Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Working on Gaming-Focused 'Xbox Surface' 7-Inch Tablet
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That looks like a fun toy but the controllers seem oddly placed. I love their tagline, though: "This first-of-its-kind PC gaming tablet with integrated dual controllers is definitely not for playing casual games about unhappy birds or zombie-killing flora."
As for the Xbox Up), I'm too old to play with controllers. I'm from the past generation, the one that pwns with an uber micro composed of a keyboard and a mouse.
How about an analog joystick from the 8bit days?
There are third party controllers and API that let you program using an iPod touch or iPhone as the controller for the iPad. AirPlay allows mirroring some or all of game play to TV already.
These two haven't been posted:
Wireless controllers
Xbox live(real version)
Those two are a must. Windows phone is a complete joke, and shouldn't even have Xbox Live marketed with it. On windows phone 7, real time multiplayer game wasn't supported , and no in game chats, which is a major reason Xbox Live is so great. Absolutely no word has been said of either of these problems for WP8.
If the tablet has built in support for wireless Xbox controllers, it would be awesome.
Xbox arcade games and classics should be supported and cross platform capable. No reason for this not to happen, except for internal politics.
..... Side note.. I don't know of anyone who buys apps on their PCs. They usually fire up the browser and that's it. Maybe that's why there is a lack of apps in W8 store, even though submissions have been happening for a year?
Wireless controllers
Xbox live(real version)
Those two are a must. Windows phone is a complete joke, and shouldn't even have Xbox Live marketed with it. On windows phone 7, real time multiplayer game wasn't supported , and no in game chats, which is a major reason Xbox Live is so great. Absolutely no word has been said of either of these problems for WP8.
If the tablet has built in support for wireless Xbox controllers, it would be awesome.
Xbox arcade games and classics should be supported and cross platform capable. No reason for this not to happen, except for internal politics.
..... Side note.. I don't know of anyone who buys apps on their PCs. They usually fire up the browser and that's it. Maybe that's why there is a lack of apps in W8 store, even though submissions have been happening for a year?
There were 5000 apps available when Win8 came out, and 99 apps currently residing in the New Releases category.
That number's roughly on par with what the iPhone had when the app store went public in iOS2. Whether it continues to grow at the same pace is another question entirely, but it's not half bad for a brand new platform release.
I assume this is an attempt at irony, or are you the Greek finance minister?
wahahahah...thanks for the laugh while i wait for Obamas address
And the Nintendo fans just smile knowing both the Xbox and PS3 fans are wrong.
lol true. I used to have basically all the consoles....PS3, Wii, Xbox, older ones like game cube, 64, ps1+2. For what I want to do online I just prefer 360 right now.
I'll be interested to see if Microsoft can actually pull that off. I'll be waiting with popcorn since so many companies will react to that. Still, if it rocks the box, then I'm buying it. However, they have their work cut out for them to make it work right. This is both from a hardware design, and from a support angle.
But Apple does not get full-fleged games in the App Store. Playing an iOS watered-down game on a TV is boring.
Eh, sorta. The Wii sold the most, The PS3 has a higher attach rate and performs better in Europe, Asia and Australia.
The Xbox just sells better in the US. If that's all that matters for you - awesome.
Yup, 3 million behind (64 vs 67 million) and thats with an awful start to the PS3 and worldwide delays. Wii went well beyond (97 million).
Agreed. If Sony priced more agressively from the gecko I think they would be doing a bit better. What was it like 799 when it debuted?
You completely missed the point.
Lest we forget, the OP made some pretty lame claims that Microsoft has the "big picture" in mind as it attempts to lurch forward into the 21st century. That everything is part of a grand, carefully orchestrated Microsoft plan. Because he had a feeling, after using Microsoft products recently, that Microsoft had been planning all their recent failures to build toward some future ideal goal.
I don't think so. I think they're just reacting to each Apple success by feebly attempting to copy it in a knee-jerk reaction. Just to soothe investors.
With that in mind, here is my rebuttal (and note the use of the words "plan" and "planning"):
Microsoft's total failure with Tablet PC is therefore their fault and their fault alone.
But yes, they do have a history of beating a dead horse. Sometimes it works (e.g. Windows 3.1.)
They stuck with a bad plan with Tablet PC, kept trying to push a sub-par product, and failed.
Tablet PC's 10+ year history of failure is either a symptom of the total ignorance of what consumers want or a symptom of arrogant indifference to said consumer. In fact, the failure could be symptoms of both ignorance and arrogance. Bill Gates never had the "common touch," and he built Microsoft in his own image. We've seen the results of that over the past 10 years or so, and that failure in mobile will just keep on getting worse.
Microsoft was born that way.
I am advocating better planning in the first place. You can't plan anything if all you do is hastily copy competitors' latest concepts. Because you don't know what that competitor is planning. You can't plan your own product's evolution because all it is is a reaction.
WinMob was a knee-jerk reaction to Palm's then-success. Microsoft tried jamming Windows, complete with Start button, into a small form factor. Instead of designing a better UX that was more appropriate for the smaller screen. And why not? Because they insisted on forcing the square Windows peg into the round mobile hole. Great plan.
Maybe the best plan would have been to kill off Windows Mobile 6.5, as they did, then not follow up with any hastily mashed-up successor. Maybe Microsoft should have saved all that time, energy, money, and carbon footprint, by not even trying to keep up in the mobile space.
Maybe the best plan would have been to leave mobile to Apple. And to just write apps for iOS. Microsoft *is* a software company, isn't it? (Or is it just a Windows + Office company? Big difference there.)
Can't win any, it seems. Not in mobile anyway. Maybe in the legacy desktop space.
They didn't care because WP wasn't very good. And why was that? Could it be, oh, I dunno, the lack of careful product planning? Or something like that? You know, the kind of planning that successful companies do for their successful products.
Oh, and there's also the small matter of Microsoft stabbing their hardware partners in the back. Remember Microsoft PlaysForSure? The media player partnership between Microsoft and Archos, Creative, Denon, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, Sony, Toshiba, and others? The partnership that Microsoft destroyed when they launched Zune? Once burned, twice shy. Beware hardware partnerships with Microsoft.
Again, why not focus on your "core competencies" (Windows and Office, in Microsoft's case.) Why waste time, energy, money, and carbon footprint in a futile effort to replicate Apple's mobile success? Why not stick with a successful plan (milking corporate IT.)
Because choosing one architecture, then making that choice work, is ...
wait for it ...
good planning.
Microsoft is fragmenting their own slice of the mobile computing market. Not that it makes much difference. They're dividing a miniature slice into multiple ultra-miniature slices. All of which will fall into the tiny little "other" slice of the overall mobile computing market share pie anyway.
"No compromises"? More like "no plan." And "no chance."
"No compromises"? More like "no new ideas." And "quickest dirtiest port."
And if you're going to work in Office (extensively) just tell your IT guys to buy a Lenovo laptop.
They'll erase Windows 8 and re-image it with XP. Just watch.
The entire world lives in the past? This is terribly bad news for Microsoft. Just terrible!
If Windows 7, or XP, or 2000, is good enough, then why bother with the crazy Metro-fied Windows 8?
Better to wait 25 years and see if Windows 8 has had enough service pack fixes to be usable.
Coffee will smell just as good 25 years from now. I'm certain of it.
Hey, wow. Maybe Microsoft *did* learn from the Windows Mobile 6.5 to Windows Phone 7 non-transition. Maybe they really are trying to help migrate legacy Windows users to the inevitable mobile future.
Or maybe not. Having two separate "bridges" from the past to the future, leading to totally different futures, isn't very good planning. ARM? Intel? Can't decide? Support both. "No compromises." We'll just kill off whichever is the least successful.
Great planning.
.
.
Lest we forget, the OP made some pretty lame claims that Microsoft has the "big picture" in mind as it attempts to lurch forward into the 21st century. That everything is part of a grand, carefully orchestrated Microsoft plan. Because he had a feeling, after using Microsoft products recently, that Microsoft had been planning all their recent failures to build toward some future ideal goal.
I don't think so. I think they're just reacting to each Apple success by feebly attempting to copy it in a knee-jerk reaction. Just to soothe investors.
With that in mind, here is my rebuttal (and note the use of the words "plan" and "planning"):
Microsoft's total failure with Tablet PC is therefore their fault and their fault alone.
But yes, they do have a history of beating a dead horse. Sometimes it works (e.g. Windows 3.1.)
They stuck with a bad plan with Tablet PC, kept trying to push a sub-par product, and failed.
Tablet PC's 10+ year history of failure is either a symptom of the total ignorance of what consumers want or a symptom of arrogant indifference to said consumer. In fact, the failure could be symptoms of both ignorance and arrogance. Bill Gates never had the "common touch," and he built Microsoft in his own image. We've seen the results of that over the past 10 years or so, and that failure in mobile will just keep on getting worse.
Microsoft was born that way.
I am advocating better planning in the first place. You can't plan anything if all you do is hastily copy competitors' latest concepts. Because you don't know what that competitor is planning. You can't plan your own product's evolution because all it is is a reaction.
WinMob was a knee-jerk reaction to Palm's then-success. Microsoft tried jamming Windows, complete with Start button, into a small form factor. Instead of designing a better UX that was more appropriate for the smaller screen. And why not? Because they insisted on forcing the square Windows peg into the round mobile hole. Great plan.
Maybe the best plan would have been to kill off Windows Mobile 6.5, as they did, then not follow up with any hastily mashed-up successor. Maybe Microsoft should have saved all that time, energy, money, and carbon footprint, by not even trying to keep up in the mobile space.
Maybe the best plan would have been to leave mobile to Apple. And to just write apps for iOS. Microsoft *is* a software company, isn't it? (Or is it just a Windows + Office company? Big difference there.)
Can't win any, it seems. Not in mobile anyway. Maybe in the legacy desktop space.
They didn't care because WP wasn't very good. And why was that? Could it be, oh, I dunno, the lack of careful product planning? Or something like that? You know, the kind of planning that successful companies do for their successful products.
Oh, and there's also the small matter of Microsoft stabbing their hardware partners in the back. Remember Microsoft PlaysForSure? The media player partnership between Microsoft and Archos, Creative, Denon, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, Sony, Toshiba, and others? The partnership that Microsoft destroyed when they launched Zune? Once burned, twice shy. Beware hardware partnerships with Microsoft.
Again, why not focus on your "core competencies" (Windows and Office, in Microsoft's case.) Why waste time, energy, money, and carbon footprint in a futile effort to replicate Apple's mobile success? Why not stick with a successful plan (milking corporate IT.)
Because choosing one architecture, then making that choice work, is ...
wait for it ...
good planning.
Microsoft is fragmenting their own slice of the mobile computing market. Not that it makes much difference. They're dividing a miniature slice into multiple ultra-miniature slices. All of which will fall into the tiny little "other" slice of the overall mobile computing market share pie anyway.
"No compromises"? More like "no plan." And "no chance."
"No compromises"? More like "no new ideas." And "quickest dirtiest port."
And if you're going to work in Office (extensively) just tell your IT guys to buy a Lenovo laptop.
They'll erase Windows 8 and re-image it with XP. Just watch.
The entire world lives in the past? This is terribly bad news for Microsoft. Just terrible!
If Windows 7, or XP, or 2000, is good enough, then why bother with the crazy Metro-fied Windows 8?
Better to wait 25 years and see if Windows 8 has had enough service pack fixes to be usable.
Coffee will smell just as good 25 years from now. I'm certain of it.
Hey, wow. Maybe Microsoft *did* learn from the Windows Mobile 6.5 to Windows Phone 7 non-transition. Maybe they really are trying to help migrate legacy Windows users to the inevitable mobile future.
Or maybe not. Having two separate "bridges" from the past to the future, leading to totally different futures, isn't very good planning. ARM? Intel? Can't decide? Support both. "No compromises." We'll just kill off whichever is the least successful.
Great planning.
.
.
Last edited:
Maybe for you, but a lot of folks disagree. Apple creates for those folks, not you.
YOU want XBox style games, go buy an XBox. Apple's not crying over it. And they aren't going to try to make an Xbox to make you and the rest of the 1% happy.
----------
I disagree with you for a part. Microsoft does have a big picture in mind and they are doing everything they are doing to service that picture. That is very obvious. Look at everything they are doing of late and you can see the goal they are striving for very very clearly.
The issue, and I think we are in agreement on this part, is that big picture. It's too reactionary. It's too designed around what the other boys are doing. Not just Apple but all of them. And that is where the failure is coming from. The plan is trying to execute a poorly chosen master goal. It's reactionary and based solely on outside influence.
Apple reacts a little but they do it based more on emerging markets as evidenced by the other boys and not literally on what the other boys are doing in said markets. Eddy Cue saw that there were clear signs that folks wanted a slightly smaller device and was willing to put his neck out and challenge Steve on this issue. Steve was an ego yes but not dumb, he loved to be challenged and proven wrong. And apparently Eddy proved his case enough that Steve or perhaps it was Tim was willing to see the issue revisited. But they didn't slap together a cheap plastic 7 inch tablet sold at cost to under cut the other boys. That's a tactic the other side might use. They created what they wanted to create and put it out there to see if folks would agree that their way is better.
By a similar token, they didn't try to create a tablet that was a computer because they knew it wasn't possible to do it well at this time. Microsoft saw that as a fault and tried to one up them rather than really look at why Apple did what they did (or didn't in this case). And many are saying that that reaction was wrong and created a huge mess. A big picture of playing 'one up' with Apple was the wrong way to go. Particularly when that game consists of doing what Apple didn't do without asking why Apple didn't do it. So Microsoft is trying to do what Apple already figured out was a horrid move and trying to sell it as better when it in fact is falling apart on them.
I don't understand what you are arguing. My post said that this was something that I wanted. Me. Not society. I also want an Apple TV, car, 5 inch phone, a personal Siri robot, and a time machine to take me to a time when I can buy Apple stock for $10 but I don't expect any of these things.
Well this isn't likely to threaten any of the iPad models' market shares, the target market is too narrow. But it could still be interesting. The trouble is it looks like it's a(nother) new platform. Which will almost certainly mean that with the exception of Xbox Live arcade-style titles it will only have its own independent titles. I for one would be more interested if it could play full titles from Windows and / or Xbox so I could keep playing - more or less seemlessly - on the go. And support the appropriate peripherals for each platform of course. How about it Microsoft?