Forbes Columnist Claims Microsoft Will Sell Xbox To Sony -- or Barnes & Noble

I am not a big console gamer nowadays, but I simply couldn't imagine Sony being the only real option. If I -were- a console gamer, I 'd be an Xboxer through-and-through. I hate the interface Sony has on its PS3, the store interface, the fact that there are occasions when the entire service is down (friend of mine couldn't play CoD: BLOPS II this past weekend because of a blip on -their- system)... it's nuts. Xbox is polished and the games, more often than not, tend to appeal to me there more (the same could have been said for Xbox vs. PS2, for me personally).

A world without Xbox would be a strange one...

Do the 360 numbers just include the hardware, or do they also include the royalties MS collect for EVERY 360 game that is sold?

That's the revenue and operating income Microsoft reports for the entire Entertainment division. Royalty payments would be included in the division's figures, the same way Windows royalties are included as part of that division's revenue.

Forbes pulled this article. Shows you how much faith they had in the writer.

Marco C:

Forbes pulled this article. Shows you how much faith they had in the writer.

'Twas a Whoops Moment? LOL!

Not gonna happen.

Microsoft's main product is not Windows or Office: It is, and always has been their proprietary Windows APIs. As long as developers are locked into these APIs, people have to use Windows to use their software. And, since MS has such an overwhelming market share, there's been little incentive for devs to write proper, portable, code. It's a vicious cycle, that has made them rich without producing better products than the competition. Just look at what happens to them on platforms like phones and mp3 players, where they start with a minority share and try to shove their proprietary SilverLight at devs.

One of the XBox's primary purposes is to keep game developers locked into DirectX, which keeps their games locked-in to Microsoft's platforms only (for the devs who jump in with both feet and fail to properly abstract their rendering). Microsoft was hedging their bets with the creation of the XBox because games are the biggest selling point for Windows, and people were seriously talking about console gaming improving to the point where it would kill PC gaming. They knew that if games were not primarily developed using their APIs, they'd lose a lot of exclusives and see a huge impact.

It's all very smart business on their part; When you have a virtual monopoly you want it to be hard for people to leave. It's no wonder Microsoft has tried so hard to break OpenGL, implement an incomplete Java VM, etc. on their platforms in the past.

They're riding this one into the ground. Instead of selling, I expect them to try to boost profits and eliminate the competition via lawsuits: Lots and lots of lawsuits. They wrote that they would do this in the Halloween documents, and they already tried once when they gave SCO $106M to try to kill Linux.

All the while, they'll lose marketshare as more new developers discover Unity3d, Monogame, Unigine, the new Source, etc. Microsoft's got a real problem on their hands: Devs are more and more insulated from the platform APIs from the start, and can output Mac/Linux ports in minutes. Microsoft's main product is becoming less and less relevant.

"I expect them to try to boost profits and eliminate the competition via lawsuits: Lots and lots of lawsuits."

Against who, exactly? Do you see Redmond suing Unity?

The Halloween Documents are pretty interesting.

Eh. That's 15 years ago. Compare the company executives then and now, you'll find virtually all of them are different (Ballmer is one of the few holdovers). I think you're wrong about lawsuits because that's not how Microsoft operates these days.

Look at Android. Apple and Oracle led the charge to sue Google and various handset manufacturers. Microsoft opted to have quiet sit-down talks for licensing fees. From a PR perspective, Microsoft's strategy won, no question. I don't know if Apple's brand took a positive or negative hit, in total, after Samsung, but the case was hotly argued from both viewpoints.

MS quietly negotiated for royalty payments -- and that was that. I'm not saying that makes MS benevolent, kind, or friendly, but it's a good deal less acrimonious than Apple.

As for chaining developers to APIs, I think we should wait and see what the next-generation Xbox does and doesn't support before making too many assumptions on that front. With Win RT, MS led the push towards using HTML5 and Javascript for Windows Metro applications. I'd be surprised if the upcoming Xbox doesn't support OpenCL.

>> Eh. That's 15 years ago.

Lawsuits against people implementing FAT32 compatibility on Linux devices (ala TomTom), and people that use Android instead of Windows Mobile are not.

>> Microsoft opted to have quiet sit-down talks for licensing fees.

And they still won't tell *anyone* what the 'infringing' patents are (and their terms won't allowed the sued parties to do so either) so that other companies or the Linux devs can avoid problems in the future. MS is making more money off Android than their own devices, and all through lawsuits of patents that obviously are not very good or would be revealed. Not good behavior.