Not sure why this is "news" today, Microsoft mentioned they were going to do this at least a couple years back with the Windows 10 release. Part of the premise when they released details on the Xbox one S and the announcement of scorpio was that they weren't going to do generational consoles anymore and instead push the software so it's available across different devices.
It's been part of the long game for several years and the main reason why they pushed UWP.
If only UWP was any good, for gaming its not really much cop and objectively worse than games that don't use it, its probably one of the main reasons why Windows Store is not a good place to get games from. That Windows 10 is still not the main Windows OS doesn't help either, that the primary OS used by most Windows users is still Windows 7 is particularly damning, the only thing to date that Windows 10 has actually achieved, is that more people use it than use Windows 8, and is probably the main reason why if developers want to create games for the PC, then its usually Direct X 11 based, assuming its using Direct X at all that is, after all why would any developer create a game using only UWP if barely 1/4 of PC's could even run it? and of those a significant proportion are not even gaming devices.
I'd still be using XP if that was still supported. Win 7, Win 8, and Win 10 have been pretty much a waste as operating systems. The only real advancements have been in Direct X 9, 10, 11, and 12, and they could have been made compatible with XP if Microsoft had really wanted to. They have always preferred that new features come with new Operating systems to keep their revenue flowing. Good for the business, but not so much for the customer.
XP has a ram limitation of 4gb, Windows 7+ does not.
This matters in high end gaming
32bit XP has the 4gb limit 64bit XP does not.
32bit Windows 7 also has the 4gb limit.
Its a 32bit vs 64bit limitation.
It's an address space limitation inherent in 32-bit Operating Systems. With a 32-bit OS, you only get 4GB of address space. Usually, at least 500MB of that is taken up by other hardware so you're left with about 3.5GB (give or take, depending on the system) for addressing RAM.
32 bit programs running on a 64bit OS are also limited to using only 4GB of ram
how much you want to bet most people who insist on sticking with XP are running 32bit. 50%?
People running 64bit XP were rare animals. I'd take your 50% and raise it to 95%
Not sure why this is "news" today, Microsoft mentioned they were going to do this at least a couple years back with the Windows 10 release. Part of the premise when they released details on the Xbox one S and the announcement of scorpio was that they weren't going to do generational consoles anymore and instead push the software so it's available across different devices.
It's been part of the long game for several years and the main reason why they pushed UWP.
If only UWP was any good, for gaming its not really much cop and objectively worse than games that don't use it, its probably one of the main reasons why Windows Store is not a good place to get games from. That Windows 10 is still not the main Windows OS doesn't help either, that the primary OS used by most Windows users is still Windows 7 is particularly damning, the only thing to date that Windows 10 has actually achieved, is that more people use it than use Windows 8, and is probably the main reason why if developers want to create games for the PC, then its usually Direct X 11 based, assuming its using Direct X at all that is, after all why would any developer create a game using only UWP if barely 1/4 of PC's could even run it? and of those a significant proportion are not even gaming devices.
I'd still be using XP if that was still supported. Win 7, Win 8, and Win 10 have been pretty much a waste as operating systems. The only real advancements have been in Direct X 9, 10, 11, and 12, and they could have been made compatible with XP if Microsoft had really wanted to. They have always preferred that new features come with new Operating systems to keep their revenue flowing. Good for the business, but not so much for the customer.
XP has a ram limitation of 4gb, Windows 7+ does not.
This matters in high end gaming
32bit XP has the 4gb limit 64bit XP does not.
32bit Windows 7 also has the 4gb limit.
Its a 32bit vs 64bit limitation.
good to know
It is the sort of information one would expect programmers/code monkeys to know.....
Not sure why this is "news" today, Microsoft mentioned they were going to do this at least a couple years back with the Windows 10 release. Part of the premise when they released details on the Xbox one S and the announcement of scorpio was that they weren't going to do generational consoles anymore and instead push the software so it's available across different devices.
It's been part of the long game for several years and the main reason why they pushed UWP.
If only UWP was any good, for gaming its not really much cop and objectively worse than games that don't use it, its probably one of the main reasons why Windows Store is not a good place to get games from. That Windows 10 is still not the main Windows OS doesn't help either, that the primary OS used by most Windows users is still Windows 7 is particularly damning, the only thing to date that Windows 10 has actually achieved, is that more people use it than use Windows 8, and is probably the main reason why if developers want to create games for the PC, then its usually Direct X 11 based, assuming its using Direct X at all that is, after all why would any developer create a game using only UWP if barely 1/4 of PC's could even run it? and of those a significant proportion are not even gaming devices.
Thats part of the long game though. XB1 and upcoming windows platforms (namely the standalone devices) would utilize UWP. While right now it's not great, the idea is pretty sound. We may not see a strong return on that anytime soon, but in terms of paving the way forward for games and potentially applications as well in the future, it makes a lot of sense.
Windows 10 makes up quite a big marketshare at the moment though. Depending on what you're looking at in terms of windows OS, we're closer to a 40/40 split on Windows 10/7 as opposed to a 30/50 split about a year ago, so there is a wider adoption. For Microsofts sake we can only hope they're able to pull their vision together for a truly universal platform.... we're still a ways away from that though.
Not sure where you are getting your figures from tbh, afaik the adoption of Win10 vs Win 7 is that the Win 10 OS is less than half that of the Win 7 install base.
Equally so, that's why I said it depends on where you get your information. Netmarketshare shows the numbers you stated, W3schools and gs.statcounter show closer to my figures. Either way, its only a matter of time before Windows 10 reaches optimal saturation seeing as how it's slates as the "last release"
As for the new split it's not adoption so much as they are forcing people to w10 with false information like w7 wont work on kaby/coffee lake which is not true.
I am not a hater but I really hope w10 fails hard or at least takes a long long time before it forces some of us to go from MS windows to something else.
Unfortunately windows 10 is already fairly successful, although the adoption wasn't initially as strong as MS wanted which is why they are pushing more strongarm tactics trying to get everyone on the same release. I guess you can't really blame them, they've been fragmented for so long, it's the same issue Android is going through right now, despite it rivaling microsoft in OS marketshare (beating it in most cases) these kinds of growing pains make it hard to get a uniform release and one of the major reasons Samsung is trying to push towards Tizen
Your really talking about web page hits using those operating systems, in the case of android, your talking about smartphones etc. When it comes to PC's and OS marketshare, then Android is irrelevant. As for Win 10, it didn't achieve the milestones that MS had set for it (it still hasn't) initially it even struggled to compete with Win 8, even now, years after it was launched, it still has not managed to become the primary Windows OS, at this point its unlikely that will ever happen, i would be very surprised if MS isn't already working on a successor to Win 10, though i doubt they would risk calling it Win 11, but i would be very surprised if in the next 18 months there was news about something 'new' from MS, i doubt it will be free and it may well be a OS that needs a subscription to use, hell i'd bet money that they even call it something like Windows Prime.
Not sure why this is "news" today, Microsoft mentioned they were going to do this at least a couple years back with the Windows 10 release. Part of the premise when they released details on the Xbox one S and the announcement of scorpio was that they weren't going to do generational consoles anymore and instead push the software so it's available across different devices.
It's been part of the long game for several years and the main reason why they pushed UWP.
If only UWP was any good, for gaming its not really much cop and objectively worse than games that don't use it, its probably one of the main reasons why Windows Store is not a good place to get games from. That Windows 10 is still not the main Windows OS doesn't help either, that the primary OS used by most Windows users is still Windows 7 is particularly damning, the only thing to date that Windows 10 has actually achieved, is that more people use it than use Windows 8, and is probably the main reason why if developers want to create games for the PC, then its usually Direct X 11 based, assuming its using Direct X at all that is, after all why would any developer create a game using only UWP if barely 1/4 of PC's could even run it? and of those a significant proportion are not even gaming devices.
I'd still be using XP if that was still supported. Win 7, Win 8, and Win 10 have been pretty much a waste as operating systems. The only real advancements have been in Direct X 9, 10, 11, and 12, and they could have been made compatible with XP if Microsoft had really wanted to. They have always preferred that new features come with new Operating systems to keep their revenue flowing. Good for the business, but not so much for the customer.
XP has a ram limitation of 4gb, Windows 7+ does not.
This matters in high end gaming
32bit XP has the 4gb limit 64bit XP does not.
32bit Windows 7 also has the 4gb limit.
Its a 32bit vs 64bit limitation.
good to know
It is the sort of information one would expect programmers/code monkeys to know.....
yeah...kinda of like what Visual Source Safe is used for.
So do you think the guy who said he wants to only use XP for gaming is running 64bit XP? because i dont, if that is the case, do you think its helpful that he hear all of this information? including which branch in subversion to look for billizards code in? should he just Crystal Reports or SSRS after or before the SSIS package runs?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Not sure why this is "news" today, Microsoft mentioned they were going to do this at least a couple years back with the Windows 10 release. Part of the premise when they released details on the Xbox one S and the announcement of scorpio was that they weren't going to do generational consoles anymore and instead push the software so it's available across different devices.
It's been part of the long game for several years and the main reason why they pushed UWP.
If only UWP was any good, for gaming its not really much cop and objectively worse than games that don't use it, its probably one of the main reasons why Windows Store is not a good place to get games from. That Windows 10 is still not the main Windows OS doesn't help either, that the primary OS used by most Windows users is still Windows 7 is particularly damning, the only thing to date that Windows 10 has actually achieved, is that more people use it than use Windows 8, and is probably the main reason why if developers want to create games for the PC, then its usually Direct X 11 based, assuming its using Direct X at all that is, after all why would any developer create a game using only UWP if barely 1/4 of PC's could even run it? and of those a significant proportion are not even gaming devices.
I'd still be using XP if that was still supported. Win 7, Win 8, and Win 10 have been pretty much a waste as operating systems. The only real advancements have been in Direct X 9, 10, 11, and 12, and they could have been made compatible with XP if Microsoft had really wanted to. They have always preferred that new features come with new Operating systems to keep their revenue flowing. Good for the business, but not so much for the customer.
XP has a ram limitation of 4gb, Windows 7+ does not.
This matters in high end gaming
32bit XP has the 4gb limit 64bit XP does not.
32bit Windows 7 also has the 4gb limit.
Its a 32bit vs 64bit limitation.
It's an address space limitation inherent in 32-bit Operating Systems. With a 32-bit OS, you only get 4GB of address space. Usually, at least 500MB of that is taken up by other hardware so you're left with about 3.5GB (give or take, depending on the system) for addressing RAM.
32 bit programs running on a 64bit OS are also limited to using only 4GB of ram
how much you want to bet most people who insist on sticking with XP are running 32bit. 50%?
I was definitely using the 64 bit version of XP. Now I'm on 64 bit Win 7. My older machine (with an AGP 4x motherboard) is sitting right beside me, calmly running 64 XP. That machine is only good for light internet browsing, but it still works just fine. I'll toss it out when something major fails, and I can't reload XP -- Microsoft removed all their bits of the installation process, making that impossible.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Not sure why this is "news" today, Microsoft mentioned they were going to do this at least a couple years back with the Windows 10 release. Part of the premise when they released details on the Xbox one S and the announcement of scorpio was that they weren't going to do generational consoles anymore and instead push the software so it's available across different devices.
It's been part of the long game for several years and the main reason why they pushed UWP.
If only UWP was any good, for gaming its not really much cop and objectively worse than games that don't use it, its probably one of the main reasons why Windows Store is not a good place to get games from. That Windows 10 is still not the main Windows OS doesn't help either, that the primary OS used by most Windows users is still Windows 7 is particularly damning, the only thing to date that Windows 10 has actually achieved, is that more people use it than use Windows 8, and is probably the main reason why if developers want to create games for the PC, then its usually Direct X 11 based, assuming its using Direct X at all that is, after all why would any developer create a game using only UWP if barely 1/4 of PC's could even run it? and of those a significant proportion are not even gaming devices.
Thats part of the long game though. XB1 and upcoming windows platforms (namely the standalone devices) would utilize UWP. While right now it's not great, the idea is pretty sound. We may not see a strong return on that anytime soon, but in terms of paving the way forward for games and potentially applications as well in the future, it makes a lot of sense.
Windows 10 makes up quite a big marketshare at the moment though. Depending on what you're looking at in terms of windows OS, we're closer to a 40/40 split on Windows 10/7 as opposed to a 30/50 split about a year ago, so there is a wider adoption. For Microsofts sake we can only hope they're able to pull their vision together for a truly universal platform.... we're still a ways away from that though.
Not sure where you are getting your figures from tbh, afaik the adoption of Win10 vs Win 7 is that the Win 10 OS is less than half that of the Win 7 install base.
Equally so, that's why I said it depends on where you get your information. Netmarketshare shows the numbers you stated, W3schools and gs.statcounter show closer to my figures. Either way, its only a matter of time before Windows 10 reaches optimal saturation seeing as how it's slates as the "last release"
As for the new split it's not adoption so much as they are forcing people to w10 with false information like w7 wont work on kaby/coffee lake which is not true.
I am not a hater but I really hope w10 fails hard or at least takes a long long time before it forces some of us to go from MS windows to something else.
Unfortunately windows 10 is already fairly successful, although the adoption wasn't initially as strong as MS wanted which is why they are pushing more strongarm tactics trying to get everyone on the same release. I guess you can't really blame them, they've been fragmented for so long, it's the same issue Android is going through right now, despite it rivaling microsoft in OS marketshare (beating it in most cases) these kinds of growing pains make it hard to get a uniform release and one of the major reasons Samsung is trying to push towards Tizen
Your really talking about web page hits using those operating systems, in the case of android, your talking about smartphones etc. When it comes to PC's and OS marketshare, then Android is irrelevant. As for Win 10, it didn't achieve the milestones that MS had set for it (it still hasn't) initially it even struggled to compete with Win 8, even now, years after it was launched, it still has not managed to become the primary Windows OS, at this point its unlikely that will ever happen, i would be very surprised if MS isn't already working on a successor to Win 10, though i doubt they would risk calling it Win 11, but i would be very surprised if in the next 18 months there was news about something 'new' from MS, i doubt it will be free and it may well be a OS that needs a subscription to use, hell i'd bet money that they even call it something like Windows Prime.
Last I heard and appears to still be the case .. windows 10 is still the "end game" of OS's for windows and Microsoft. From this point forward they supposedly are looking at updates only. Kind of why there was a big backlash on it becoming a subscription service a few years back ,everyone thought windows 10 would push the subscriptions in at some point, and they probably will... usually around the 5 year mark, you may see a yearly or 5 year subscription or something like that.
As for statistics, there's no accurate numbers on Windows 10 saturation. guesstimates are about as good as it gets. Android also counts for chromebooks and applicable tablets. But all in all the numbers don't matter all that much, it's really only a matter of time before everything is pushed to windows 10 one way or another.
I'm confused about what Microsoft is supposedly doing that is smart.
Investing more into content creation? Assuming the content they are creating is worthwhile then sure, this is a good move. The games industry is expanding every year, it's bigger than the film and tv industry, so yeh, having more stuff to sell is a good idea.
Ditching consoles in favour of streaming games? Yeh, thats a dumb move. First, the idea has already failed on a large scale a number of times. Microsoft are arguably in a better position than the previous attempts, but the infrastructure simply doesn't exist in most of the world to make this a success. Certainly in Europe we don't have the infrastructure to handle streaming games, America seems slightly worse in most places. So, sure, if you live in a city and have a fibre connection then great, it might work. For everyone else....
Third, having a console has earned Microsoft a lot of money. Yes, they lose money on every console sale, but they make that back through software sales. They get a cut from every single game sold for their console! Sure, things have been harder for the current generation of consoles, but that has nothing to do with consoles as a concept, but everything to do with Microsofts attempts to turn consoles into "home hubs". I remember the E3 where the Xbox1 and PS4 were both announced - MS spent 80 minutes talking about Skype, Netflix, music streaming etc and 10 minutes talking about games. So, of course this console didn't sell well - they ignored it's primary function! Mis-marketed and not enough exclusives. Both things that are easy to fix.
Finally, on the streaming concept.....if they can sort the actual streaming issue, the next big issue is content. Who's content will be on there? How will we pay for it? What hardware will I use to stream?
If the streaming service doesn't include enough stuff then consumers will still need another device - console or PC - in which case they'll ignore streaming and focus on getting their money's worth out of their hardware.
Microsoft has been pretty dumb for a good 5 or 6 years now when it comes to consumer products. This latest announcement seems to be continuing that trend. I am still a Microsoft fan - out of all the big electronic firms, they remain my favourite - but they keep trying to set new directions for the market without seeming to actually understand the market.
I'm confused about what Microsoft is supposedly doing that is smart.
Investing more into content creation? Assuming the content they are creating is worthwhile then sure, this is a good move. ....
(edit out just to shorten it)
In 2013 shortly after the horrific release of Xbox One Tom Merritt made this suggestion. Microsoft should sell off its Xbox hardware, keep its Xbox Service, but make the Xbox Service work on multiple platforms as a gaming platform. Reason for this is because Xbox Service has a LOT of users. If you capitalize on that asset (its users) and leverage features around Xbox Services itself more than you usually would because of the prior focus on hardware then in the longer run this would be a good move.
Regarding Microsofts 'investment into creating content' I think that should be reframed to focus its meaning on Microsoft itself actually creating the content itself, rather than buying other firms that do. The reason I think its a better move to have 'developed the content itself' is because if your business to its core doesnt actually create video games then the first question become how much do you know about what is important in video games? because game content is by far the most important reason people buy a game, so to rely on others to do that suggest a lack of knowedge in that business.
By leaps and bounds the most important thing about video games is the game content itself. If one is to be successful as possible in video games they need to have a deep understanding on actual content and not rely on others to do it for you.
that is a lot to take in I know but that is how I see it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think its a good idea for Microsoft to drop XBox Hardware. They lose money on every one and can alienate some hardware manufacturers they partner with.
So does PlayStation. It's been this way forever yet the console divisions still make money for both companies why would they drop them?
I'm confused about what Microsoft is supposedly doing that is smart.
Investing more into content creation? Assuming the content they are creating is worthwhile then sure, this is a good move. ....
(edit out just to shorten it)
In 2013 shortly after the horrific release of Xbox One Tom Merritt made this suggestion. Microsoft should sell off its Xbox hardware, keep its Xbox Service, but make the Xbox Service work on multiple platforms as a gaming platform. Reason for this is because Xbox Service has a LOT of users. If you capitalize on that asset (its users) and leverage features around Xbox Services itself more than you usually would because of the prior focus on hardware then in the longer run this would be a good move.
Regarding Microsofts 'investment into creating content' I think that should be reframed to focus its meaning on Microsoft itself actually creating the content itself, rather than buying other firms that do. The reason I think its a better move to have 'developed the content itself' is because if your business to its core doesnt actually create video games then the first question become how much do you know about what is important in video games? because game content is by far the most important reason people buy a game, so to rely on others to do that suggest a lack of knowedge in that business.
By leaps and bounds the most important thing about video games is the game content itself. If one is to be successful as possible in video games they need to have a deep understanding on actual content and not rely on others to do it for you.
that is a lot to take in I know but that is how I see it.
I'm not much of a console person. I had an Xbox 360 but never had xbox live.
So, what does the xbox service provide that Microsoft makes money off? They already made the account system multi-platform, so it runs on xbox, PC and mobile. If they are ditching their hardware then their digital sales platform will die - I doubt Sony would allow you to buy digital games from MS on their console, and Steam / GOG etc already provide superior services on PC.
I am asking from a place of ignorance here. If they are going to shut off a massive revenue stream (cut of every single xbox game sold), how will they leverage their user base to regain that money?
I'm confused about what Microsoft is supposedly doing that is smart.
Investing more into content creation? Assuming the content they are creating is worthwhile then sure, this is a good move. ....
(edit out just to shorten it)
In 2013 shortly after the horrific release of Xbox One Tom Merritt made this suggestion. Microsoft should sell off its Xbox hardware, keep its Xbox Service, but make the Xbox Service work on multiple platforms as a gaming platform. Reason for this is because Xbox Service has a LOT of users. If you capitalize on that asset (its users) and leverage features around Xbox Services itself more than you usually would because of the prior focus on hardware then in the longer run this would be a good move.
Regarding Microsofts 'investment into creating content' I think that should be reframed to focus its meaning on Microsoft itself actually creating the content itself, rather than buying other firms that do. The reason I think its a better move to have 'developed the content itself' is because if your business to its core doesnt actually create video games then the first question become how much do you know about what is important in video games? because game content is by far the most important reason people buy a game, so to rely on others to do that suggest a lack of knowedge in that business.
By leaps and bounds the most important thing about video games is the game content itself. If one is to be successful as possible in video games they need to have a deep understanding on actual content and not rely on others to do it for you.
that is a lot to take in I know but that is how I see it.
I'm not much of a console person. I had an Xbox 360 but never had xbox live.
So, what does the xbox service provide that Microsoft makes money off? They already made the account system multi-platform, so it runs on xbox, PC and mobile. If they are ditching their hardware then their digital sales platform will die - I doubt Sony would allow you to buy digital games from MS on their console, and Steam / GOG etc already provide superior services on PC.
I am asking from a place of ignorance here. If they are going to shut off a massive revenue stream (cut of every single xbox game sold), how will they leverage their user base to regain that money?
honestly I dont know enough about Xbox services to know, however if you take a look again at what Tom Merrit was suggesting it did, to me, make sense.
What is being suggested is to sell off the hardware, keep the services, make good games which you have on the service which becomes attractive for people to want to pay for the service. Think Netflix of games (not because of streaming but because of a service around an entertainment)
not really very complicated to understand but I just dont know the details of how Xbox Services work to answer your question.
To answer your last question the idea is that 100% of the games would be mulitplatform. So selling off the hardware to someone like maybe amazon would not affect the games.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm confused about what Microsoft is supposedly doing that is smart.
Investing more into content creation? Assuming the content they are creating is worthwhile then sure, this is a good move. ....
(edit out just to shorten it)
In 2013 shortly after the horrific release of Xbox One Tom Merritt made this suggestion. Microsoft should sell off its Xbox hardware, keep its Xbox Service, but make the Xbox Service work on multiple platforms as a gaming platform. Reason for this is because Xbox Service has a LOT of users. If you capitalize on that asset (its users) and leverage features around Xbox Services itself more than you usually would because of the prior focus on hardware then in the longer run this would be a good move.
Regarding Microsofts 'investment into creating content' I think that should be reframed to focus its meaning on Microsoft itself actually creating the content itself, rather than buying other firms that do. The reason I think its a better move to have 'developed the content itself' is because if your business to its core doesnt actually create video games then the first question become how much do you know about what is important in video games? because game content is by far the most important reason people buy a game, so to rely on others to do that suggest a lack of knowedge in that business.
By leaps and bounds the most important thing about video games is the game content itself. If one is to be successful as possible in video games they need to have a deep understanding on actual content and not rely on others to do it for you.
that is a lot to take in I know but that is how I see it.
How is selling more units than the previous model a horrific launch? Sure the PS4 sold better world wide but the Xbox one sure didnt have a horrific launch. In 2016 the xb1 outsold PS4 something like six straight months. Yeah its only the US but it does show it wasn't a horrific launch.
The X is actually selling very well in the first week so well the projections have been doubled. I am by no means a xbox fanboi, I do prefer Xbox over Sony but didn't purchase an X and currently most of my gaming is PC. Just pointing out nobody is calling the xbox one launch horrific.
I'm confused about what Microsoft is supposedly doing that is smart.
Investing more into content creation? Assuming the content they are creating is worthwhile then sure, this is a good move. ....
(edit out just to shorten it)
In 2013 shortly after the horrific release of Xbox One Tom Merritt made this suggestion. Microsoft should sell off its Xbox hardware, keep its Xbox Service, but make the Xbox Service work on multiple platforms as a gaming platform. Reason for this is because Xbox Service has a LOT of users. If you capitalize on that asset (its users) and leverage features around Xbox Services itself more than you usually would because of the prior focus on hardware then in the longer run this would be a good move.
Regarding Microsofts 'investment into creating content' I think that should be reframed to focus its meaning on Microsoft itself actually creating the content itself, rather than buying other firms that do. The reason I think its a better move to have 'developed the content itself' is because if your business to its core doesnt actually create video games then the first question become how much do you know about what is important in video games? because game content is by far the most important reason people buy a game, so to rely on others to do that suggest a lack of knowedge in that business.
By leaps and bounds the most important thing about video games is the game content itself. If one is to be successful as possible in video games they need to have a deep understanding on actual content and not rely on others to do it for you.
that is a lot to take in I know but that is how I see it.
How is selling more units than the previous model a horrific launch? Sure the PS4 sold better world wide but the Xbox one sure didnt have a horrific launch. In 2016 the xb1 outsold PS4 something like six straight months. Yeah its only the US but it does show it wasn't a horrific launch.
The X is actually selling very well in the first week so well the projections have been doubled. I am by no means a xbox fanboi, I do prefer Xbox over Sony but didn't purchase an X and currently most of my gaming is PC. Just pointing out nobody is calling the xbox one launch horrific.
I understand what your trying to say but the way you are doing it is making my head hurt.
The LAUNCH was in 2013. The sales in 2013 and 14 were not great. I have no idea, nor really care, how they are now.
At the time (2013) what Tom Merrit said made a ton of sense. keep in mind, a small somewhat lazy team of game developers is absolutely crushing the console market. That team is called Valve.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm confused about what Microsoft is supposedly doing that is smart.
Investing more into content creation? Assuming the content they are creating is worthwhile then sure, this is a good move. ....
(edit out just to shorten it)
In 2013 shortly after the horrific release of Xbox One Tom Merritt made this suggestion. Microsoft should sell off its Xbox hardware, keep its Xbox Service, but make the Xbox Service work on multiple platforms as a gaming platform. Reason for this is because Xbox Service has a LOT of users. If you capitalize on that asset (its users) and leverage features around Xbox Services itself more than you usually would because of the prior focus on hardware then in the longer run this would be a good move.
Regarding Microsofts 'investment into creating content' I think that should be reframed to focus its meaning on Microsoft itself actually creating the content itself, rather than buying other firms that do. The reason I think its a better move to have 'developed the content itself' is because if your business to its core doesnt actually create video games then the first question become how much do you know about what is important in video games? because game content is by far the most important reason people buy a game, so to rely on others to do that suggest a lack of knowedge in that business.
By leaps and bounds the most important thing about video games is the game content itself. If one is to be successful as possible in video games they need to have a deep understanding on actual content and not rely on others to do it for you.
that is a lot to take in I know but that is how I see it.
How is selling more units than the previous model a horrific launch? Sure the PS4 sold better world wide but the Xbox one sure didnt have a horrific launch. In 2016 the xb1 outsold PS4 something like six straight months. Yeah its only the US but it does show it wasn't a horrific launch.
The X is actually selling very well in the first week so well the projections have been doubled. I am by no means a xbox fanboi, I do prefer Xbox over Sony but didn't purchase an X and currently most of my gaming is PC. Just pointing out nobody is calling the xbox one launch horrific.
I understand what your trying to say but the way you are doing it is making my head hurt.
The LAUNCH was in 2013. The sales in 2013 and 14 were not great. I have no idea, nor really care, how they are now.
At the time (2013) what Tom Merrit said made a ton of sense. keep in mind, a small somewhat lazy team of game developers is absolutely crushing the console market. That team is called Valve.
Yeah your head hurting has nothing to do with my comment. In 2013, 2014 or whatever arbitrary date you want to use it doesn't matter the Xbox one out sold the previous Xbox therefore not horrific.
How do you figure valve/ steam is crushing consoles?
Xbox live has over 100,000,000 accounted with 65,000,000 active users
PlayStation Network has over 110,000,000 accounts with 70,000,000 active users
Consoles 220,000,000 total accounts 135,000,000 active users
Steam has 125,000,000 accounts they don't released monthly active users
Seven months into the steam machine sales they only mustered 500,000 units.
I'm sorry I deal in facts not really seeing where your claim valve (steam) is crushing consoles. Who knows maybe you have your own alternative facts you like to use.
Disclaimer not my fault facts made your head hurt again.
Yeah your head hurting has nothing to do with my comment. In 2013, 2014 or whatever arbitrary date you want to use it doesn't matter the Xbox one out sold the previous Xbox therefore not horrific.
How do you figure valve/ steam is crushing consoles?
Xbox live has over 100,000,000 accounted with 65,000,000 active users
PlayStation Network has over 110,000,000 accounts with 70,000,000 active users
Consoles 220,000,000 total accounts 135,000,000 active users
Steam has 125,000,000 accounts they don't released monthly active users
Seven months into the steam machine sales they only mustered 500,000 units.
I'm sorry I deal in facts not really seeing where your claim valve (steam) is crushing consoles. Who knows maybe you have your own alternative facts you like to use.
Disclaimer not my fault facts made your head hurt again.
PC games which is mostly controlled via Valve is outselling consoles year after year over the past 3 years. That is nearly the complete doing on one small company dominating BOTH consoles.
But look, despite the fact that I explictly stated 'launch' because I was refering to years 2013-14 and you think its perfectly fine to call 2016 a launch year despite it NOT being so and not remotely 'arbitrary' I will indulge your observation........
I understand your point and I dont have a direct counter because its getting into areas I am not familiar with, but at the time of 2013 when Tom Merrit said it because Steve Balamaer was effectively being fired over this and other things it did at the time (which was NOT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!) sound like a good deal.
look at it this way, out of all the gaming platforms, PC, PS4, Xbox One and Mobile.
Xbox One is on the bottom of the list in sales is it not?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yeah your head hurting has nothing to do with my comment. In 2013, 2014 or whatever arbitrary date you want to use it doesn't matter the Xbox one out sold the previous Xbox therefore not horrific.
How do you figure valve/ steam is crushing consoles?
Xbox live has over 100,000,000 accounted with 65,000,000 active users
PlayStation Network has over 110,000,000 accounts with 70,000,000 active users
Consoles 220,000,000 total accounts 135,000,000 active users
Steam has 125,000,000 accounts they don't released monthly active users
Seven months into the steam machine sales they only mustered 500,000 units.
I'm sorry I deal in facts not really seeing where your claim valve (steam) is crushing consoles. Who knows maybe you have your own alternative facts you like to use.
Disclaimer not my fault facts made your head hurt again.
PC games which is mostly controlled via Valve is outselling consoles year after year over the past 3 years. That is nearly the complete doing on one small company dominating BOTH consoles.
But look, despite the fact that I explictly stated 'launch' because I was refering to years 2013-14 and you think its perfectly fine to call 2016 a launch year despite it NOT being so and not remotely 'arbitrary' I will indulge your observation........
I understand your point and I dont have a direct counter because its getting into areas I am not familiar with, but at the time of 2013 when Tom Merrit said it because Steve Balamaer was effectively being fired over this and other things it did at the time (which was NOT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!) sound like a good deal.
look at it this way, out of all the gaming platforms, PC, PS4, Xbox One and Mobile.
Xbox One is on the bottom of the list in sales is it not?
Well mobile overtook PC gaming in 2016 and I don't think mobile is the best gaming platform so those numbers really don't mean much to be honest. It's like saying a Prius is better than a Corvette because they sell more.
Beating and "crushing" are two different situation. You used "crushing" which is factually incorrect that's all I am saying. Again I'm a PC gamers and which platform sells the best has zero impact on me im just providing facts.
Yeah your head hurting has nothing to do with my comment. In 2013, 2014 or whatever arbitrary date you want to use it doesn't matter the Xbox one out sold the previous Xbox therefore not horrific.
How do you figure valve/ steam is crushing consoles?
Xbox live has over 100,000,000 accounted with 65,000,000 active users
PlayStation Network has over 110,000,000 accounts with 70,000,000 active users
Consoles 220,000,000 total accounts 135,000,000 active users
Steam has 125,000,000 accounts they don't released monthly active users
Seven months into the steam machine sales they only mustered 500,000 units.
I'm sorry I deal in facts not really seeing where your claim valve (steam) is crushing consoles. Who knows maybe you have your own alternative facts you like to use.
Disclaimer not my fault facts made your head hurt again.
PC games which is mostly controlled via Valve is outselling consoles year after year over the past 3 years. That is nearly the complete doing on one small company dominating BOTH consoles.
But look, despite the fact that I explictly stated 'launch' because I was refering to years 2013-14 and you think its perfectly fine to call 2016 a launch year despite it NOT being so and not remotely 'arbitrary' I will indulge your observation........
I understand your point and I dont have a direct counter because its getting into areas I am not familiar with, but at the time of 2013 when Tom Merrit said it because Steve Balamaer was effectively being fired over this and other things it did at the time (which was NOT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!) sound like a good deal.
look at it this way, out of all the gaming platforms, PC, PS4, Xbox One and Mobile.
Xbox One is on the bottom of the list in sales is it not?
Well mobile overtook PC gaming in 2016 and I don't think mobile is the best gaming platform so those numbers really don't mean much to be honest. It's like saying a Prius is better than a Corvette because they sell more.
Beating and "crushing" are two different situation. You used "crushing" which is factually incorrect that's all I am saying. Again I'm a PC gamers and which platform sells the best has zero impact on me im just providing facts.
let me say it differently or rather again.
out of all the gaming platforms out there Xbox One is at the BOTTOM of the list for sales.
at least it was a few years ago. But I get what your saying, I am just saying Tom Merrit said this 4 years ago and at the time it sounded like a great idea and to me, I still think its a great idea but I could be wrong.
I dont know the numbers but I bet you Amazon, Facebook, Steam, Netflix and maybe even eBay all make more money then xbox. So what if Xbox was more like an internet service for games rather than a hardware? think on it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Not sure where you are getting your figures from tbh, afaik the adoption of Win10 vs Win 7 is that the Win 10 OS is less than half that of the Win 7 install base.
Equally so, that's why I said it depends on where you get your information. Netmarketshare shows the numbers you stated, W3schools and gs.statcounter show closer to my figures. Either way, its only a matter of time before Windows 10 reaches optimal saturation seeing as how it's slates as the "last release"
As for the new split it's not adoption so much as they are forcing people to w10 with false information like w7 wont work on kaby/coffee lake which is not true.
I am not a hater but I really hope w10 fails hard or at least takes a long long time before it forces some of us to go from MS windows to something else.
Unfortunately windows 10 is already fairly successful, although the adoption wasn't initially as strong as MS wanted which is why they are pushing more strongarm tactics trying to get everyone on the same release. I guess you can't really blame them, they've been fragmented for so long, it's the same issue Android is going through right now, despite it rivaling microsoft in OS marketshare (beating it in most cases) these kinds of growing pains make it hard to get a uniform release and one of the major reasons Samsung is trying to push towards Tizen
Your really talking about web page hits using those operating systems, in the case of android, your talking about smartphones etc. When it comes to PC's and OS marketshare, then Android is irrelevant. As for Win 10, it didn't achieve the milestones that MS had set for it (it still hasn't) initially it even struggled to compete with Win 8, even now, years after it was launched, it still has not managed to become the primary Windows OS, at this point its unlikely that will ever happen, i would be very surprised if MS isn't already working on a successor to Win 10, though i doubt they would risk calling it Win 11, but i would be very surprised if in the next 18 months there was news about something 'new' from MS, i doubt it will be free and it may well be a OS that needs a subscription to use, hell i'd bet money that they even call it something like Windows Prime.
Last I heard and appears to still be the case .. windows 10 is still the "end game" of OS's for windows and Microsoft. From this point forward they supposedly are looking at updates only. Kind of why there was a big backlash on it becoming a subscription service a few years back ,everyone thought windows 10 would push the subscriptions in at some point, and they probably will... usually around the 5 year mark, you may see a yearly or 5 year subscription or something like that.
As for statistics, there's no accurate numbers on Windows 10 saturation. guesstimates are about as good as it gets. Android also counts for chromebooks and applicable tablets. But all in all the numbers don't matter all that much, it's really only a matter of time before everything is pushed to windows 10 one way or another.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
Yeah your head hurting has nothing to do with my comment. In 2013, 2014 or whatever arbitrary date you want to use it doesn't matter the Xbox one out sold the previous Xbox therefore not horrific.
How do you figure valve/ steam is crushing consoles?
Xbox live has over 100,000,000 accounted with 65,000,000 active users
PlayStation Network has over 110,000,000 accounts with 70,000,000 active users
Consoles 220,000,000 total accounts 135,000,000 active users
Steam has 125,000,000 accounts they don't released monthly active users
Seven months into the steam machine sales they only mustered 500,000 units.
I'm sorry I deal in facts not really seeing where your claim valve (steam) is crushing consoles. Who knows maybe you have your own alternative facts you like to use.
Disclaimer not my fault facts made your head hurt again.
PC games which is mostly controlled via Valve is outselling consoles year after year over the past 3 years. That is nearly the complete doing on one small company dominating BOTH consoles.
But look, despite the fact that I explictly stated 'launch' because I was refering to years 2013-14 and you think its perfectly fine to call 2016 a launch year despite it NOT being so and not remotely 'arbitrary' I will indulge your observation........
I understand your point and I dont have a direct counter because its getting into areas I am not familiar with, but at the time of 2013 when Tom Merrit said it because Steve Balamaer was effectively being fired over this and other things it did at the time (which was NOT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!) sound like a good deal.
look at it this way, out of all the gaming platforms, PC, PS4, Xbox One and Mobile.
Xbox One is on the bottom of the list in sales is it not?
Uhh no, the PC game platform has never outsold the console game platform.
of the total global revenue generated by the gaming industry in 2016 (99.6 billion USD) Pc gaming took 27% while consoles took 29%.
the year prior it was 28% to 30% respectively, the gap widens more each year one goes back. . .
but also note that if one takes away the chinese market Consoles absolutely crushes PC by almost 20%, this is due to the chinese predominantly using the PC platform to game.
So no Valve is not destroying consoles, in fact they are not even getting the lion share of the PC revenue, because in 2016 their total revenue was $3.47 billion out of $37.4 billion the PC platform generated.
in comparison Microsoft's Xbox division made $8.6 billion Q3 2015 in revenue ( this is the only time in the console's history microsoft revealed console sales in their own category) ( it is usually lump in with surface, bing and the now defunct windows phones)
just a few facts to counter opinion stemming from ignorance, nothing more nothing less.
Yeah your head hurting has nothing to do with my comment. In 2013, 2014 or whatever arbitrary date you want to use it doesn't matter the Xbox one out sold the previous Xbox therefore not horrific.
How do you figure valve/ steam is crushing consoles?
Xbox live has over 100,000,000 accounted with 65,000,000 active users
PlayStation Network has over 110,000,000 accounts with 70,000,000 active users
Consoles 220,000,000 total accounts 135,000,000 active users
Steam has 125,000,000 accounts they don't released monthly active users
Seven months into the steam machine sales they only mustered 500,000 units.
I'm sorry I deal in facts not really seeing where your claim valve (steam) is crushing consoles. Who knows maybe you have your own alternative facts you like to use.
Disclaimer not my fault facts made your head hurt again.
PC games which is mostly controlled via Valve is outselling consoles year after year over the past 3 years. That is nearly the complete doing on one small company dominating BOTH consoles.
But look, despite the fact that I explictly stated 'launch' because I was refering to years 2013-14 and you think its perfectly fine to call 2016 a launch year despite it NOT being so and not remotely 'arbitrary' I will indulge your observation........
I understand your point and I dont have a direct counter because its getting into areas I am not familiar with, but at the time of 2013 when Tom Merrit said it because Steve Balamaer was effectively being fired over this and other things it did at the time (which was NOT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!) sound like a good deal.
look at it this way, out of all the gaming platforms, PC, PS4, Xbox One and Mobile.
Xbox One is on the bottom of the list in sales is it not?
Uhh no, the PC game platform has never outsold the console game platform.
of the total global revenue generated by the gaming industry in 2016 (99.6 billion USD) Pc gaming took 27% while consoles took 29%.
the year prior it was 28% to 30% respectively, the gap widens more each year one goes back. . .
but also note that if one takes away the chinese market Consoles absolutely crushes PC by almost 20%, this is due to the chinese predominantly using the PC platform to game.
So no Valve is not destroying consoles, in fact they are not even getting the lion share of the PC revenue, because in 2016 their total revenue was $3.47 billion out of $37.4 billion the PC platform generated.
in comparison Microsoft's Xbox division made $8.6 billion Q3 2015 in revenue ( this is the only time in the console's history microsoft revealed console sales in their own category) ( it is usually lump in with surface, bing and the now defunct windows phones)
just a few facts to counter opinion stemming from ignorance, nothing more nothing less.
Yeah I gave up even trying to reason with him as that was clearly an impossible task. It's too bad he is banned now I would have loved to see his reply to you.
Yeah your head hurting has nothing to do with my comment. In 2013, 2014 or whatever arbitrary date you want to use it doesn't matter the Xbox one out sold the previous Xbox therefore not horrific.
How do you figure valve/ steam is crushing consoles?
Xbox live has over 100,000,000 accounted with 65,000,000 active users
PlayStation Network has over 110,000,000 accounts with 70,000,000 active users
Consoles 220,000,000 total accounts 135,000,000 active users
Steam has 125,000,000 accounts they don't released monthly active users
Seven months into the steam machine sales they only mustered 500,000 units.
I'm sorry I deal in facts not really seeing where your claim valve (steam) is crushing consoles. Who knows maybe you have your own alternative facts you like to use.
Disclaimer not my fault facts made your head hurt again.
PC games which is mostly controlled via Valve is outselling consoles year after year over the past 3 years. That is nearly the complete doing on one small company dominating BOTH consoles.
But look, despite the fact that I explictly stated 'launch' because I was refering to years 2013-14 and you think its perfectly fine to call 2016 a launch year despite it NOT being so and not remotely 'arbitrary' I will indulge your observation........
I understand your point and I dont have a direct counter because its getting into areas I am not familiar with, but at the time of 2013 when Tom Merrit said it because Steve Balamaer was effectively being fired over this and other things it did at the time (which was NOT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!) sound like a good deal.
look at it this way, out of all the gaming platforms, PC, PS4, Xbox One and Mobile.
Xbox One is on the bottom of the list in sales is it not?
Uhh no, the PC game platform has never outsold the console game platform.
of the total global revenue generated by the gaming industry in 2016 (99.6 billion USD) Pc gaming took 27% while consoles took 29%.
the year prior it was 28% to 30% respectively, the gap widens more each year one goes back. . .
but also note that if one takes away the chinese market Consoles absolutely crushes PC by almost 20%, this is due to the chinese predominantly using the PC platform to game.
So no Valve is not destroying consoles, in fact they are not even getting the lion share of the PC revenue, because in 2016 their total revenue was $3.47 billion out of $37.4 billion the PC platform generated.
in comparison Microsoft's Xbox division made $8.6 billion Q3 2015 in revenue ( this is the only time in the console's history microsoft revealed console sales in their own category) ( it is usually lump in with surface, bing and the now defunct windows phones)
just a few facts to counter opinion stemming from ignorance, nothing more nothing less.
Yeah I gave up even trying to reason with him as that was clearly an impossible task. It's too bad he is banned now I would have loved to see his reply to you.
yeah I noticed he is on another time out after I posted, but I forum wrestled him on a few occasions and I dont post the facts to try to enlighten him anymore ( because he sticks to his opinion no matter how much it is shown to be false ) but for other more open minded people following the conversation.
Yeah your head hurting has nothing to do with my comment. In 2013, 2014 or whatever arbitrary date you want to use it doesn't matter the Xbox one out sold the previous Xbox therefore not horrific.
How do you figure valve/ steam is crushing consoles?
Xbox live has over 100,000,000 accounted with 65,000,000 active users
PlayStation Network has over 110,000,000 accounts with 70,000,000 active users
Consoles 220,000,000 total accounts 135,000,000 active users
Steam has 125,000,000 accounts they don't released monthly active users
Seven months into the steam machine sales they only mustered 500,000 units.
I'm sorry I deal in facts not really seeing where your claim valve (steam) is crushing consoles. Who knows maybe you have your own alternative facts you like to use.
Disclaimer not my fault facts made your head hurt again.
PC games which is mostly controlled via Valve is outselling consoles year after year over the past 3 years. That is nearly the complete doing on one small company dominating BOTH consoles.
But look, despite the fact that I explictly stated 'launch' because I was refering to years 2013-14 and you think its perfectly fine to call 2016 a launch year despite it NOT being so and not remotely 'arbitrary' I will indulge your observation........
I understand your point and I dont have a direct counter because its getting into areas I am not familiar with, but at the time of 2013 when Tom Merrit said it because Steve Balamaer was effectively being fired over this and other things it did at the time (which was NOT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!) sound like a good deal.
look at it this way, out of all the gaming platforms, PC, PS4, Xbox One and Mobile.
Xbox One is on the bottom of the list in sales is it not?
Uhh no, the PC game platform has never outsold the console game platform.
of the total global revenue generated by the gaming industry in 2016 (99.6 billion USD) Pc gaming took 27% while consoles took 29%.
the year prior it was 28% to 30% respectively, the gap widens more each year one goes back. . .
but also note that if one takes away the chinese market Consoles absolutely crushes PC by almost 20%, this is due to the chinese predominantly using the PC platform to game.
So no Valve is not destroying consoles, in fact they are not even getting the lion share of the PC revenue, because in 2016 their total revenue was $3.47 billion out of $37.4 billion the PC platform generated.
in comparison Microsoft's Xbox division made $8.6 billion Q3 2015 in revenue ( this is the only time in the console's history microsoft revealed console sales in their own category) ( it is usually lump in with surface, bing and the now defunct windows phones)
just a few facts to counter opinion stemming from ignorance, nothing more nothing less.
Yeah I gave up even trying to reason with him as that was clearly an impossible task. It's too bad he is banned now I would have loved to see his reply to you.
yeah I noticed he is on another time out after I posted, but I forum wrestled him on a few occasions and I dont post the facts to try to enlighten him anymore ( because he sticks to his opinion no matter how much it is shown to be false ) but for other more open minded people following the conversation.
Arguing with Sean can be fun and the occasional bit of useful information comes out of it. He and I have completely different interests and ways of thinking so it can be an eye opener.
Going back to the facts and figures, I was just wondering where you are getting your data from. Those are some interesting figures you've posted but I'd like to see a source. If it is SuperData then we have a problem as your source is completely unreliable, but if it is from someone better then we can look into it further.
Yeah your head hurting has nothing to do with my comment. In 2013, 2014 or whatever arbitrary date you want to use it doesn't matter the Xbox one out sold the previous Xbox therefore not horrific.
How do you figure valve/ steam is crushing consoles?
Xbox live has over 100,000,000 accounted with 65,000,000 active users
PlayStation Network has over 110,000,000 accounts with 70,000,000 active users
Consoles 220,000,000 total accounts 135,000,000 active users
Steam has 125,000,000 accounts they don't released monthly active users
Seven months into the steam machine sales they only mustered 500,000 units.
I'm sorry I deal in facts not really seeing where your claim valve (steam) is crushing consoles. Who knows maybe you have your own alternative facts you like to use.
Disclaimer not my fault facts made your head hurt again.
PC games which is mostly controlled via Valve is outselling consoles year after year over the past 3 years. That is nearly the complete doing on one small company dominating BOTH consoles.
But look, despite the fact that I explictly stated 'launch' because I was refering to years 2013-14 and you think its perfectly fine to call 2016 a launch year despite it NOT being so and not remotely 'arbitrary' I will indulge your observation........
I understand your point and I dont have a direct counter because its getting into areas I am not familiar with, but at the time of 2013 when Tom Merrit said it because Steve Balamaer was effectively being fired over this and other things it did at the time (which was NOT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!) sound like a good deal.
look at it this way, out of all the gaming platforms, PC, PS4, Xbox One and Mobile.
Xbox One is on the bottom of the list in sales is it not?
Uhh no, the PC game platform has never outsold the console game platform.
of the total global revenue generated by the gaming industry in 2016 (99.6 billion USD) Pc gaming took 27% while consoles took 29%.
the year prior it was 28% to 30% respectively, the gap widens more each year one goes back. . .
but also note that if one takes away the chinese market Consoles absolutely crushes PC by almost 20%, this is due to the chinese predominantly using the PC platform to game.
So no Valve is not destroying consoles, in fact they are not even getting the lion share of the PC revenue, because in 2016 their total revenue was $3.47 billion out of $37.4 billion the PC platform generated.
in comparison Microsoft's Xbox division made $8.6 billion Q3 2015 in revenue ( this is the only time in the console's history microsoft revealed console sales in their own category) ( it is usually lump in with surface, bing and the now defunct windows phones)
just a few facts to counter opinion stemming from ignorance, nothing more nothing less.
Yeah I gave up even trying to reason with him as that was clearly an impossible task. It's too bad he is banned now I would have loved to see his reply to you.
yeah I noticed he is on another time out after I posted, but I forum wrestled him on a few occasions and I dont post the facts to try to enlighten him anymore ( because he sticks to his opinion no matter how much it is shown to be false ) but for other more open minded people following the conversation.
Arguing with Sean can be fun and the occasional bit of useful information comes out of it. He and I have completely different interests and ways of thinking so it can be an eye opener.
Going back to the facts and figures, I was just wondering where you are getting your data from. Those are some interesting figures you've posted but I'd like to see a source. If it is SuperData then we have a problem as your source is completely unreliable, but if it is from someone better then we can look into it further.
lets please stop talking about me and stick to the subject
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
So do you think the guy who said he wants to only use XP for gaming is running 64bit XP? because i dont, if that is the case, do you think its helpful that he hear all of this information? including which branch in subversion to look for billizards code in? should he just Crystal Reports or SSRS after or before the SSIS package runs?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
As for statistics, there's no accurate numbers on Windows 10 saturation. guesstimates are about as good as it gets. Android also counts for chromebooks and applicable tablets. But all in all the numbers don't matter all that much, it's really only a matter of time before everything is pushed to windows 10 one way or another.
It is interesting nonetheless, wonder how we pay for games.
Investing more into content creation? Assuming the content they are creating is worthwhile then sure, this is a good move. The games industry is expanding every year, it's bigger than the film and tv industry, so yeh, having more stuff to sell is a good idea.
Ditching consoles in favour of streaming games? Yeh, thats a dumb move. First, the idea has already failed on a large scale a number of times. Microsoft are arguably in a better position than the previous attempts, but the infrastructure simply doesn't exist in most of the world to make this a success. Certainly in Europe we don't have the infrastructure to handle streaming games, America seems slightly worse in most places. So, sure, if you live in a city and have a fibre connection then great, it might work. For everyone else....
Third, having a console has earned Microsoft a lot of money. Yes, they lose money on every console sale, but they make that back through software sales. They get a cut from every single game sold for their console! Sure, things have been harder for the current generation of consoles, but that has nothing to do with consoles as a concept, but everything to do with Microsofts attempts to turn consoles into "home hubs". I remember the E3 where the Xbox1 and PS4 were both announced - MS spent 80 minutes talking about Skype, Netflix, music streaming etc and 10 minutes talking about games. So, of course this console didn't sell well - they ignored it's primary function! Mis-marketed and not enough exclusives. Both things that are easy to fix.
Finally, on the streaming concept.....if they can sort the actual streaming issue, the next big issue is content. Who's content will be on there? How will we pay for it? What hardware will I use to stream?
If the streaming service doesn't include enough stuff then consumers will still need another device - console or PC - in which case they'll ignore streaming and focus on getting their money's worth out of their hardware.
Microsoft has been pretty dumb for a good 5 or 6 years now when it comes to consumer products. This latest announcement seems to be continuing that trend. I am still a Microsoft fan - out of all the big electronic firms, they remain my favourite - but they keep trying to set new directions for the market without seeming to actually understand the market.
In 2013 shortly after the horrific release of Xbox One Tom Merritt made this suggestion.
Microsoft should sell off its Xbox hardware, keep its Xbox Service, but make the Xbox Service work on multiple platforms as a gaming platform. Reason for this is because Xbox Service has a LOT of users. If you capitalize on that asset (its users) and leverage features around Xbox Services itself more than you usually would because of the prior focus on hardware then in the longer run this would be a good move.
Regarding Microsofts 'investment into creating content' I think that should be reframed to focus its meaning on Microsoft itself actually creating the content itself, rather than buying other firms that do. The reason I think its a better move to have 'developed the content itself' is because if your business to its core doesnt actually create video games then the first question become how much do you know about what is important in video games? because game content is by far the most important reason people buy a game, so to rely on others to do that suggest a lack of knowedge in that business.
By leaps and bounds the most important thing about video games is the game content itself. If one is to be successful as possible in video games they need to have a deep understanding on actual content and not rely on others to do it for you.
that is a lot to take in I know but that is how I see it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So, what does the xbox service provide that Microsoft makes money off? They already made the account system multi-platform, so it runs on xbox, PC and mobile. If they are ditching their hardware then their digital sales platform will die - I doubt Sony would allow you to buy digital games from MS on their console, and Steam / GOG etc already provide superior services on PC.
I am asking from a place of ignorance here. If they are going to shut off a massive revenue stream (cut of every single xbox game sold), how will they leverage their user base to regain that money?
What is being suggested is to sell off the hardware, keep the services, make good games which you have on the service which becomes attractive for people to want to pay for the service. Think Netflix of games (not because of streaming but because of a service around an entertainment)
not really very complicated to understand but I just dont know the details of how Xbox Services work to answer your question.
To answer your last question the idea is that 100% of the games would be mulitplatform. So selling off the hardware to someone like maybe amazon would not affect the games.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The X is actually selling very well in the first week so well the projections have been doubled. I am by no means a xbox fanboi, I do prefer Xbox over Sony but didn't purchase an X and currently most of my gaming is PC. Just pointing out nobody is calling the xbox one launch horrific.
I understand what your trying to say but the way you are doing it is making my head hurt.
The LAUNCH was in 2013. The sales in 2013 and 14 were not great. I have no idea, nor really care, how they are now.
At the time (2013) what Tom Merrit said made a ton of sense.
keep in mind, a small somewhat lazy team of game developers is absolutely crushing the console market. That team is called Valve.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
How do you figure valve/ steam is crushing consoles?
Xbox live has over 100,000,000 accounted with 65,000,000 active users
PlayStation Network has over 110,000,000 accounts with 70,000,000 active users
Consoles 220,000,000 total accounts
135,000,000 active users
Steam has 125,000,000 accounts they don't released monthly active users
Seven months into the steam machine sales they only mustered 500,000 units.
I'm sorry I deal in facts not really seeing where your claim valve (steam) is crushing consoles. Who knows maybe you have your own alternative facts you like to use.
Disclaimer not my fault facts made your head hurt again.
But look, despite the fact that I explictly stated 'launch' because I was refering to years 2013-14 and you think its perfectly fine to call 2016 a launch year despite it NOT being so and not remotely 'arbitrary' I will indulge your observation........
I understand your point and I dont have a direct counter because its getting into areas I am not familiar with, but at the time of 2013 when Tom Merrit said it because Steve Balamaer was effectively being fired over this and other things it did at the time (which was NOT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!) sound like a good deal.
look at it this way, out of all the gaming platforms, PC, PS4, Xbox One and Mobile.
Xbox One is on the bottom of the list in sales is it not?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Beating and "crushing" are two different situation. You used "crushing" which is factually incorrect that's all I am saying. Again I'm a PC gamers and which platform sells the best has zero impact on me im just providing facts.
out of all the gaming platforms out there Xbox One is at the BOTTOM of the list for sales.
at least it was a few years ago. But I get what your saying, I am just saying Tom Merrit said this 4 years ago and at the time it sounded like a great idea and to me, I still think its a great idea but I could be wrong.
I dont know the numbers but I bet you Amazon, Facebook, Steam, Netflix and maybe even eBay all make more money then xbox. So what if Xbox was more like an internet service for games rather than a hardware? think on it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/windows-10-enterprise-subscription-activation
of the total global revenue generated by the gaming industry in 2016 (99.6 billion USD) Pc gaming took 27% while consoles took 29%.
the year prior it was 28% to 30% respectively, the gap widens more each year one goes back. . .
but also note that if one takes away the chinese market Consoles absolutely crushes PC by almost 20%, this is due to the chinese predominantly using the PC platform to game.
So no Valve is not destroying consoles, in fact they are not even getting the lion share of the PC revenue, because in 2016 their total revenue was $3.47 billion out of $37.4 billion the PC platform generated.
in comparison Microsoft's Xbox division made $8.6 billion Q3 2015 in revenue ( this is the only time in the console's history microsoft revealed console sales in their own category) ( it is usually lump in with surface, bing and the now defunct windows phones)
just a few facts to counter opinion stemming from ignorance, nothing more nothing less.
Going back to the facts and figures, I was just wondering where you are getting your data from. Those are some interesting figures you've posted but I'd like to see a source. If it is SuperData then we have a problem as your source is completely unreliable, but if it is from someone better then we can look into it further.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me