MS refused to sell Xbox 360s to US Army
Microsoft apparently refused to sell Xbox 360s to the US Army for use as a training device.
Speaking to Wired, Smith said that Microsoft didn't want to sell consoles to the military because it was afraid of damaging it's reputation by being so closely associated with actual violence. Microsoft didn't want parents avoiding the console because they saw a real-life parallel of the virtual violence.
According to Smith's comment Microsoft was also concerned about sabotaging the product as a whole, as selling Xbox 360s in bulk to the military would create a hardware shortage that wouldn't be aided by the fact that the army would only want one game per console.
Microsoft isn't alone in the matter though and Smith mentions that the military tried to source consoles from Nintendo and Sony for training purposes too, but licensing and certification issues slowed talks to a standstill.
"Neither Microsoft, Nintendo nor Sony could deliver a coherent answer. The responses were not unfriendly or unhelpful so much as uncomprehending," said Smith.
"Our initial enthusiasm when Xbox and XNA were new products has cooled," said Smith. "At this time we have no active or anticipated projects or R&D that are looking at using either of those products for military simulations. I would be happy to reopen these discussions if Microsoft is interested in selling these products to our community."
Let us know your thoughts in the forums.
Previous Article
41 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyBoss : Damn it, I/We don't want to deal with mass RRoD issues from the Army.
Worker : Don't sell them?
"Hey, they don't want to do business with us because they wouldn't make any profit as we don't buy games from them and they don't want to be associated with us as people will realise that war not just some game for little kids. We really should post this closed business statement everywhere we can so they'll get their negative press anyway."
meh
and these guys are in charge of weapons
..Yeah, go to places that mark up and add a middleman.
How on Earth was going directly to the source a bad decision?
The mind boggles :p
However, if the military really needed some XBOXs, they could still get hold of units from wholesale or retail outlets.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/07/20/military-using-game-controllers-pilot-drones-disarm-bombs
Because this is such a non-story. Given the budget of the US Defence department, sourcing poxy x-boxes via a middleman would probably have less of a markup than one humvee. And aren't they still making a loss on each console sold, or is that just Sony?
Did they just give up at that hurdle, call the press and cry foul, or did they resort to shopping like normal punters when they met with some difficulty......
:)
Hope they don't try the rocket jump then.
the UK does also as people are more used to using them as apposed to normal joysticks.
Note not all UAV's and robotics are used this way but a lot are.
... then I received 20 more bullets entering chest and I managed to advance myself towards one of the 50 random health packs lying on the battlefield... :D
As an example, when NASA is ready to purchase a new still camera, it talks directly to the manufacturer. The standard lubrication inside a dSLR will evaporate in the vacuum of space, so the company applies a special lubrication during the manufacturing process.
Practice makes perfect, I can now prone with my legs through any wall !:p
Really? By heavens, who'd have thought it.....
For one reason or another, many companies don't sell products directly to those asking for them, but that never stops them from getting stuff elsewhere, nor trying to make a news story out of it.....
If the deal was to include modifications to a base model then that is an entirely different premise on which to stop a sale, so that example is irrelevant. Apparently they just want to use it to run Arma or somesuch.
I`m sure if they did go to a middleman and asked for 10000 units they would be given preferential rates, even if t meant they couldn't then afford to run one of their aircraft carriers for 0.1 of a nanosecond......
Why not Halo? or GTA 4?
You, along with about 80% of the posters here are missing what is the most logical reason.
I expect they wanted to use the console as a base, and use a custom OS - Hence the need for contact with Microsoft. Presumably, then, attach it to a training program of their own design.
To make those changes they'd need a licensing agreement of some sort with Microsoft, and with any luck, there wouldn't be Halo style bunny hopping, or recovering from a headshot.
Am I the only one who read this and thought that Stan Smith has finally let his alien friend out of the loft so he can get a job?
I'm still curious as to whether or not the Army is looking for stock units, or if there were any requested modifications. The Wired article seems to indicate that the Army would be looking for stock hardware, given the cost savings over computers. Still, the article does go on to speculate about having a console for every soldier for training and e-learning. That many consoles would fall outside the capability of a retailer to support. I think the only way to buy in that kind of bulk would be directly through the manufacturer.
all the obvious jokes about tea bagging and bunny hopping aside. As mentioned I don't think this was intended to use a simulation aids for combat training AKA Call of duty. I thought the idea was custom software for UAV training and other similar activities.
There was a game developed for the army a few years back who's name I'm forgetting (not America's army) it was a teaching aid for squad leaders and the likes to teach decision making. They also released a changed consumer version, anyone remember the name? it was unit based and you issued commands to your squad. It was one of the first games that you didn't really control the individual soliders so much as control the squad. anyways the Army ended up balking saying it wasn't a useful training tool and the dev's got off with a huge part of their development cost subsidized and a decent game.
Anyways as a company MS has every right to refuse product, probalby a money losing proposition for them. I know several vendors who won't handle certain DoD contracts or any at all because of the hassle. It's not profitable.
I think Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have made a great move to distance themselves from this kind of bulk sale. Can you imagine the next COD when some parent group stands infront of some news cameras blurting that little Timmy can train to kill just like our Armies! but then moan they need home land security in case of terror attacks.
Hey I'm as Holy as the next guy, Allah is Gay, Jesus was a Hippee and Buddha was a fat bloke who ate all the pies but do we really need to bring gaming into the arguement?
Didn't Saddam (pre-hangin on YouTube days) want to buy a sh!t load of playstation one's to build some kind of super (cough! crap cough!) computer to plan terror and chaos around the world? and we all know how that went!
That would be Full Spectrum Warrior!
For the people talking about the Army playing games - metarinka is right, the Army wanted to develop their own applications with XNA - not use existing off-the-shelf games.
I suspect the big sticking points were the aforementioned violence issues, and the fact that the Army would want a full development kit, full dev support, and a load of consoles - without releasing any games to the buying public, or buying games themselves. In essence there would be a shortage of consoles on the market for real gamers, and internal resources would be diverted to the Army when it could be better spent on profitable game devs. In short - MS/Sony/Nintendo would make zero money, and could even make a loss - the financial incentive wasn't there.
To be frank the Army will have to make a custom PC. While a console would have been cost-effective, clearly it wasn't in the interests of the OEMs. At least with a PC, making the prequisite custom peripherals will be easier :) Most they'll have to fork out is £500 for the 64bit key for signing the drivers - they would have forked out for Visual Studio /w MSDN and the design & manufacturing anyway.
I think the military was going to do something that the XBOX360 couldn't handle bottom line. That would have turned into a PR frenzy. No company ever turns down a U.S. Military contract. That's like giving away a winning lotto ticket.
DOD contract = FREE MONEY.
Nintendo is Japanese owned so I can understand them saying NO plus it's a kiddie system
Sony like i mentioned earlier has sold 2000 to the U.S. Military
Sony is Japanese as well, so wouldn't they have had the same reservations as Nintendo?
All three systems can cope with army related strategy training gaming. What can the PS3 do that the Xbox360 can't when it comes to gaming?
I smell a brainfart!