Serious question Microsoft owns windows. The whole purpose of this Metro bs was to have one os for multiple platforms. So why instead of developing a completely separate os for the xbox one why don't they just slap a copy of windows on it and add drm to make certain games like halo only playable on their box? Wouldn't it solve a bunch of complaints about codec support etc if people could just download vlc or something? Heck they can even put a dumbed down version without the traditional desktop view but still have all the metro versions of apps run. Wouldn't having all this extra stuff and not having to do much extra development be a no brainier?
Why doesn't Microsoft Just Release a Steambox Alternative?
- Thread starter el swordo
- Start date
TwistedShade
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
I hate to prematurely give stuff away but I think we should hand out the crappiest thread of the week award early and make a special exception.
YOU. It's a serious question and I think a pretty dang good one. What's the difference between an xbox one and a pc with windows 8 booted to the metro ui + some drm? On top of that they wouldn't need to worry about patching in features later as much
In all seriousness, el swordo, you inadvertently answered the question: "Why will the steambox fail?"
I see no reason for anyone to compete with it.
I don't think Metro UI was for one singular OS, but rather one unifying UI. My Win8.1 Laptop tries to look like an Xbox, but it's far far from it. (Classic Shell fixed the lipstick on my pig)
I see no reason for anyone to compete with it.
I don't think Metro UI was for one singular OS, but rather one unifying UI. My Win8.1 Laptop tries to look like an Xbox, but it's far far from it. (Classic Shell fixed the lipstick on my pig)
But microsoft has something going for it that the steambox will never have. Halo, Gears of War etc. The reason I don't play pc games is because of games like those. The games that are ported to pc can be played on consoles I already have and then I'm free not to use windows
But seriously what is the difference between an xbox nowadays and a pc besides the software running on the system? Microsoft has 90% desktop market share for operating systems. Because of this they have a huge base of software that can run on the os. They can still call it xbox or whatever they want and most people would be none the wiser really.
RevengeMonstro
Banned
Um because microsoft is not well like by pc gamers or anyone for that matter they being not like gfwl was failure
Microsoft tried w/ their horrible Games For Windows Live (GFWL) game-client. It was rushed, half-assed, and barely supported by Microsoft - unlike Steam.
Seriously, GFWL couldn't compete w/ Steam. Steam was so far ahead of everyone - and still is, for that matter - with features + whatnot, that other services are still lagging way the hell behind.
Hell - GFWL isn't even as good as Origin, for crying out loud. Epic failure.
Last edited by a moderator:
That was a half assed attempt. I'm talking basically about the xbox one but with option of running designed for metro apps like office and vlc to fill in for the lack of codec support. Not a terrible leap to make. Isn't x1 hardware pretty dang close to pc hardware anyway? And I'm guessing that the x1 os isn't horribly different from the pc os that the apps wouldn't run with minimal tweaking.
XB1 + PS4 are similar to my current PC's hardware (which was built in May 2011 right before The Witcher 2 PC hit, mind you), architecture-wise.
But, w/ vid cards like NVidia Titans and other very expensive parts like 4K monitors - if you got the money, you can really embarrass the hell out of a console modern-day console.
Most people will just get what's the "best bang for the buck" when building a PC or upgrading your PC, though - like what I did.
EDIT:
In case you're curious...
My PC = i7 950; 8 GB RAM; 1 GB of GeForce 560 Ti; Win 7 64-bit.
Last edited by a moderator:
n8rockerasu
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 52 (100%)
Exactly. I understand the simplicity and convenience of console gaming (I bought an XB1 a couple months ago simply because there are just some games that don't come to PC). But at the same time, I think most people have been brainwashed, or just don't know what a different universe PC gaming opens up. If you're a dude-bro and you only like shooting things and sports...then yeah, you can't go wrong with a console (and you're probably unlikely to be able to grasp some of the intricacies of the PC world anyway...maybe that's not fair, but in a lot of cases, it's true).
The dude-bros and the soccer moms buying for Little Timmy is where the console world's bread is buttered. Microsoft, Sony, and even Nintendo makes a FORTUNE off these people. They either don't know or don't care (due to difference in cost) that the brand new, "next gen" hardware they just bought is on par with what PC was doing three years ago. XB1/PS4 are struggling to do 1080p at a consistent 60 frames per second (with many games even missing that mark).
To give perspective...the most recent development kit for the Oculus Rift needs a machine that can pump 1080p at 75fps to be used properly. And that's not even the consumer version. So, how in the hell Sony's Morpheus headset is going to work, I have no idea. I realize the full potential of the system hasn't been tapped into yet and breakthroughs in rendering techniques can happen...but still, they've got a lot of ground to cover.
So, to address the exact question of why doesn't Microsoft turn the XB1 into a "Steambox"...because it would kind of be a shitty Steambox. I mean, for a pre-built unit, and what you get for the price, it's not terrible...but I think most people interested in PC gaming would want more. And for the people not interested in PC gaming, it already does what they need.
The dude-bros and the soccer moms buying for Little Timmy is where the console world's bread is buttered. Microsoft, Sony, and even Nintendo makes a FORTUNE off these people. They either don't know or don't care (due to difference in cost) that the brand new, "next gen" hardware they just bought is on par with what PC was doing three years ago. XB1/PS4 are struggling to do 1080p at a consistent 60 frames per second (with many games even missing that mark).
To give perspective...the most recent development kit for the Oculus Rift needs a machine that can pump 1080p at 75fps to be used properly. And that's not even the consumer version. So, how in the hell Sony's Morpheus headset is going to work, I have no idea. I realize the full potential of the system hasn't been tapped into yet and breakthroughs in rendering techniques can happen...but still, they've got a lot of ground to cover.
So, to address the exact question of why doesn't Microsoft turn the XB1 into a "Steambox"...because it would kind of be a shitty Steambox. I mean, for a pre-built unit, and what you get for the price, it's not terrible...but I think most people interested in PC gaming would want more. And for the people not interested in PC gaming, it already does what they need.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not particularly talking about a direct steam box competitor. I'm talking more along the lines of building a windows pc that devs can target. They can call it whatever they like but, if say the xbox one+ would run office as well as play halo it might be a selling point for certain people like people moving into college dorms. I'm not really talking about a full on pc more like a slightly more advanced xbox
The thing is - PC atmosphere is often changing. The consoles are not meant to - since they're fixed for their life cycle.
The point of a PC is to NOT have a real target, though. The dev's + pubs can aim for whatever their games works best or right with.
The PC is meant for the PC user + gamers to swap parts out, when desired and/or absolutely necessary - to make a game look better, run better, or whatever the case might be.
The point of a PC is to NOT have a real target, though. The dev's + pubs can aim for whatever their games works best or right with.
The PC is meant for the PC user + gamers to swap parts out, when desired and/or absolutely necessary - to make a game look better, run better, or whatever the case might be.
Last edited by a moderator:
n8rockerasu
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 52 (100%)
I just don't see the point of having Office on your Xbox. Are you suggesting there's a group of people who have a need to write college papers on an Xbox? lol. I would argue that a tablet + bluetooth keyboard is better suited for that type of "cross-purpose" usage. I mean, the 360 didn't even have a web browser for the longest time. And then they added IE...and I never used it because I already had 5-6 devices to surf the internet on.
As for appealing to devs, allegedly, that's what they're "trying" to do for indie developers with self-publishing and all XB1s serving as devkits. They're trying to make the platform more attractive. But at the end of the day, it's still a closed platform, and it will never support user-generated content. EA and other publishers who avoid putting their games on PC (including Microsoft themselves) want no part of consumers being able to mod their games. They would much rather just sell you a sequel a year later.
As for appealing to devs, allegedly, that's what they're "trying" to do for indie developers with self-publishing and all XB1s serving as devkits. They're trying to make the platform more attractive. But at the end of the day, it's still a closed platform, and it will never support user-generated content. EA and other publishers who avoid putting their games on PC (including Microsoft themselves) want no part of consumers being able to mod their games. They would much rather just sell you a sequel a year later.
RevengeMonstro
Banned
that kind of wierd lol i wouldnt use xbox for that iu se to couch cooop with family that what i would use for 360 with cousins and exclusivity halo but otherwise it not for school if it is my parents would let me buy long time ago since i t for gaming lol that what it is gaming pc is for anythign
hustletron
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (100%)
I feel like he's basically asking why did Microsoft make the Xbox at all when he says things like: "They can call it whatever they like but, if say the xbox one+ would run office as well as play halo it might be a selling point for certain people like people moving into college dorms."
I didn't buy an Xbox because I wanted it to run office, I wanted it to play Halo. If it did run office, I wouldn't use it and it wouldn't be a selling point because I have a PC. The "college dorm" demographic is irrelevant because people live in apartments too and at some point in any PC consumer's life time of using a PC they WILL have to type up a document. Not everyone is into gaming and not every is in need of MS Word.
Will the Office suite be extra like it is now? What about OpenOffice? Notepad? Textpad? Cloud Services? Software as a service? In my opinion you're arguing for arguments sake for 1. The xbox one is already out and everything you're asking about will never happen and 2. as far as I'm aware, no one wants anything you're asking about because they bought their xboxes to play video games on, not to do homework. If you ask me, the real question is: Why is Steam trying to get into the console market? Obviously for more profit, but they essentially have the PC DRM game market cornered aside from EA games exclusive to Origin.
The other issue with the Steam Machine (I think that's what they're calling it now) is branding. Do non PC gamers even know of Steam? Realistically I say yes of course but what about the uneducated parent or the "new to gaming" person? They go to the store and they see all the consoles, they know Nintendo and Microsoft and Sony but.......what's Steam??? Then factor in the games available, I think we can rule out the MS exclusives.....and the Sony exclusives.....and the Nintendo exclusives......but hey you can play PC games on your TV with it!
I don't think it's Microsoft that needs to change their product, I think it's Steam that needs to rethink how they are going to accomplish the above to compete with the current console overlords. Also the above mentioned EA just selling people a sequel every year and it's true because we will buy it year after year.
n8rockerasu
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 52 (100%)
Sorry, but the latter half of this post reads like somebody who knows very little about Steam or PC gaming in general. Valve (the company behind Steam) isn't even the one making the "Steamboxes". They're basically licensing out the Steam logo to PC makers to give them a little extra clout when trying to sell gaming PCs. In some ways, it's competition for Sony and Microsoft...but in general, these Steamboxes are going to be almost twice the cost. Why? Because they're actually trying to play new games on high settings.
Valve makes money hand over fist...and this endeavor is hardly a blip on their radar. Will it attract people who wouldn't have played games on PC before? Maybe. I know there's a good chunk of people who just want to play games on their couch in front of their big TV. That's a factor. At the same time, though...most of these people expect things to just work and have little patience for tinkering. So, yeah...I don't know that they would do well with PC gaming anyway.
As for those who are already into PC gaming, most know that the Steamboxes are overpriced...and you could do much better to build the same rig yourself. But believe it or not, there are people who play PC games who, for whatever reason, haven't learned how to build a PC or install parts on their own. I doubt it's a huge market...but there is something there.
And no offense, but the "games available" argument is laughable. There are presently 14,162 games on Steam. Sure, it may not have Halo...or Forza...or God of War...or Infamous. But those games aren't exactly the most unique themes in the world either. There are many games just like them. If we were actually going to talk originality, Nintendo would be the toughest experience to replicate on PC. But if you're honestly looking at games and not just trendy mascots, there are more than enough games available.
For the most part, I agree, the "Steambox" is somewhat pointless. But Valve isn't exactly putting a tremendous amount of resources into it either. It's a low risk investment that could turn out to be a waste of time...or it could make a dent and surprise some people. You never know what's going to catch on. Who would have predicted what Nintendo pulled off with the Wii?
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm suggesting that the focus should change from games. I'm just saying having office on the thing could be a trojan horse and maybe parents wouldn't feel so bad about buying videogames for their kids.
KillerRamen
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (100%)
For all intensive purposes, the Xbox One is a PC that just can't run Microsoft Office. The Xbox One OS is based on Windows 8 and it has an x86 processor. Microsoft has their own "steambox" called multi-media center PCs which have been around forever and their alternative to multi-media center PCs is the Xbox.
DestroVega
CAGiversary!
Hate to be a grammar Nazi, but that's what you mean.
n8rockerasu
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 52 (100%)
sweeetja713
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 214 (100%)
Realistically any extra capabilities you allocate to the os can't be used with games. At least the part idling the os. The more complex the os the more resources it takes up in the background while running the game, and that's less lighting, a.i., frame rates etc. Game developers already got a slight resource bump when the kinect went the way of the dodo. They would've had much less to work with with Win 8 as the base os.
Last edited by a moderator:
bread's done