But...... If microsoft didn't buy Nintendo, how come they never thought about buying Sega and using their brand name?

Graves said: Why does company make a console? MS is a huge company and there wasn't any real risk for them.

except the countless billions they've lost on it already...

They have brought about some really great games, and have really given gaming a long update. The xbox has been an excellent console, but only for the comsumer. Even so, all that money is going to be a waste because they wanted to take down Sony and a) Nintendo did it for free and b) Now Nintendo is the bigger threat.

With PS2, Sony was moving their box to have more and more features of a PC built in, MS was affraid Sony would progress further on the PS3 and have more and more PC-like functionality where people might be less likely to buy a PC. Why do you think the 360 has no Internet browser??? ? It's not like MS doesn't have the software pretty much ready to go with IE - you'd even think it'd make more people comfortable with IE. But building an internet browser in a console would add one feature that's widely believed you need a PC for. They don't want people getting used to browsing the internet anywhere but from PCs. Again Having Office on 360 would also give MS a strategic advantage, but they don't want to go that direction.

I don't think it has as much to do with PC gaming as most think. Having more PC functionality developed could give sony a foothold and eventually they could make their PS OS compatible with PC's. If Sony were to get a monopoly on gameing they probably would try to gain market share by attracting PC custermers, and have the capital to build such software to become a real competitor.

All summed up: Microsoft doesn't ever want owning a PC to become unnecessary. PlayStation was becoming a threat to this.

So according to that assertion, MS really isn't in it for the money, there are in it to crush Sony. Sorry leo-J, but I guess you were wrong again

Kutaragi was right from the start after M$, so it was pretty obvious after PSX having success, it would eventually start eating market from Windows. Especially when Kutaragis vision was to create a multimedia device for every home, eventually making PC obsolete. This itself wouldn't be a problem for M$, since they never have cared about the hardware, only about the software running on the hardware. But, it's likely that Sony wouldn't run their games hardware with Windows (M$ offered Windows for PS2 too), which is a problem for M$.

Sony posed a big threat to M$ and its Windows business, so they had to counter it with something (first it was the Windows CE in Dreamcast).

Joelcool7 said: Now Microsoft is beating Sony in the console market and the idea of Sony producing a computer and OS are now things of the past. At least I don't think Sony will launch their own computer OS anytime soon! Â

PS3 already has the Yellow Dog Linux, so whether or not you want to count that as computer OS, is up to you.

voty2000 said: You can't just state that Microsoft only entered because Playstation was a threat. They are also in it for the money, just like everyone else.

Yes i can. Think about how much money M$ makes with Windows and that money is why they are in the console business.

If someone molests your market and you don't care about it, next thing you notice you're out of business, or at least shrunk in size.

KungKras said: But...... If microsoft didn't buy Nintendo, how come they never thought about buying Sega and using their brand name?

Maybe Sega wasn't for sale either back in the day and when it was, M$ didn't want it anymore. Or maybe M$ didn't want Sega in the first place, because of fucking up its customers and 3rd parties. Keep in mind, that M$ played its part in Dreamcast development.

More Sony was a threat to living room computers (Which Microsoft was hoping to corner the market on.)

They were hoping to transition computers from the computer room/bedroom to the living room TV.

While sony was taking something that was already in the living room TV and trying to get people to do something else with it and expand it's multimedia functions.

Had Nintendo won the last couple generations and kept on with it's "Games only" philosophy there would of never been an Xbox.

Kasz216 said: More Sony was a threat to living room computers (Which Microsoft was hoping to corner the market on.) They were hoping to transition computers from the computer room/bedroom to the living room TV. While sony was taking something that was already in the living room TV and trying to get people to do something else with it and expand it's multimedia functions. Had Nintendo won the last couple generations and kept on with it's "Games only" philosophy there would of never been an Xbox.

Those livingroom multimedia computers were to counter the threat from consoles.

If we look at M$:s philosophy, only thing that threats them is hardware that doesn't run Windows, not the hardware itself or how it's used.

And, you're right about the Nintendo domination.

^ i think this is right. So in that instance MS pretty much loses the game to Google now that theyre making OS for handhelds and laptops.

They entered the console market so that the ps3 can have a price cut this year...thank you MS!

megaman79 said: ^ i think this is right. So in that instance MS pretty much loses the game to Google now that theyre making OS for handhelds and laptops.

Basically the M$ monopoly, or virtual one, is very fragile. They got into their position, when the content was what you did on your hardware, the software purchased for it, but today, M$ is in the position of hardware manufacturers two decades ago. The content is online and the computer software is only a tool to access it, instead of being the content itself. That's why M$ tries to push its own web standards everywhere, so that it would be able to lock internet content to Windows and keep on selling its operating systems.

Google is likely trying to M$ something else to think, than to fight for the web advertising money, which is Googles main business.