Microsoft's admissions on PC vs Consoles

Here's an interesting snip from an interview with Microsofts Peter Zetterberg, Business Development Manager for Europe and Matthew White, Creative Director of MGS Europe. I'm sure Germans will be thrilled to hear this..

MGS Europe: Simultaneous releases would "shoot ourselves in the foot"
Microsoft Games Studios Europe has said that while it continues to support the PC and Xbox 360 equally, consumers shouldn't expect to see hit titles released simultaneously on each format as the PC version would take away a significant portion of console sales.

As the company strives to sell more home consoles in Europe, releasing titles on both platforms would be damaging in European markets where the PC is the dominant gaming platform, said Peter Zetterberg, business development manager for MGS Europe.

"On a global scale the Windows Vista business is as important as our Xbox 360 business. But in Germany for example, we want more gamers to buy our Xbox 360,” he said in an interview published today.

"If we launch a game that is on 360 and PC simultaneously, we basically shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing the German market to choose to play the PC version – because they are more likely to buy that than spend their money on the Xbox 360."

"If we launched a Halo game on PC and 360 in Germany simultaneously, 80 per cent of sales would be on the PC," he added.

Interesting and here we thought all this console activity was due to Piracy prevention. Hmm come to think of it what was all that Vista PC gaming initiative about; as if we were ever in doubt.

Ubbax
"Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows." - David T. Wolf

Highly interesting.

So, they're holding PC ports back just to increase the sales of their console games ?

This definitively fits into the "PC gaming is dead" conspiracy theory …

One word : FUD

I'm growing seriously worried.

So Microsoft admits that they are burying the PC gaming platform …
Meanwhile going into the infamous "alliance for PC gaming" …

This is worst double-speak in my ears.

It is not just a matter of selling console games, but to sell more consoles and thus in the long term increase the customer base for future xbox games. It's no wonder at all as they probably make money on the xbox games from other publishers/devs, but none from non-Microsoft windows games. And that's without even thinking about piracy.

Microsoft have already shot themselves in the foot. They OWNED the game market before releasing XBox but by building a game console they have managed to defeat themselves. There's little need to get the latest version of their operating system now (which is supposed to be their main product) since you are better off with their game console.

The more people who pass from Windows gaming to XBox, the less people use Windows as a platform for other things. People are now able to switch to Linux or Apple without feeling they are giving up the games. Most of my friends have made their switch already, going from a windows environment to a Linux/Macintosh and helping their families and friends to do the same. The more who uses such platforms at home, the more brings them to their jobs. One of my friends managed to get my hometown to switch to Linux because when you compared the cost between a city running Linux and one running Windows, there were no discussion what path to go. Who ever wins the homemarket wins. Companies often use what their employees are familiar with.
The few who runs Vista do so because it came preinstalled on laptops.

I remember when the Amiga platform died and Macintosh was severely crippled due to the effectiveness of Microsoft's push of windows as a gaming platform. They eventually had all the titles. Now they have done it to themselves. Go on, blame burning your own ships on the fear of pirates.

Originally Posted by JemyM
Microsoft have already shot themselves in the foot. They OWNED the game market before releasing XBox but by building a game console they have managed to defeat themselves. There's little need to get the latest version of their operating system now (which is supposed to be their main product) since you are better off with their game console.

I disagree with this almost completely. First of all there are other significant consoles that challenge the PC as a gaming platform (most notably Sony Playstation but also Nintendos stuffs), so MS have the option to either see migration to these competing consoles or to build their own that is so similar to the PC that it lowers the threshold for devs to release games for both the XBox and Windows. So while the Xbox can yield either an XBox exclusive game (on which I assume MS gets a hefty royalty) or an XBox game + a Windows port that keeps some gamers on Windows rather than Linux for their home PC the alternative is a PS exclusive that nets MS ZERO dollares…

Then there is your historical parallell. You cant compare PCs of today with Amigas (a hardware platform that barely was upgraded during it's 6-7 years of lively existance and was used almost exclusively for gaming) or the Mac (niche professional platform with overpriced exclusive hardware).

PCs with operating systems and office programs are standard inexpensive tools today and wont disappear. Many people who buys such a PC will want a standard pre-installed OS that is familiar and can talk to whatever system they encounter at work. Linux is really not an option for most people and businesses due to reasons of support, quality control of the software, and simple user friendliness. While these issues are quite manageable for the relatively computer literate crowd on these forums we dont represent the bulk of the population by a long shot.

Heck, moving gaming to consoles might reduce piracy in the OS department, as I imagine gaming kids just might practice piracy to a disproportionate extent…

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
PCs with operating systems and office programs are standard inexpensive tools today and wont disappear. Many people who buys such a PC will want a standard pre-installed OS that is familiar and can talk to whatever system they encounter at work. Linux is really not an option for most people and businesses due to reasons of support, quality control of the software, and simple user friendliness. While these issues are quite manageable for the relatively computer literate crowd on these forums we dont represent the bulk of the population by a long shot.

It's clear that you didn't got to ubuntu yet. A colleague of me already made the switch for his parents who are both only using one for email, surfing the net and typing a letter. The userfriendly stuff you're talking about may apply to the linux versions of the late 90's, but not to the new ones. (I didn't have to search for a driver for a wireless networkcard and the other stuff works great too)

It is true that I havent tried Ubuntu (I've used KDE extensively at work but that's about it when it comes to my modern use of Linux). Still I suspect that you underestimate the risk aversion of common users. Would your colleagues parents have gone for Ubuntu without having him around for support? User friendliness is just one aspect.

If one Linux distro or the other becomes a common preinstalled OS then Microsoft might have reason for worry, but we arent there yet and it would surprise me if we get there.

But to get back to my criticism of JemyM:s conclusions: a significant part of MS sales are to businesses. Companies dont give a rats arse about whether the OS has games or not.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
But to get back to my criticism of JemyM:s conclusions: a significant part of MS sales are to businesses. Companies dont give a rats arse about whether the OS has games or not.

This comment reminds me about underpants gnomes "1. Collect underpants 2. - 3. Profit" from southpark. You removed the middle node of a 3 part argument and thus completely ruined the point.

Companies - Home Market - Games

Companies do not care about games, but many employees with great influence does. When it comes to familiarity, support and price, tools that are popular in the homes generally end up popular among companies as well. The Linux friends I talk about are like ripples on the water. They know the software and now they can save their families and their companies a lot of money. Windows Vista do not only lack the advantages, it's not a popular operating system. It would have been more popular if there were more games for it and if it was more popular, there would be more who used it, and if there would be more to use it it would also be more frequently used by companies.

Originally Posted by JemyM
This comment reminds me about underpants gnomes "1. Collect underpants 2. - 3. Profit" from southpark. You removed the middle node of a 3 part argument and thus completely ruined the point.

Companies - Home Market - Games

That is a dubious assumption. I gladly admit that I didnt even think of that as a 3 part argument since I've yet to encounter the chain you describe.

I'd argue that the companies I've seen first hand (universities, engineering consultancy firms and the R&D dept of a major pharma company) dont care about the platform preferences of their employees either, unless the employee is of such seniority that they are prepared to pander to his or her quirks. Availability of the software they need and security options (the pharma company is particularly fond of rather draconian security solutions that are very user unfriendly) won out over employee preferences 99 times out of 100. Now the best OS for the company might not always be Windows (it has often been decidedly odd Unix variants), but the decision is not subject to employee approval in any way. And we are dealing with departments where the employees are highly computer literate, probably more likely to have an opinion, and in many ways have considerable control over their workplace compared to the average Joe.

But I believe we have members who actually work at IT departments and have more informed opinions than mine who can tell me how wrong I am

EDIT: On the whole I dont like MS decision to promote the XBOX myself, but I still think the strategy makes sense from their point of view.

Originally Posted by Bartacus
It's clear that you didn't got to ubuntu yet. A colleague of me already made the switch for his parents who are both only using one for email, surfing the net and typing a letter. The userfriendly stuff you're talking about may apply to the linux versions of the late 90's, but not to the new ones. (I didn't have to search for a driver for a wireless networkcard and the other stuff works great too)

I tried Ubuntu, couldn't get it to work right (especially the wireless networking) on either my laptop or my desktop. I bought a book on Ubuntu to try again later, but I found installing an configuring windows far easier than trying to get Ubuntu working.

Originally Posted by JemyM
This comment reminds me about underpants gnomes "1. Collect underpants 2. - 3. Profit" from southpark. You removed the middle node of a 3 part argument and thus completely ruined the point.

Companies - Home Market - Games

Companies do not care about games, but many employees with great influence does. When it comes to familiarity, support and price, tools that are popular in the homes generally end up popular among companies as well. The Linux friends I talk about are like ripples on the water. They know the software and now they can save their families and their companies a lot of money. Windows Vista do not only lack the advantages, it's not a popular operating system. It would have been more popular if there were more games for it and if it was more popular, there would be more who used it, and if there would be more to use it it would also be more frequently used by companies.

Probably depends on your environment, but there is one reason that many companies will never go to linux for a front end user interface: training. Right now, if you put a new hire in front of a PC, you can be about 99% sure they know how to use windows. Even if Linux penetrates a significant portion of the home market, there are so many flavors (each that slightly different user interfaces) that companies will never be able to just sit a person down at a PC running Linux and be confident they know how to use it, and companies don't want to spend the time or money on anymore training than they have to. If a person has Ubuntu at home, but the company is using OpenSuse, that user is going to have to be trained.

The only way I see this changing is if one of the flavors achieves some sort of market dominance in the home market.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
since I've yet to encounter the chain you describe.

Then you are a) blind or b) work in the business, which doesn't even bother to think about the home market.

No wonder that home products like Norton Antivirus are totally crap meanwhile their totally different, business-oriented Symantec Antivirus appears to be much better.

If there's no home market - according to your point of view - who's buying all of the genealogy programs, for example, then ?


No wonder that so many viruses/trojans out there with no-one investing in building really good antivirus products for the home market because no-one sees profits in that !

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
I'd argue that the companies I've seen first hand…

There are of course two different kinds of companies here… the really large ones do not care about costs or employees, they mostly care about security and administration. They are often the kinds that can call in their employees in helicopter at 3am in the night if there's trouble. Like you say, such companies rarely use windows.

The companies I speak about is the small-middle range, who really needs to monitor their resources. Such companies generally prefer a familiar system that wont require the staff to be trained and every penny they can save is a bonus.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
Probably depends on your environment, but there is one reason that many companies will never go to linux for a front end user interface: training. Right now, if you put a new hire in front of a PC, you can be about 99% sure they know how to use windows. Even if Linux penetrates a significant portion of the home market, there are so many flavors (each that slightly different user interfaces) that companies will never be able to just sit a person down at a PC running Linux and be confident they know how to use it, and companies don't want to spend the time or money on anymore training than they have to. If a person has Ubuntu at home, but the company is using OpenSuse, that user is going to have to be trained.

The only way I see this changing is if one of the flavors achieves some sort of market dominance in the home market.

This have always been a major argument for apple. But if you have a staff member who are familiar with an easy-to-use linux system and offers to install it for you, there's a chance you go through with the switch, especially if the company is interested in saving money.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Then you are a) blind or b) work in the business, which doesn't even bother to think about the home market.

No wonder that home products like Norton Antivirus are totally crap meanwhile their totally different, business-oriented Symantec Antivirus appears to be much better.

If there's no home market - according to your point of view - who's buying all of the genealogy programs, for example, then ?

Sorry, I simply dont understand where you are coming from. You seem to have misunderstood me.

What I said is not that there isnt a home market, there definitely is. Its the chain that I dont see

I just dont see any significant link between what software a company chooses to use internally, and what employees use at home in the direction that JemyM describes. Possibly the other way (the home user might go for a OS and office package encountered at work if he liked them), but the company has zillions of other things to consider when making the choice.

Originally Posted by JemyM
There are of course two different kinds of companies here… the really large ones do not care about costs or employees, they mostly care about security and administration. They are often the kinds that can call in their employees in helicopter at 3am in the night if there's trouble. Like you say, such companies rarely use windows.

The companies I speak about is the small-middle range, who really needs to monitor their resources. Such companies generally prefer a familiar system that wont require the staff to be trained and every penny they can save is a bonus.

Company size hasnt been a factor where I've been. The main issue is what software you want to run on your OS (if an application only exist for a certain OS and you dont have the resources to write your own then the choice is made for you), security, and ease of maintenance. IT support is a major headache and can cost more than licensing fees if it isnt streamlined, and poor IT support can be more damaging to small companies as they have smaller margins of error in absolute terms.

Generally I've mainly encountered Unix for users in obscure research and defense applications, otherwise companies mainly go for Windows. AstraZeneca (the pharma company with draconian security) uses some sort of heavily modified Windows 2000 variant. Servers often run on Unix or even Linux variants but mostly use Windows for the PC interface.

The consulting companies arent very big and are the ones that actually might cater to the wishes of their employees, but usually they go with the most customer compatible solution, which is Windows.

And the only professional Mac users I've encountered have been biology researchers who work completely autonomously and dont really need to exchange any other data than excel tables and .pdf articles with others

Originally Posted by JemyM
This have always been a major argument for apple. But if you have a staff member who are familiar with an easy-to-use linux system and offers to install it for you, there's a chance you go through with the switch, especially if the company is interested in saving money.

Certainly can be the case. That's one reason why Lindows (can't remember what it is called now, Linspire maybe?) was such a threat to MSFT. It combined the freeness of Linux with the familiarity of Windows. If I was a small business looking to save cash, that would probably be the only Linux version I would consider.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
I tried Ubuntu, couldn't get it to work right (especially the wireless networking) on either my laptop or my desktop. I bought a book on Ubuntu to try again later, but I found installing an configuring windows far easier than trying to get Ubuntu working.

When was it? Every six months a new one comes out that you can get with the update.

I'd imagine the biggest corporate losers due to console migration would be some of the PC hardware manufacturers… PCs (regardless of OS) will stay in peoples homes until some user friendlier technology takes over, but with AAA games on consoles instead there will be less incentive to buy expensive graphics cards and the like. MS can still cater to the home market with feature stripped versions of their software (which they already do) and even free downloadable versions such as Visual Studio express. Combine the download with verification of the Windows installation (again already done) and you have a decent DRM for the OS… But the graphics card manufacturers are stuck

The graphics cards manufacturers are stuck regardless: Even now, there's a new development of a combine of CPU & GPU growing.

Intel, for example, wants to "enrich" theirs CPUs with graphics abilities - whicg would make cards obsolete. NVidia, on the other hand, argues that a GPU is much, much faster than any CPU right now and could therefore used in a quite similar manner than a CPU.

AMD/ATI is seemingly on both parties.

From what I've read so far, there might be a serious revolution in a few years, regarding that.