Microsoft has to be that one company that completely alienates their current userbase the moment they develop a new interest. I won't deny that Microsoft's underdog (as in, they are still fairly new in the gaming business, and coming from a software company to walking straight into the console market) status makes it that much impressive that they've become the gaming behemoth they are now, but at times I can't help but see they're simply using the power of money to seize control of what made Nintendo and Sony successful for decades.

I mean, let's face it. Microsoft was already rich and powerful before Xbox was even an idea. They had the PC market under their thumb with their Windows OS, and damn near every game worth playing required some version of Windows in order to work. Back then, there wasn't much games to choose regarding which operating system you could have if you were a gamer. Further down the line, Microsoft sealed their position (or at least, attempted) by requiring users to upgrade to Vista in order to play the newer games, and requiring a Live ID in order for most of the games to work. About the time the Xbox became a hit, Microsoft tried to play a ruler of two kingdoms for a very brief moment by taking what made the Xbox a unique success and applying it to the PC crowd: the first online console that didn't completely suck, but the catch is that you pay a mandatory subscription fee for multiplayer.

However, PC games have no single company to take the reigns of that platform, and having an open platform means that nine times out of ten, the users are the ones in charge of what they choose to have on it. That, and with so many choices on how to play a PC game, having a mandatory Gold subscription for a few select games fizzled out so unnoticed that it was pretty much dropped. It's obvious that Microsoft's once firm grasp on the PC market has loosened when programs like Steam or D2D are successful alternatives to play your games, and when Macs get a lot more support for software than they ever did in the past.

In short, I see two scenarios: either Microsoft realized they couldn't control the market like they did with the Xbox and left PC gaming as a secondary option to stay relevant by still having Windows mandatory for most games to see how far they can go with the audience, or decided to favor the console market completely where they had total control over their userbase, and banking on the popularity of Windows to subconciously secure their position in PC gaming. Either way, this was the eara that Microsoft "abandoned" PC gaming.

One of the first things Microsoft did when they entered the console market was purchasing any company that had a respectable reputation for software, like Rare and Bungie. Then you had games like Forza, Halo, and old classics like Conker's Bad Fur Day, and later down the line, Perfect Dark now on the Xbox brand. Not a bad start for a company's first attempt at console gaming reaching to a broad appeal, but it didn't quite put a dent in the then immortal Playstation brand, and wasn's as legendary as Nintendo's reputation. In other words, Microsoft established itself as taking what made a computer an ideal gaming platform, and putting it in a console's built-for-a-living-room appeal with things like the first console to have a hard drive, the raw power of a computer small enough to place under your television, and the online community. In my eyes, the Xbox was Microsoft's first attempt at creating a PC that they had total control over.

By the time the Xbox 360 came out, support for the original Xbox was immediately cut. I mean, totally swept under a rug like it was some kind of embarassing scandal. They even tried to go as far as to cease backwards compatibility until public outcry demanded they continue to emulate the BC to an at least respectable amount. Is it no coincidence that among the ones to make the first list, games like Halo, Fable, and other heavy titles (along with questionable titles like Barbie games and low-scoring titles that "were easy to emulate so it was simply put there to artificially lenghten the BC list") were the high point, while other equally great games not made by their first party almost didn't make the list? I mean, could it be that once again, Microsoft was trying to take control of what games we're allowed to play on a "dead" platform using a new one?

Either way, I commend Microsoft's attention to history. While the Xbox came out pretty late in the market and was nearly overshadowed by the PS2, the 360 was the first next-gen console to arrive on store shelves. With a whole year of absolutely no competition, anyone who wanted to step foot in the evolution of gaming had no other choice but to make games for the 360. By the time the PS3 came out, the 360 was already in most homes and known as THE system to own if you want the most games. At a much cheaper price and a steady flow of games to look foward to, nothing could topple the Xbox brand for quite a while. Couple that with Microsoft's determination to be heard by any means necessary, any commercial you'd see about a videogame would have that flashy Xbox logo engulf your television screen. If it was a popular game like Call of Duty, or any multiplatform game for that matter...the last thing you'd see when the commercial ends would be "On Xbox 360."

When the PS3 finally became a worthy competitor by having its share of exclusives too good to overlook, you could guarantee Microsoft would find an offer as well. Soon you'd hear about Microsoft signing exclusive deals with publishers for timed DLC or exclusive content, no matter what game it was. There was actually a point where the 360 was once again, THE system to own because it hoarded all the content. So in my eyes, Microsoft has started to become too big for their britches when they're not fully satisfied with controlling their userbase. Now, they want to control the console market as a whole by securing a position as the platform that gets all the support.

Now, when your userbase is known for having the system that has..well, everything, your system has to actually have...everything. So when the Wii has their cute little Avatars that the casual crowd seems to love because they tie in with their games, and Sony has their god-awul Home program (which was still in the works, but it was a sound concept) that succeeded in making life even more boring in a videogame than actually living it, it's pretty obvious where Microsoft's new focus is heading. When the NXE launched, they threw out a party like they've just innovated the way we log onto our Live accounts. Not only did the dashboard recieve one hell of a facelift, but now you too can create a cartoon character that vaguely resembles you.

Now, it's pretty clear that this update didn't keep the traditional gamer (you know, the old guys that gave the Xbox it's name? :|) in mind when the first thing you see when you log onto Live is something begging you to buy it. I mean, the menu is so cluttered with ads not even related to gaming that I actually had a hard time trying to find the place where I buy Arcade games. If anything, Microsoft has relieved the burden of me walking into a Wal Mart to see the same kind of advertisements I'd see on display. Combine that with Netflix support, Games on Demand, TV episodes available for download, a trailer for the next movie coming out on theatres, a Mountain Dew ad, ESPN, Facebook, Twitter, etc...if it's not perfectly clear by now, the Xbox 360 wants to be THE gaming platform that also wants to replace your computer, your television set, and your newspaper. Want more propaganda? Because Microsoft is in charge of everything put on the Xbox :D.

Now I'd love to say it's the end of it, but what the hell...if there is one market still untapped, more specifically: a market that is controlled by a company other than Microsoft and it's related to the console market, it's pretty inevitable that there's something going down. I'm talking about motion control gaming :shock:. Seeing as how Nintendo basically pioneered videogames into the homes of people who would've otherwise been perfectly satisfied living a normal non-gaming life, it also brought a flood of sales by the casual market. I mean, I haven't seen this kind of shift in appeal since Solitaire was built in desktops. In short, Barack Obama paid a visit to Microsoft, because there was change.

Now, how badly does Microsoft want to control the casual market? I'd say they've got a pretty big boner for the idea when...they got the powerful Oprah to shed some light on Kinect, while things like videogames are only heard of by those who choose the hard life of reading a magazine or attending E3. Let me just throw this out: gamers read magazines and go on the pilgramage to see the almighty E3. Average joes watch Oprah. And if it's not so blatantly obvious that the original market pales in comparison to ruling the world, Microsoft actually went as far as to insult their loyal consumers by stereotyping them as "30 year olds in Metallica t-shirts." And well, that's it. We're not even worthy of a full on stand-up comedy, just a one-liner :cry: (although for the record, I'm 25 years old and sport the Iron Maiden shirts 8)).

And this makes me a tad bit uneasy (just a bit) because if it's anything like Nintendo's past, this means everyone BUT us will eat up the whole Kinect idea while Microsoft sits on ass and gains even more power in the gaming industry. And the thing about casual gamers: they don't marathon their games like we do, and are perfectly content with playing simulators on what they do in real life...and the thing about THOSE games are: they're cheap to make, and quality isn't a concern when you've got like ten different iterations about the same friggin' thing that people will buy because the box art tells them to. Now, I find this unsettling, because if Microsoft has just as much followers as Nintendo has, their control on the market is even more effortless. In fact, gamers' words won't even hold any weight when we're the minority.

But, in all seriousness (you didn't think I actually know what I'm talking about, right? ;)) I stand true to my belief that Microsoft continues to alienate their userbase by the seasons. I think that while still maintaining the contracts to exclusive rights, they have something to cater to their traditional crowd without actually becoming involved in it, and focusing all their efforts into replicating what Nintendo pulled off with even less effort. With Microsoft's massive budgets, they can just walk in and call the shots. Just like the mafia, if you find some kind of problem with the way they run their operations, they'll throw a bunch of money at you and make you allies. At times gaming feels like nothing but cruel extortion of your games behind the dropped curtains, and no one notices because the majority of people taking over our hobby don't even know the names of the companies who developed the games. The thing I'm afraid of is at this rate, gamer's voices won't be heard if it doesn't scream overnight profit.

EDIT: I hope you guys don't take this too seriously, I just wrote this purely for fun. Hope you enjoyed reading it, and see the small truths I do feel hidden inside ;).