want total control. That was the roadblock in getting them on XBL. One could easily argue that allowing EA onto Live and canceling their own sports games is one of the things that has made Live so successful. So the "failure" seems to have worked out better for them in the end.

Like i said if XSN is one of their "worst failures" then wow, they've done an amazing job.



Around the Network
killer7 on 23 December 2012

@melbye
This is very hard but you´re right! Not only games count! For me the hardware is the most important thing on a console! But the games are awesome!



MentalAlliance on 23 December 2012

Yep, destroying Rare takes the cake. Also, and this is not so much a decision, but a lack thereof: neglecting to obtain more dedicated first-party/IP games.



MoHasanie on 24 December 2012
killer7 said:

I am sure they knew about the RROD before but just wanted to be first! They wanted to sell it muliple times (One has RROD and buys next one)- so double buy! This is the way to keep the lead over PS3! This is how i can think of this! But good strategy :)


I doubt they'd known that so many of the Xbox's would get RROD. I mean, it hurt the Xbox brand and reputation, so that's really bad for Microsoft. Also, it may have made many Xbox fans to switch to the PS3. 



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

fighter on 24 December 2012
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Ohh ohh OHHH!! I got one!! Making Steve Ballmer their CEO.


i second that 

 

 

"developers developers developers"