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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Power On: The Story of Xbox

mjk45 on 17 December 2021
EricHiggin said:
SKMBlake said:

Well yes and no, they designed a full working console for Nintendo that didn't materialize over fee disputes. So using their prototype, removing the SNES cartridge part, and making an actual console isn't the same, I mean they spent money on the prototype.

Chazore said:

I know you see it as passion, but that's like saying Nintendo are the kindest company on earth (yet they ruled with an iron fist, especially with the Nintendo seal of approval logic). 

I don't see it as passion, especially when hearing it from a CEO of a company (a company that like MS, isn't without faults, arrogance and bad dealing here and there), because I know it's really about money at the end of the day. 

While you can use the passion angle, it doesn't exactly hold true to this day, when you're paying £10 extra for upgrades, the data leak fiasco, the exclusivity deals and much more.

Also I really don't like to think that someone could imagine "passion" being used in the same ideal as wanting to replace PC's, like to me that's not passion, that's more of wanting others to change to what they want as their ideal, not mine (and well, because they're a big company, do they care about what my ideal is?, no, which doesn't come off as passionate either, when you look at the big picture).  

We could say MS was "passionate" about what they wanted to do with Xbox, but then we got GFWL on PC, and was that something passionate or born from it, even if you heard a CEO or some journo saying such?. 

SNY seemingly had much more interest in gaming as per the business decision. Dishonorable Nintendo was just the missing Link to the PS brand.

It makes perfect sense because it's a form of entertainment. It fits extremely well with SNY's brand. The necessary console hardware as well.

MS planned for a partnership first. MS did have a tiny amount of gaming interest in mind, but the business decision was mostly to keep SNY in check.

This made sense because offering the gaming software API and OS, fit the MS brand extremely well. The future online infrastructure also.

If SNY wouldn't have indirectly verbally threatened MS business, they may have gotten away without having to compete with XBOX or even 360. Though if PS3 was allowed to match if not exceed PS2 sales due to lack of competition, MS may never have been able to stop SNY from taking a chunk of their business. We would almost certainly have an Apple/Samsung/Google like all encompassing ecosystem for SNY by the time PS4 launched in that case, and PS4 just may have been running a Windows competitor, SNY's or third party.

Overall moral of the story. Don't ever get too cocky.

What you got all that from Bills misplaced fear of the rise of all in one home multimedia centre being a game console rather than what it turned out to be .



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Around the Network
mjk45 on 17 December 2021
SegaHeart said:

If it weren't for Microsoft there would never existed a Halo, Bungie had the Idea but was extremely risky and would kill the company if it failed , Bungie wanted to do another game but Microsoft pushed for the Halo combat Evolved Idea and it payed off . And because no shooter game implemented First person shooters So good not even PS2 , It was all Xbox to innovate it because First Person Shooters is meant for PC not even PS1 nor N64 evolved First Person Shooters like Xbox Though Golden eye on N64 was amazing and we had severval shooters on PS1 including rainbow six for PS1 with dualshock 1 and other war games on PS1 and PS2 that felt underwelming but noone did it better than Microsoft Halo combat evolved , Basicly Microsoft evolved the First Person Shooter genre on consoles if it wasn't for Microsoft we'd still wouldn't have crisp First Person gameplay on Consoles and resistance and killzone would of never existed if it wasn't for Halo.

Your right and wrong at the same time , Halo existed but it was in a RTS form think Halo Wars MS contribution was to convince bungie to turn it into a FPS as to the rest you can continue  that game by saying Halo wouldn't have existed without Wolfenstein, Halo's influence is strong  there no doubt , but  to say we wouldn't have crisp FP game play on consoles today is hyperbole.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

mjk45 on 17 December 2021
SegaHeart said:
mjk45 said:

Your right and wrong at the same time , Halo existed but it was in a RTS form think Halo Wars MS contribution was to convince bungie to turn it into a FPS as to the rest you can continue  that game by saying Halo wouldn't have existed without Wolfenstein, Halo's influence is strong  there no doubt , but  to say we wouldn't have crisp FP game play on consoles today is hyperbole.

Yes , I went to fast their but FPS would be more in - line of Goldeneye which is what I meant my mistake , It would have gone a different route for FPS like rainbow six on PS1 and Golden eye on N64 , I meant FPS wouldn't be like we have right now without halo . But yeah today FPS would be more like goldeneye type of gameplay I loved goldeneye but going back to goldeneye on N64 doesn't feel as fun as halo besides the big head cheat in goldeneye and and using weird weapons . Goldeneye feels ancient now that I think about it? But it would of gone in different direction .

The best bit is were not here talking about Halo's contribution to RTS games and we all agree it did help change the face of FPS on consoles.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

mjk45 on 17 December 2021
SegaHeart said:
mjk45 said:

The best bit is were not here talking about Halo's contribution to RTS games and we all agree it did help change the face of FPS on consoles.

And Sony did more for gaming than Microsoft , Sega is the missing link they created the First 3D fighting game in Virtua Fighter and Sega was the first to introduce the Activator before Kinect and was the first to Life simulator , social simulator in Shenmue etc Oh if Sega was still around they would make so many things right now , they still have great ideas hoping Sega one day comes back probably 20 years from now , even though few Sega fans don't want them to make a hardware comeback ever. I said Few looks at a certain fan in Sega discord.

Hardware doesn't define a great gaming company software does. one thing we need to remember though is times change, an example would be I grew up with the C64 and Amiga and a lot of my my favourite games are from that 8 /16 bit era but I also realise that time and progress has meant that games and gamers expectations have changed and not only do those games reflect there time, our excitement and expectations are also products of the times that we experienced them.

What I'm getting at is looking at the past is good but the games and types that resonated yesterday may not resonate today, the world moves on and peoples expectations for good or ill change and major players like Sega Nintendo and Sony and MS aren't made up of automatons so they also change, and even the great names we have had in game development over the years don't possess that lightning in the bottle indefinitely and that hit and miss part along with the world no longer being the 1990's and Sega having had just one successful console from a hardware sales perspective and the end of arcades this list is why  trying to returning Sega back 30 years isn't going to happen.

Last edited by mjk45 - on 17 December 2021

Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

EricHiggin on 17 December 2021
mjk45 said:
EricHiggin said:
Chazore said:

I know you see it as passion, but that's like saying Nintendo are the kindest company on earth (yet they ruled with an iron fist, especially with the Nintendo seal of approval logic). 

I don't see it as passion, especially when hearing it from a CEO of a company (a company that like MS, isn't without faults, arrogance and bad dealing here and there), because I know it's really about money at the end of the day. 

While you can use the passion angle, it doesn't exactly hold true to this day, when you're paying £10 extra for upgrades, the data leak fiasco, the exclusivity deals and much more.

Also I really don't like to think that someone could imagine "passion" being used in the same ideal as wanting to replace PC's, like to me that's not passion, that's more of wanting others to change to what they want as their ideal, not mine (and well, because they're a big company, do they care about what my ideal is?, no, which doesn't come off as passionate either, when you look at the big picture).  

We could say MS was "passionate" about what they wanted to do with Xbox, but then we got GFWL on PC, and was that something passionate or born from it, even if you heard a CEO or some journo saying such?. 

SNY seemingly had much more interest in gaming as per the business decision. Dishonorable Nintendo was just the missing Link to the PS brand.

It makes perfect sense because it's a form of entertainment. It fits extremely well with SNY's brand. The necessary console hardware as well.

MS planned for a partnership first. MS did have a tiny amount of gaming interest in mind, but the business decision was mostly to keep SNY in check.

This made sense because offering the gaming software API and OS, fit the MS brand extremely well. The future online infrastructure also.

If SNY wouldn't have indirectly verbally threatened MS business, they may have gotten away without having to compete with XBOX or even 360. Though if PS3 was allowed to match if not exceed PS2 sales due to lack of competition, MS may never have been able to stop SNY from taking a chunk of their business. We would almost certainly have an Apple/Samsung/Google like all encompassing ecosystem for SNY by the time PS4 launched in that case, and PS4 just may have been running a Windows competitor, SNY's or third party.

Overall moral of the story. Don't ever get too cocky.

What you got all that from Bills misplaced fear of the rise of all in one home multimedia centre being a game console rather than what it turned out to be.

If XB1 took the same kind of step that PS3 took, beyond gaming, then ya, PS4 and now PS5 being far closer to PC's in their capability wouldn't be out of the question by any means. 

Maybe SNY would've stopped at media and left PC's alone, but that seems kinda unlikely. Where would they have grown from that point? MS got into console, entertainment, digital online (bundle) services, so why wouldn't SNY had tried to offer what PC OS and software could?

Nin got too cocky with the Wii, which led to the Wii U, that was a marketing disaster, which didn't turn out great.

SNY got too cocky about becoming the future of computing, starting with PS2 but mostly with PS3, which didn't turn out great.

MS got too cocky with 360, then trying to do what PS3 did with XB1, though cheaper, yet at the gamers expense, which didn't turn out great.

I guess the real question is, could SNY actually have succeeded in an all in one computing device even if MS didn't enter the console market?

Based on the outcome of PS3 and XB1, was it really the push beyond gaming and pricing that was the problem? Without MS, would SNY have had to retreat to a PS4 like gaming focused console regardless?

I'd say if SNY were to have pushed for that, without MS in the picture, they would've likely had little choice but to offer multiple tiered SKU's like MS has started to do.



Around the Network
mjk45 on 17 December 2021
EricHiggin said:
mjk45 said:

What you got all that from Bills misplaced fear of the rise of all in one home multimedia centre being a game console rather than what it turned out to be.

If XB1 took the same kind of step that PS3 took, beyond gaming, then ya, PS4 and now PS5 being far closer to PC's in their capability wouldn't be out of the question by any means. 

Maybe SNY would've stopped at media and left PC's alone, but that seems kinda unlikely. Where would they have grown from that point? MS got into console, entertainment, digital online (bundle) services, so why wouldn't SNY had tried to offer what PC OS and software could?

Nin got too cocky with the Wii, which led to the Wii U, that was a marketing disaster, which didn't turn out great.

SNY got too cocky about becoming the future of computing, starting with PS2 but mostly with PS3, which didn't turn out great.

MS got too cocky with 360, then trying to do what PS3 did with XB1, though cheaper, yet at the gamers expense, which didn't turn out great.

I guess the real question is, could SNY actually have succeeded in an all in one computing device even if MS didn't enter the console market?

Based on the outcome of PS3 and XB1, was it really the push beyond gaming and pricing that was the problem? Without MS, would SNY have had to retreat to a PS4 like gaming focused console regardless?

I'd say if SNY were to have pushed for that, without MS in the picture, they would've likely had little choice but to offer multiple tiered SKU's like MS has started to do.

MS move into consoles didn't stop the rise of the all in one device replacing the PC it simply wasn't going to happen in that form it was a combination of Bill's crystal ball gazing being off and him believing Kens hyperbolic statements about the PS2 and it's multimedia capabilities while the public didn't follow on till it received a more compelling case and that arrived with smart phones.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

EricHiggin on 17 December 2021
d21lewis said:

A few things I remember not agreeing with (I'm paraphrasing):

-"The Xbox 360 won the generation": Maybe in the United States but worldwide? Nah.

-Consoles couldn't have good first person shooters before Halo? Medal of Honor, Goldeneye, Quake II and III (the latter's Dreamcast version even had cross play with the PC!)

-Sony actually brought a hard drive, headset, online, etc to market before Xbox. Xbox did it best but Sony still did it first.

There are a few more examples but the more time passes, the more I forget.
d21lewis said:

One more thing they said that I just remembered was that Nintendo and Sony were losing money on the consoles but making money on game sales. I don't know if Nintendo ever took a loss on hardware sales but if they did, it was rare and probably not a big loss of that. The original Xbox lost $100 for each one sold.

Not a big deal in the grand scheme of the documentary but still something that wasn't exactly accurate.

There were a bunch. Enough that it's not easy to remember them all.

What was odd, is they did talk about things like game sharing in one vid, though the way they explained that was that basically everyone misunderstood and it was never a problem to begin with. 

Now while there were some misunderstandings, due to poor XB messaging, it didn't change the fact that gamers took issue with it once it was clear.

Then it was mentioned that the only difference between PS4 and XB1 was the price. Of course leading to consumers choosing the PS4.

Only a price difference? It's not like the rest of the differences were so minor they weren't worth mentioning, some being said just prior.

It's a decent marketing tool for the XB brand, but it clearly wasn't made for historical accuracy as you say.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 17 December 2021

Leynos on 17 December 2021

Made a documentary about themselves. Yeah, I expect no bias. No thanks. I rather see one of these done for SEGA. I like OG Xbox and really liked 360 but they took over that 3rd spot after SEGA left and they just never lived up IMO.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Leynos on 17 December 2021
SKMBlake said:
Chazore said:

, I don't believe Sony's should be either, because if you remember, they only entered the market in a big way because they felt "betrayed" by another Japanese company (Nintendo), which they took Japanese levels of offence to (because that's just like the Japanese to go all Samurai period levels of pissed off, seriously, I'm not joking, history tells you how easy it was to offend them), and decided they wanted to crush their would-be partner.

Well yes and no, they designed a full working console for Nintendo that didn't materialize over fee disputes. So using their prototype, removing the SNES cartridge part, and making an actual console isn't the same, I mean they spent money on the prototype.

They met with SEGA after that in talks with Sony designing the next SEGA console. Both Sony and SOJ decided not to. I know SOA really wanted that deal to happen and Tom Kalinkse was more right than even he could have predicted. This chapter is always skipped over when people talk about how PS1 came to be.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Azzanation on 17 December 2021
EricHiggin said:
mjk45 said:

What you got all that from Bills misplaced fear of the rise of all in one home multimedia centre being a game console rather than what it turned out to be.

If XB1 took the same kind of step that PS3 took, beyond gaming, then ya, PS4 and now PS5 being far closer to PC's in their capability wouldn't be out of the question by any means. 

Maybe SNY would've stopped at media and left PC's alone, but that seems kinda unlikely. Where would they have grown from that point? MS got into console, entertainment, digital online (bundle) services, so why wouldn't SNY had tried to offer what PC OS and software could?

I believe a lot of people are misunderstanding whats being said here. Its not that if Playstation was going to end up overtaking PCs, that wasn't the issue. The issue was towards the support leaving windows gaming which was a massive selling point for the OS. When Sega left, no console was pushing Windows and Direct X. This was a problem since Microsoft were worried that majority of 3rd party companies weren't supporting Direct X which is a staple of Windows. MS needed a console to help push DX, Sega were doing it and when Sega left, MS had to step in themselves and push it. The Xbox brand was meant to help support DX and push developers to use MS tools. That's why they named it XBOX, short for Direct XBOX.