" That' s the point, if there is nothing good enough to compete how can it be called a Monopoly?" oh dear.
So what you mean to say is, the finest legal and financial minds in the E.U. and U.S. are wrong? Sorry buddy, but I
think I' m going to take their word over yours. See, your lack of knowledge as to why MS is a monopoly doesn' t really make for a convincing argument. The offences, as laid out by the E.U. and U.S. Justice Department are pretty clear:
" The EU ruling finds Microsoft abused its Windows
monopoly (the words of msnbc.com, rather ironically), harming consumers and competitors in the markets for digital media and server software."
Rampage, you
do know why Microsoft have been fined by the monopoly commission, don' t you? The reason why a viable alternative hasn' t appeared is because Microsoft, from the very start, have walked the finest of lines with regards to economic competition legislation.
If you' re so ready to accept that Microsoft are just like any other company trying to do business, you' re consequently obliged to accept that there are rules of finance which every company, no matter how big or small, must adhere to. Microsoft aren' t and haven' t been for quite some time.
Windows defines modern PC use. Before this, there was DOS. For years, nobody thought about doing what Bill Gates did. So, when someone finally tried to offer an alternative, nobody listened because every application and piece of software known to man had to be Windows compliant - which is a very, very hard task. Basically, Microsoft had such a huge head start on everybody else that it never occurred to the consumer, jesus, the entire planet that there could even be an alternative to windows. Then when retail outlets started selling PC' s with windows, it was all over.
Unfortunately, every new, small company that tried to make a GUI-based OS was crushed by Microsoft, usually by legal or underhand financial strikes. Microsoft had gotten too big, too fast.
That is why they are under the constant gaze of the EU monopoly commission - they eradicate competition before it has the chance. They don' t say to themselves
" well, let' s give these guys a chance and see what they can do, we' ll just watch the rest of this blind monkey knife fight" - they put an end to it before that can happen.
With regards to Sega, you can' t honestly defend the financial decisions they make, can you? everything they' ve done since the Genesis/Mega Drive has been a financial disaster, which is precisely why I have every right to criticise their decisions. If the administration were so smart, then maybe they wouldn' t have invested so heavily in a games series (to the tune of $80 million) without even knowing if it would sell. Almost
all of the shenmue series' costs have been covered already, so making the game wouldn' t cost anymore than your average Sega title. Regardless of whether it sells well or not, the fact is people bought Shenmue expecting to see the end of the story. Yu Suzuki thought he' d see it. So did Sega.
And if by saying Microsoft make their own games, you actually mean Microsoft buy developers to make the games for them then
sure, they make their own games