[undeaf]

As if antitrust regulators ever actually did anything significant to microsoft?

Now, they could still be anticipating it if apple were to go under, but I think the reason they like to have apple around is because they fear linux much more. If apple disappeared, resistance to microsoft would centralize around linux, and this would be far more dangerous to them. Apple likes to stick to their safe, stable little upmarket niche, linux could move in on microsoft's marketshare from many directions. Microsoft could accept linux as the official alternative platform, they just don't want to.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Sony doesn't have the same history of un-competitive behavior that Microsoft has. They are not a monopoly in any single domain as Microsoft.

They had a near-monopoly on the console market for the last two generations. What most "MS cheerleaders" are asking for is equality. Seeing such an overwhelming majority of juicy third party games becoming PS/PS2 exclusives sucked for all owners of other systems.

[undeaf]

As if xbox never had any exclusives?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

They had a near-monopoly on the console market for the last two generations. What most "MS cheerleaders" are asking for is equality. Seeing such an overwhelming majority of juicy third party games becoming PS/PS2 exclusives sucked for all owners of other systems.

First of, Sony was in the market longer so it is obvious that it will get more exclusives. Second of all, Sony has not done any anit-competitive practices in the gaming market that can be called monopolistic like Microsoft has done in other markets.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by undeaf

As if antitrust regulators ever actually did anything significant to microsoft?

Now, they could still be anticipating it if apple were to go under, but I think the reason they like to have apple around is because they fear linux much more. If apple disappeared, resistance to microsoft would centralize around linux, and this would be far more dangerous to them. Apple likes to stick to their safe, stable little upmarket niche, linux could move in on microsoft's marketshare from many directions. Microsoft could accept linux as the official alternative platform, they just don't want to.

Plus, if Apple is still around, MS could always turn to the justice department and say, "hey look there is apple still around. See we have competition".

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by undeaf

Now, they could still be anticipating it if apple were to go under, but I think the reason they like to have apple around is because they fear linux much more. If apple disappeared, resistance to microsoft would centralize around linux, and this would be far more dangerous to them. Apple likes to stick to their safe, stable little upmarket niche, linux could move in on microsoft's marketshare from many directions. Microsoft could accept linux as the official alternative platform, they just don't want to.

Wow. Just wow. It's very nice that you're such an ardent Linux supporter, some 6-7 years ago I was drunk on GNU ideals as well, but let's be reasonable - with all the advancements that have been made over the years, it still has zero chance of overtaking the desktop market. Zero. Education, networking, embedded systems - all areas Linux and Unices in general have traditionally been strong at, but it will take at least another 10 years and A LOT of standardization before Linux starts posing a serious threat to Microsoft's desktop dominance.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Personally I was happy when the first Xbox came out precisely because it meant competition, for a company like Sony to [hopefully] not get lazy and sit on their laurels. But it seems the opposite happened. Sony became big headed and began to insult us, the consumers, and ignore and disrespect third party developers. Perhaps it's karma but it looks to be this time that they're getting their comeuppance.

No one should be surprised that devs and pubs are going multiplatform. Top level games cost an average of tens of millions of dollars to produce, so to keep a title exclusive risks losing potential profits, if not at least breaking even. Sony could've avoided minimized losing exclusive titles by working closely with developers and keeping them abreast of the progress of the PS3 during the whole process. Microsoft, on the other hand, made it a priority to keep developers in on how the 360 was developing so that they earned the developers' trust.

Now this doesn't mean that I want Sony out of the market. Quite the opposite, I want them to get better so that Microsoft would be forced to improve things on their own side of the fence. Perhaps it may take getting their pompous ass kicked this time around for Sony to realize things and begin turning themselves around (as I agree with EvoG). The worst aspects of their operations are their customer service, public relations, developer and publisher relations, and marketing - the exact things I feel that Microsoft excels in by comparison.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Wow. Just wow. It's very nice that you're such an ardent Linux supporter, some 6-7 years ago I was drunk on GNU ideals as well, but let's be reasonable - with all the advancements that have been made over the years, it still has zero chance of overtaking the desktop market. Zero. Education, networking, embedded systems - all areas Linux and Unices in general have traditionally been strong at, but it will take at least another 10 years and A LOT of standardization before Linux starts posing a serious threat to Microsoft's desktop dominance.

I've got one word for you

Gooooooooooooooooooooogle

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

First of, Sony was in the market longer so it is obvious that it will get more exclusives. Second of all, Sony has not done any anit-competitive practices in the gaming market that can be called monopolistic like Microsoft has done in other markets.

They weren't in the market longer than Nintendo and SEGA. And speaking of anti-competitive practices, we don't really know what's been happening behind the closed doors, do we? You really think no exclusives have been secured through pressuring weaker companies? Please... And going after importers is not anti-competitive?

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

I've got one word for you

Gooooooooooooooooooooogle

I have several words for you: we'll see about that.

[undeaf]

Apple has even less chance of overtaking the desktop market. Linux might not be able to get more than 50% marketshare or even 20%, but it's still far more of a threat than apple.

And I'm not a GNU-hippie, I wouldn't mind it if there was a lot more proprietiary software available for linux.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Personally I was happy when the first Xbox came out precisely because it meant competition

How exactly did knocking out the dreamcast increase competition?

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by undeaf

How exactly did knocking out the dreamcast increase competition?

Wait, you're suggesting Xbox knocked out Dreamcast? Am I getting that right?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

LMAO @ undeaf!!!!

Good one, eh?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

They weren't in the market longer than Nintendo and SEGA. And speaking of anti-competitive practices, we don't really know what's been happening behind the closed doors, do we? You really think no exclusives have been secured through pressuring weaker companies? Please... And going after importers is not anti-competitive?

You are speculating here. Where as it is fact that Microsoft performs these strategies and that they hurt you and me, the end consumers.

[CrimsonBlue]

SEGA knocked themselves out. With a little help from the popularity of the Playstation brand. If Sony's console hadn't been so fantastically popular, Dreamcast would've survived. But the market wouldn't be as huge as it is now, Sony took on a relative small market and made it a much bigger. So they MADE the market we have today. Before the Playstation, gaming was a nerd's hobby. Sony changed that. Wether you think this was a good change or bad change is entirely up to the individual.

[insane_cobra]

Well, yeah, that's speculation. But closing down importers like Lik-Sang for no good reason seems pretty anti-competitive to me and it hurts the little guy. Using PS3 as a Trojan horse for forcing a new video standard also reeks on anti-competitiveness and hurts average consumers. Using their influence to hoard all the blue laser diodes for themselves definitely spells anti-competitiveness. Manipulating people into believing they would offer generational leaps over their competition, just to keep them from buying a competing product, and then not delivering is very anti-competitive (and it already happened twice!). Ditto for insisting on proprietary ATRAC format in their portable music players just because of stronger DRM. Their, now thankfully abandoned, strategy of insisting on 3D games maybe wasn't anti-competitive, but it stunk. I know it's easy, and even cool, to hate Microsoft nowadays, but there are more than enough foul practices Sony has been responsible for over the years, just like every other large corporation.

Originally Posted by CrimsonBlue

SEGA knocked themselves out. With a little help from the popularity of the Playstation brand.

I agree that SEGA knocked themselves out, but it was more than popularity of the Playstation brand that put the final nail in the coffin. It was Sony promising amazing things and then giving people Fantavision.

[Fop]

Betamax, Minidisc, Blu-Ray are all efforts by Sony to get a monopoly that it could use to its advantage. Just because Sony sucks at it doesn't make it morally superior.

[CrimsonBlue]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I agree that SEGA knocked themselves out, but it was more than popularity of the Playstation brand that put the final nail in the coffin. It was Sony promising amazing things and then giving people Fantavision.

Well, Sony's promises pretty much relied on the popularity. And Fantavision wasn't the only launch game. SSX was one of the best launch titles ever.

[insane_cobra]

Their promises relied on manipulation. And SSX was great, but it didn't come even close to what they had promised.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Well, yeah, that's speculation. But closing down importers like Lik-Sang for no good reason seems pretty anti-competitive to me and it hurts the little guy. Using PS3 as a Trojan horse for forcing a new video standard also reeks on anti-competitiveness and hurts average consumers. Using their influence to hoard all the blue laser diodes for themselves definitely spells anti-competitiveness. Manipulating people into believing they would offer generational leaps over their competition, just to keep them from buying a competing product, and then not delivering is very anti-competitive (and it already happened twice!). Ditto for insisting on proprietary ATRAC format in their portable music players just because of stronger DRM. Their, now thankfully abandoned, strategy of insisting on 3D games maybe wasn't anti-competitive, but it stunk. I know it's easy, and even cool, to hate Microsoft nowadays, but there are more than enough foul practices Sony has been responsible for over the years, just like every other large corporation.

I agree that SEGA knocked themselves out, but it was more than popularity of the Playstation brand that put the final nail in the coffin. It was Sony promising amazing things and then giving people Fantavision.

How is introducing DRM into their products to stop piracy anti-competitive? And if that's the case, why don't you mention 360's latest "update" that bricks consoles that have been modded. And using one format to sell another. Haven't we heard that one before. Using windows to sell pretty much every software they ever made, and in some cases forcing other companies to adopt it. Just read that article I sent you.

And Blu-ray is a Trojan Horse? Listen to yourself man. Torjan Horse has a negative annotation, whereas getting one of those things is a very pleasent experience. The damn thing costs 900 dollars and you are getting it for less than 600. Plus Microsoft has an HD-DVD add-on already. How can you say that there is no competition involved?

I am not saying that Sony hasn't had their blunders, but if you look at the history of the 2 companies, (and Sony has been around much longer than MS), you'd see that Microsoft by far is the more anti-competitive, anti-consumer of the 2.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

How is introducing DRM into their products to stop piracy anti-competitive?

That's not anti-competitive, supporting playback of only their proprietary format and nothing else is. They even admitted it themselves.

And if that's the case, why don't you mention 360's latest "update" that bricks consoles that have been modded. And using one format to sell another. Haven't we heard that one before. Using windows to sell pretty much every software they ever made, and in some cases forcing other companies to adopt it. Just read that article I sent you.

Because that's beside the point. I'm not trying to prove Microsoft is not doing that shit (I agreed they're far from being a bunch of saints), I'm just showing you that Sony is doing it too.

And Blu-ray is a Trojan Horse? Listen to yourself man. Torjan Horse has a negative annotation, whereas getting one of those things is a very pleasent experience. The damn thing costs 900 dollars and you are getting it for less than 600. Plus Microsoft has an HD-DVD add-on already. How can you say that there is no competition involved?

Yes, it's a Trojan horse and almost everyone will agree with that. It doesn't need to be a part of PS3 and it's only unnecessarily inflating the price for everyone. Not just people who care about HD video playback, everyone. Yes, Xbox 360 has an HD-DVD add-on. Notice the difference.

I am not saying that Sony hasn't had their blunders, but if you look at the history of the 2 companies, (and Sony has been around much longer than MS), you'd see that Microsoft by far is the more anti-competitive, anti-consumer of the 2.

This is not a pissing match, I'm just saying they're both greedy corporations doing what greedy corporations usually do. Sony is no better than Microsoft, if they were in Microsoft's position, they would've done the very same things. Like Fop said, they tried several times, they just weren't as lucky.