| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (125)

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 5:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the real question is why you hate logic so much? I mean, you really beat the crap out of it with that post!

And "gamerboy"? Really?
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 1:52PM xGeneral DEATHxDEETH82 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dave: So I think I see what you're trying to get at in principle, but what's the alternative? No troops?

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 1:55PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And let's not forget the corollary to Godwin's Law: He who mentions Hitler automatically loses the argument..

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 1:58PM xGeneral DEATHxDEETH82 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh, and FYI: The military has done you MANY favors...but most of the results aren't reflected until a few generations later. See WWII.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 1:58PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@General Death: I think Dave is just saying he doesn't feel unpatriotic by not throwing a hissy fit anytime someone says "no" to the military. Kind of like how patriotic Americans tend to hate their government when their party loses. Patriotism != fawning subservience to every institution run by the gov't.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 2:04PM Drakkenfyre said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The military used a modified version of Doom to train soliders once, and had a special version of Battlezone made for tank training (the arcade units officially didn't exist, but some people saw them.)

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 2:13PM Drakkenfyre said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That was actually from Japan. When the PS2 was released, it couldn't be exported out of Japan legally at first. One model of Mac years ago also fell under export restrictions, it was one of the higher models, a PowerMac, not the cheapass crap off the shelf, the CPU was considered "too powerful", and could be used for something like the PS2, so it was temporarily banned from export outside the US.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 2:14PM Drakkenfyre said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Fail reply, meant for Marty above.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 2:19PM McBrick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Microsoft doesn't want to be seen as the company providing the Army with its "murder simulators." It's a dumb reason, but people are dumb - meaning, Microsoft is probably right that people would think that.

Anyway, if Microsoft is really losing money on consoles at this point in the cycle, it's probably only because they're still bleeding from the RROD debacle. Any new console sold has to be sold at a profit. This is a marketing decision.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 2:26PM Alan Smithee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's not cited worth a damn. He uses an anti-Halliburton website, a tabloid, and Wikipedia? That's a joke, and anyone with a brain would disregard it as propaganda.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 2:26PM AirIntake said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think Dave's point is that just because the military sometimes protects our freedoms, doesn't mean that they're protecting our freedoms every time. WWII yes, Vietnam no. For example, Afghanistan vs Iraq. You could say that since the Sept 11 terrorists were directly related to the Taliban, that taking the Taliban out was justified and protected our freedoms. Iraq on the other hand has never attacked the USA in any way, so it's very hard to say the military is protecting any freedoms by being there. I'd even say that starting the war in Iraq lessened our freedoms, by pissing off a lot of people in that region, maybe even pushing them into becoming terrorists.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 2:39PM Fermie Prime said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dave
"I just like playing games."
Of course you do. Its pretty clear that you don't know much else beyond "playing games".

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 2:53PM McBrick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
AirIntake: You write:
"Iraq on the other hand has never attacked the USA in any way..."

I know some Gulf War veterans who would take issue with that. I don't feel like this is the time or place for this discussion, but when we moved to defend Kuwait Iraq definitely did attack the U.S. After the war Iraq engaged U.N. aircraft enforcing the No Fly zones, mostly American.

If you can make your argument without being factually incorrect, please do.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 2:56PM Mirhderer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ McBrick
The source article said that the deal was proposed in 2006 when Microsoft wasn't pulling a profit from console sales.

I can understand your confusion though since Joystiq wrote "Computers of equal caliber can cost around $1000 each, but an Xbox 360 starts at only $200" when in 2006, the 360 started at $300 for the Core and $400 for the Premium.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 3:08PM McBrick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Calvin - good catch; I didn't click through on the documents and Andrew's article doesn't mention a date. Not sure how newsworthy this is since we're talking about something that happened over 3 years ago.

At any rate, yes, I suspect MS was still losing money on each console at that time. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, although I still think marketing played a role in the decision.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 3:22PM xGeneral DEATHxDEETH82 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I see what he was going for in principle, Scott...but saying "The US military hasn't really done me any favors" is a broad statement that to me disrespects one of our ONLY proud institutions left in this country. I'm not saying anyone should blindly follow anyone/anything sanctioned by our government or any other, but saying the US Military hasn't done anything for you is like saying your parents didn't do shit for you even if they've kept you alive this long.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 3:38PM Alex R said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Microsoft must hate me. The only games I have bought new are Condemned 1 and 2 and Serious Sam HD. And I'm only on XBL Silver.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 3:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"They made a decision that was best for their company. Capitalism doesn't get thrown aside just because the Army is involved. Free market, which includes the right to deny service to anyone for any reason, is not tossed aside for patriotism. Our country has been founded on it and it exists at all times because of that. I'll not fault a company for doing right for their company, considering that's what is held up as the shining ideal."

QFT. The civilian sector is currently experiencing the same end of that sword unfortunately.

Considering 2006 and the rampant red ring of death on top of system shortages, I think they made the right decision financially.

Everyone screaming about patriotism is simply having a kneejerk reaction.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 5:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
meepnight - To be honest, I agree that it's a double-edged sword and that kind of rampant Capitalism isn't always a good thing. We've seen some of where that can lead in the past five years with all of the "too big to fail" businesses failing. I won't pretend to have a solution to that, but it is hypocritical to cite pure capitalism and free market on one hand and then accuse a company of being unpatriotic because they are acting in a capitalist way. Just seems... disingenuous of them.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 4:11PM Istari Spartan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
MS Guy 1: What do we need to do to make loads of monies?

MS Guy 2: Sell loads of consoles!

MS guy 1: So we need to sell loads of consoles. That way we can sell teh gamez!

MS guy 2: Yeah! *hi^5s all around*

Army: We want to buy loads of consoles!

Guy 1: But But But, that would be a BAD thing!



im sorry but WTF!?

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 5:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Again, there are two reasons here. The first would be that they were selling their consoles at cost and making money on the software. The money, especially in 2006, did not come from the hardware but rather the software. Selling a whole lot of consoles to the Army, knowing they would not then turn around and buy a whole lot of software, would have been extremely counter-productive for them as a company. Secondly, there is a perception in the reactionist media that any time video games and the Army, or any other branch of the military gets together, that it's further proof that video games are the spawn of Satan and should be eradicated from existence. So that's pretty much WTF. With negative public perception and a loss of money due to hardware sales far exceeding software sales, they would have ended up making a terrible business decision.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 4:52PM JRMG said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the only backlash MS will be getting is when the xboxes RROD on the Army

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 10:57PM kenny goo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Probably a smart move. In retrospect I don't get why Sony sold all those PS3s to the Army either. You're not making money off software and even though it shouldn't, it gets bad press if somebody like Fox picks it up.

Posted: Feb 11th 2010 11:30PM ouenwoof said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can understand their claim of not being able to stock the number of systems required for this endeavor without running into a massive profits dip, but the comment about how it would give a negative image to the 360 was just uncalled for. I know it's not what they're insinuating, but the comment has some offensive connotations towards our soldiers.

Most Americans would be proud of the fact that they'd be supporting them, not disgusted for associating with our armed forces. What was the currently best-selling game on the 360 right now, guys? COULDN'T have been about armies, or a war even!

Posted: Feb 12th 2010 8:39AM User Formerly Known as Dave said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@aristo

I said: "My freedom is not contingent on some children in the Middle
East being accidentally blown up or some people who may or may not be
guilty of "terrorism" being tortured."

You said: "'My freedom is not contingent on what some madman in
Germany is doing to his European neighbors.' Sound eerily familiar?"

I'm not certain I understand your point. Are you suggesting that my
freedom IS contingent upon some kids in the Middle East being blown up
and potentially innocent people being tortured?

@McBrick: Maybe AirIntake was talking about the current
war/occupation of Iraq rather than the first war?

Listen, guys--I just wanted to make the point that I don't think
Microsoft's refusal should be considered unpatriotic. It was a
business decision. Regardless, even outright dissent should not be
considered unpatriotic. If Thomas Jefferson were to comment on
Joystiq, he'd be downvoted into oblivion. Furthermore, I do believe
that most of the people who entered into the armed forces did so with
good intentions; however, good intentions don't protect my
freedom--nor do our current activities in the Middle East. Feelings
and emotions don't change that. There are no real threats to my
freedom in the Middle East. The only real threats to my freedom are
right here at home: the federal government, fear, and ignorance.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW