Slashdot Mirror

>Objectivity is not something that I have ever seen in the game press.

Electronic Gaming Monthly. Since when I was a kid (and its issues were 400 pages long), EGM was and still is the only respectable news source when it comes to gaming. That and Acts of Gord are really the only things worth reading for video games.

At least Super I-Ching doesn't charge by the minute. Unfortunately, I never seem to get through to God - I always seem to reach some joker named Gord, and he's none too happy about the bad listing in the directory.

Companies don't just write a game VM because, while it may be cheaper for the company, a console is cheaper for most people. Hardcore PC gamers may have a GHz athlon with a top-of-the-line video card, DVD-ROM, etc., but a sizeable portion of the console population does not.

Heck, I do Linux development, and I only have a dual p2-350 with a gf2mx. Having a really fast system might be nice, but what I've got is sufficient for what I do. The fact I prefer console games coupled with the fact that the cost upgrading my box to something sufficiently new would be many times more than a $300 unit (a PS2 in my case) pretty much ties it up. (I like avoiding the Microsoft tax, too. ;-))

For most families, upgrading their box doesn't happen often, if ever. If they have a sufficiently new machine, it may have what it takes to play current-generation games. If not, the idea of opening up their box and finding the necessary parts to play a game is probably not something they want to hassle with. On the other hand, spending $200-300 on a drop-in solution where they can pick any game off the shelf and know it works is quite desirable. After all, they probably did the same thing with the rest of their "home entertainement system" (DVD player, stereo system, TV, etc.).

Since most of the time companies actually make money on their consoles, this is all just icing on the cake. People want a simple product, they want the games, and companies profit on both and get a wider audience to boot. Developers like it for all the reasons that have been discussed repeatedly (single uniform platform, optimized for gaming), thus line up to make games.

In the end, having a VM would be nice for users who already have high-end machines, but that's just not a large enough audience. Doing both would be nice, but supporting a VM on a wide range of platforms would be a major cost with little revenue. (Mostly support costs, theoretically you could make up what a console would profit you from off-the-shelf prices, but there's also "piracy" to contend with.) Arguably, you'd never get the same level of optimization, either. (Developers like having low-level hardware access.)

Console hardware is just a better business decision for most places.

From Acts of Gord, specifically Proclamations 2:

Xbox. MS has decided to follow the Sega Model. Buy off the shelf parts, have someone else build it, and take a loss in order to push units out the door...

Anyway, Microsoft is losing money per console sold, not including what they are spending advertising and support. Reports have it fall between $50 to $105 lost per console. MS has only said that they are losing money, and won't comment on how much.

Known fact: almost all consoles are sold at a loss, usually a fairly beefy one. MS is basically pushing a little computer, priced at $300 is the only way they could ever compete with PS2 (look at 'em and the games, ask yourself if it could possibly be "worth" more than a PS2). The real money of the console market is in the games, not the hardware. At the moment, the only console known to be sold at no loss is the PS2. Sony researched it, developed it, makes the parts, assembles the units, puts 'em in the packages, and ships them; all in-house, because they are huge and have the facilities to do just that. MS does not.

I'd say this information only reinforces your conclusion. Which is MS historically more likely to spend on: advertising or quality support?

Daniel

From Acts of Gord, specifically Proclamations 2:

Xbox. MS has decided to follow the Sega Model. Buy off the shelf parts, have someone else build it, and take a loss in order to push units out the door...

Anyway, Microsoft is losing money per console sold, not including what they are spending advertising and support. Reports have it fall between $50 to $105 lost per console. MS has only said that they are losing money, and won't comment on how much.

Known fact: almost all consoles are sold at a loss, usually a fairly beefy one. MS is basically pushing a little computer, priced at $300 is the only way they could ever compete with PS2 (look at 'em and the games, ask yourself if it could possibly be "worth" more than a PS2). The real money of the console market is in the games, not the hardware. At the moment, the only console known to be sold at no loss is the PS2. Sony researched it, developed it, makes the parts, assembles the units, puts 'em in the packages, and ships them; all in-house, because they are huge and have the facilities to do just that. MS does not.

I'd say this information only reinforces your conclusion. Which is MS historically more likely to spend on: advertising or quality support?

Daniel

Oh dear. Something weird going on with the mod system when its only the posts at 0 or -1 that remind people for the nth time. Not everyone loses money on console hardware sales. This is one myth that just won't go away.

Console manufacturers loose money selling consoles (but make money on royalties on the games).

Not so fast. According to this sony makes money on each ps2. Not every console makes looses money on thier hardware.

...can be found here concerning the Gamecube/Xbox/PS2 sales. The gist is that the PS2 will outsell all the others primarily because of the massive software base (remember that it plays PS1 games as well), and developers will be skittish to plunge resources into "the next new thing" when there's a well established audience for the PS2.

It's humorously written - and check out the rest of the site, it's a hoot.

More actsofgord links. People should read this site---in addition to being funny and evil, he really knows what he's talking about. In this case, console manufacturers typically do not lose money on each console. This includes Sony and Nintendo right now. Only Microsoft is losing money on each XBOX. According to his calculations, Sony is making a pretty penny, too. If you really want to hurt them, buy an XBOX (but do you really want to help MS?), or a GameCube (same applies to Nintendo, really).

They're pretty much all evil, I guess. Maybe I'll visit the bookstore. ;-)

More actsofgord links. People should read this site---in addition to being funny and evil, he really knows what he's talking about. In this case, console manufacturers typically do not lose money on each console. This includes Sony and Nintendo right now. Only Microsoft is losing money on each XBOX. According to his calculations, Sony is making a pretty penny, too. If you really want to hurt them, buy an XBOX (but do you really want to help MS?), or a GameCube (same applies to Nintendo, really).

They're pretty much all evil, I guess. Maybe I'll visit the bookstore. ;-)

Linked story

It's some crazy story with no evidence to support its claims. I'll continue thinking Sony sells the hardware at a loss, thanks.

Evidence (of a circumstantial nature) coming right up!

• MS loses money on every Xbox they sell
• They need to sell at least a couple of their own titles or else several titles from other companies (money comes from licensing) in order to turn a profit.
• MS has been buying companies and cutting deals to get exclusive releases.
• They have been pressuring retail outlets to sell bundles only (usually 2-3 games) to the extent that you almost can't buy just the console.

• Sony is claimed to profit on each PS2 sold (the linked story cites their stockholder report)
• The PS2 is designed to be fully functional with no games. It plays DVDs!
• There is no pressure to buy a bundle - you can get the PS2 or buy a GT3 bundle and get a discount of $20. This was the only bundle available when i walked down to Best Buy, and it was on a pallet right next to the bare PS2s

Based on this, I would expect that Sony would be pushing harder for bundles if they were, in fact, taking a loss per unit. Since they're not, I'm going to have to disagree.

Sony makes a profit on the PS2 hardware.

You really should read actsofgord, which explains this nicely. There are two sorts of modchips: the ones that defeat copy protection, and the ones that defeat region protection. The latter are what we're talking about; the only use for them is playing legitimate, bought-and-paid-for games from different regions.

There is only one reason to have region "protection", and that's simply control. The only thing I can see this gains for companies is by letting them use this artificial monopoly to increase the price in certain regions. Technological controls keep them from importing. This is not a copyright-protection issue. It is only an issue of control and artificial price inflation.

I have a PS2 (not to mention lots of peripherals and 15 legitimate games I paid full price for, not to mention the load of legitimate PSX games I also bought), and I love the games, and I'd love to import stuff. Sony's wanting to rip another $400+ out of me for an import PS2 is just pure greed. They lost against Bleem, I hope they lose here, too.

I love the games. I want the games. But this is ridiculous.

The 339$ you spend in 2001 for Word (or Office) are not going into development. There are much more important things to do:

- Make shareholders happy with 40% net profit margin
- Pay huge marketing campaign which dwarf development costs.
- Pay bloated management, lawers and a lot of other people not related to the actual development.

and most importantly:

- Pay for loss-leaders like XBox, MSN, WebTV, the "Otto" project, the "HomeR" project, Penwindows, Modular Windows, COOl, Microsoft Bob, MMOSA and Internet Explorer.

People, let's face it: MS Office is a pretty much finished product. (and is so for a couple of years)

I think XBox was Microsoft's biggest mistake so far, the chances of success are extremely low and unlike software, a mistake in hardware costs really a lot of money. And most importantly, Microsoft will lose their winner's "they set the standards" image.

But this is getting offtopic...

Actually the idea that game companies lose money on the system but get it back on the games is mostly myth. Read Acts of Gord for more on this.

Basically while Sega and to some extent Nintendo have used this technique in the past, it doesn't really work well. Its the reason both the Saturn and Dreamcast were discontinued. Unless you plan on making the vast majority of your games yourself (like Nintendo), this is not a wise thing to do. Despite popular myth Sony has never really taken a loss on its game console.

Do they? Apparently, the only consoles that have been sold below cost are some of those from Sega, and now the Xbox. The other thing to bear in mind is that they can sell the Linux kits at whatever price they feel is appropriate -- so even if the PS2 is being sold below cost, the Linux kit would make up the balance.

Sony isn't that stupid. They're not going to sell a fully functional system (in the sense of "you don't need to buy anything more to do anything you want with it!") at below cost.

For all of you loyal Gord readers out there (www.actsofgord.com), you should probably read this as well:

this

-Vic

For all of you loyal Gord readers out there (www.actsofgord.com), you should probably read this as well:

this

-Vic

here is some info about the GameCube that you might find interesting.

The Gord's Prophesy of the GameCube

Love the Gord. Fear the Gord.

For another look at the ongoing console wars from someone who actually runs a gameshop for a living you should check out this commentary on the relative success of the Gamecube v. Xbox at the Acts of Gord.

Even better: instead of going to college, get a job on some helpedesk somewhere and start paying your dues. Study up in your free time, and get some certifications (most employers will pay for that, even if they may not pay you to study for them). In the time it takes to get an IT-oriented degree from the college of your choice, you could already have well-paying IT job. And keep in mind that you're being paid to get there, instead of paying [the college].

Now, I enjoy my job a lot, and I find system/network administration fulfilling, but it's still just "something I do during the day to pay my bills". I enjoy a lot of freedom to explore and learn whatever I want, and I'm not encumbered by student loan debts.

I know what you're thinking: "without a college degree, you'll never get promoted beyond the level of flunky!"

We'll see, won't we? The company I work for has a strong tradition of promoting from within based on experience and performance, not "Education". And it's not uncommon for senior technical positions to be well-paying and not require a degree anyway.

Besides, if/when my career path ever does top out due to lack of Education, I'll just cash out and open a Geek Outlet in Humboldt.

1) Exploit is discovered
2) MS releases a patch
3) CR1
4) Every news outlet screams about it for a week
5) CR2
6) Again, all over the news, but not qith the intensity of the first
7) CR3

With the release of CR1 and the widespread news coverage, it is hard to beleive that Sys Admins had not heard of this exploit by the time CR2 was released. I agree that MS takes some of the blame here, releasing software with a hole that they may or may not have been aware of on release. But, as soon as they released the patch and CR1 became huge news it became the responsibility of the system administrators to take action. With hundreds of thousands of computers still being infected it seems pretty clear that people just don't care.

When people hear about a defective toy from Burger King, they all go check to see if they have the toy in question and whether little Timmy is putting it in his mouth. They know the danger here and fear it, prompting them to take action. When they see the anchorman on the local news channel warning about some computer worm they don't see the danger to themselves in it. These things happen all the time and usually there is only a small percentage of people who are affected by the worm or virus. They are not aware of the danger, and all the "this is the big news event of the hour" hooplah in the media dulls them to the possibility that they may be affected.

We need to encourage those Sysadmins and users who do care to make an attempt to personally contact either the sysadmins at domains that are heavily infected and try to give personal warning that they have problems or we need some kind of counter-traditional-media that really puts the fear of Gord into them.

Or we need a really really nasty worm that exploits a fixable vulnerability and announces itself to the user once an hour, and if no action is taken within a reasonable time it does nasty, malicious things. If someone truly got bitten once, and saw for themself how computer security is really their responsibility, I think the number of trojans that Bob Goodnews-Badtoupee on the evening news has to read with his plastic grimace will drop significantly.

--Cheebus
One day I'll set up an account