Garnett said: C_Hollomon MS didnt pay a cent for any PS exclusives,Sony REFUSED to pay to keep them exclusive,therefore they went MP and sold better on 360. Get your facts straight.

 

 

Didn't MS paid to get FF13.  FF13 was exclusive to the PS3 then all of a sudden the 360 got the game too.  You know MS paid to get the game rather you believe it or not.  They also paid 50 million for GTA and that's a fact.  I'm not saying what MS did is wrong but that's what they had to do to beat the PS3 in sales.  If GTA and FF13 was exclusive to PS3, the PS3 sales would be higher because a lot of people and 360 owners would buy a PS3 for those 2 games.

bdbdbd said: Yes i was. It's hard to find sub-1000€ Mac laptops, not to speak cheap custom-made laptops. So, i rather pay 75€ extra for a product i don't want, than 500€ extra for another product i don't want. You obviously aren't getting it; Micro$ofts monopoly is in the PC market where they sell their operating systems to hardware vendors, who sell the operating systems bundled with the hardware. Since the majority of PC:s are sold new in a store, with Windows on them, there's not much market for rest of the OS manufacturers. We could prove that M$ doesn't have a monopoly, by pointing out that anyone can write their own OS:s. Just because something is possible, it doesn't mean that something is a real option.

How many times must I explain this to you. You were able to get that mac you wanted. Also, One can build a decent PC wiithout and OS for about $400. There are also Netbooxs with linux on them, sold in virtually all the big box retailers. So...explain to me again how MS has any sort of a Monopoly?

And next generation MS takes Sony down, and Nintendo and controls the console and the pc industry. 0_o

ironman said: bdbdbd said: Yes i was. It's hard to find sub-1000€ Mac laptops, not to speak cheap custom-made laptops. So, i rather pay 75€ extra for a product i don't want, than 500€ extra for another product i don't want. You obviously aren't getting it; Micro$ofts monopoly is in the PC market where they sell their operating systems to hardware vendors, who sell the operating systems bundled with the hardware. Since the majority of PC:s are sold new in a store, with Windows on them, there's not much market for rest of the OS manufacturers. We could prove that M$ doesn't have a monopoly, by pointing out that anyone can write their own OS:s. Just because something is possible, it doesn't mean that something is a real option. How many times must I explain this to you. You were able to get that mac you wanted. Also, One can build a decent PC wiithout and OS for about $400. There are also Netbooxs with linux on them, sold in virtually all the big box retailers. So...explain to me again how MS has any sort of a Monopoly?

The netbooks all have Windows XP on them.

M$ has a monopoly, because Windows is the only OS that is sold to hardware vendors.

Monopoly doesn't mean that the one with monopoly would be the only option available, it's about the market share. Now, M$ doesn't have a monopoly in the sense, that it would be the only OS manufacturer, it has a virtual monopoly, where the other manufacturers play only a marginal part and M$ operates above the market level, where the consumer doesn't have an option to choose.

Basically the situation would be similar if all the car manufacturers used Bosch manufactured ABS units and ECU:s. The consumer would be able to buy any car they like, but the electronics would still come from one company and tuning shops would offer you Mitsubishi electronics, if you're not happy with what Bosch has to offer. Of course, it would kill the warranty if you did that. And, then you'd have a third option, a luxury car maker, that has its own electronics, but the car costs twice the amount of other manufacturers cars.

No C-hallomon  MS paid rockstar to make DLC for there system,Rockstar wasnt planning on making DLC,but MS paid them to make it for the 360.

 

Dude Sony didnt want to keep paying Rockstar for GTA exclusive to the PS brand,They then went MP,and sold better on 360. MS couldnt care if GTA was exclusive or not because well... they have Halo and Gears both of which are bigger than GTA. (Gears idk how it sucks)

SmokedHostage said: Sony monopolying the market (SEGA dropped out, Nintendo was in decline) was seen as a threat.

With out MS our only choice now would be an overpriced console or an underpowered console. I'm happy there is a middle ground.

Garnett said: No C-hallomon  MS paid rockstar to make DLC for there system,Rockstar wasnt planning on making DLC,but MS paid them to make it for the 360.   Dude Sony didnt want to keep paying Rockstar for GTA exclusive to the PS brand,They then went MP,and sold better on 360. MS couldnt care if GTA was exclusive or not because well... they have Halo and Gears both of which are bigger than GTA. (Gears idk how it sucks)

Is this trolling or what?

Undying said: SmokedHostage said: Sony monopolying the market (SEGA dropped out, Nintendo was in decline) was seen as a threat. With out MS our only choice now would be an overpriced console or an underpowered console. I'm happy there is a middle ground.

Very true,even if MS lost many 360 exclusives to Pc and everyone without a 360 got the Pc version/piratated the Pc version.

I`m surprised the 360 got so far,the exclusive and consoles only games are just beginning to show.

I think that Pc buyers switched from Pc to the 360 in the living room on the big TV in the living room,while pirates stayed on Pc with the remaining Pc buyers.

My 2 cents...

As with Google, M$ sees these as threats to it's OS...sony started talking about making the ps brand the digital centerpiece...with OS to drive it...M$ ain't gonna have it!

bdbdbd said: ironman said: bdbdbd said: Yes i was. It's hard to find sub-1000€ Mac laptops, not to speak cheap custom-made laptops. So, i rather pay 75€ extra for a product i don't want, than 500€ extra for another product i don't want. You obviously aren't getting it; Micro$ofts monopoly is in the PC market where they sell their operating systems to hardware vendors, who sell the operating systems bundled with the hardware. Since the majority of PC:s are sold new in a store, with Windows on them, there's not much market for rest of the OS manufacturers. We could prove that M$ doesn't have a monopoly, by pointing out that anyone can write their own OS:s. Just because something is possible, it doesn't mean that something is a real option. How many times must I explain this to you. You were able to get that mac you wanted. Also, One can build a decent PC wiithout and OS for about $400. There are also Netbooxs with linux on them, sold in virtually all the big box retailers. So...explain to me again how MS has any sort of a Monopoly? The netbooks all have Windows XP on them. M$ has a monopoly, because Windows is the only OS that is sold to hardware vendors. Monopoly doesn't mean that the one with monopoly would be the only option available, it's about the market share. Now, M$ doesn't have a monopoly in the sense, that it would be the only OS manufacturer, it has a virtual monopoly, where the other manufacturers play only a marginal part and M$ operates above the market level, where the consumer doesn't have an option to choose. Basically the situation would be similar if all the car manufacturers used Bosch manufactured ABS units and ECU:s. The consumer would be able to buy any car they like, but the electronics would still come from one company and tuning shops would offer you Mitsubishi electronics, if you're not happy with what Bosch has to offer. Of course, it would kill the warranty if you did that. And, then you'd have a third option, a luxury car maker, that has its own electronics, but the car costs twice the amount of other manufacturers cars.

The amount of stupid in your post is making my head hurt!

Not all netbooks have Windows XP on them, Target, Walmart, and Best Buy all sell ones with a Linux OS on them. Hardware venders CHOOSE to sell PCs with Windows XP because it is the OS that sells the best, and is the easiest for everybody to use since virtually everybody has Windows experiance. Look at ACER, their netbooks have Windows XP on them, AND Linux on them, it's a choice, they are obviously NOT forced to only sell WinXP. 

On your second point, You obviously don't know what you are talking about since you can replace the ECU, spark plug wires, coil packs, spark plugs, ABS systems, and still not void your manufacturers warrenty. There is a law that protects the consumer in those situations, unless the manufacturer can prove that the replaced parts cause a falure to the OE (which is nearly impossible to to in court) then it cannot void the warrenty. Please check your facts before posting.