(I''ve seen this issue in another board, but this should be discussed in this business board rather than just usual API war) Background: Microsoft used the same method consistently. Microsoft imitated other products and crashes the original producers. As we know, Microsoft has the strong power to control market (so called monopoly), and has ability to continue the same tactics. With its past tactics chosen, the question we should consider is "will Microsoft imitate our games using monopoly advantage"? John

I don''t think that microsoft is really into the making of games right now. I know you have MicroSoft Flight Simulator and all that but, correct me if I am wrong, I think these and others were made by others and just bought by microsoft. They do, however, controll the operating system that I would say over 90% of games run on and the API that most games use which is Windows and DirectX.

Nah, I doubt Microsoft cares much about games. Microsoft''s interest is in the OS business, and almost all their ventures are designed to promote their operating system. IMHO, Microsoft isn''t interested in killing something unless it poses a direct threat to their OS business (with a few exceptions).

Games aren''t really a threat to Microsoft''s main business. In fact, IMO games are a large reason why many people haven''t gone over to alternative OS''s yet. Anyway, I think we game developers can rest assured that Microsoft doesn''t have any interest in crushing us.

--TheGoop

>In fact, IMO games are a large reason why many people haven''t gone over to alternative OS''s yet.

This is true as long as applications contribute to Windows. Once they contribute to other OS as well, Microsoft will punish them. This is why Microsoft made pseudo-Java to crash original Java.

Microsoft rule is "admire me only, otherwise I will punish you." Other Microsoft anti-competitive tactics are applied based on this rule. There is no reason why Microsoft will stop applying this rule to any application unless some severe restriction is made on its business.

Samuel

"Nah, I doubt Microsoft cares much about games."

$4 billion says you are wrong. That is what MS are pumping into the X-Box launch over the first four years and their stated plan is to publish 30% of the games for the system. They are very very serious about games because they see this as a way to ensure the X-Box is in every living room. Bill''s stated aim is to "own the living room" because he believes that the next Internet will be a network into the TV that links your home to everything else (schools, work, entertainment etc) and he ewants to own it.


Dan Marchant
www.obscure.co.uk

Microsoft is a double edged sword. They were after all the ones who brought us Windows and DirectX, a great combo for making quality games. I know everybody has a beef with MS, but just look at what they did for game developers with DirectX. However, as Obscure points out, the X-Box could give them reason to purge all independent game developers. The best case scenario is that Microsoft remains as they are, and that X-Box fails wildly, teaching them a lesson not to screw with game developers. I think the X-Box might just flop too, because the playstation 2 looks just plain awesome. Besides, everybody has enough of windows on their PC, who wants it on there console too?

Yeah, but didn''t Microsoft just buy the Directx technology from some other company? I thought I''d heard that before.

I read somewhere that the main reason Microsoft came up with the X-Box was to compete with the Playstation 2 on a gaming level to protect their OS market. Because the PS2 has internet and other PC like features, and that would hurt Microsofts OS sales, so they made this really powerful console, which they''re hoping people will buy for gaming, and also get a PC (with Windows) which they''ll use for their PC needs.

--Buzzy

Microsoft did buy directX from a smaller company, but at that time directX did not have directInput and other API''s it does now, only DirectDraw, DirectSound, Direct3D I think.

You have published your game, but you do not make your game named "Y" in $M''s favorite way. $M can say to all retail stores,

"if you sell game Y in your store, I will not sell you Windows."

The retail stores will stop selling game Y.

This is the monopoly power $M has now. $M is capable of this threat. Does everyone think this is normal?

Scott