Slashdot Mirror
Xbox, GameCube Dates Set For Early November
ackthpt writes "According to this Yahoo/Reuters article Nintendo will rollout the GameCube (~$199) on Nov. 5, with Microsoft's Xbox ($299) following on Nov. 8th. Just in time for the season of giving. Sony's PS2 ($299) will still be in the hunt. Is there enough of a market for all three? With Microsoft planning to spend $500 million in advertising, over 18 months, expect them to make a serious attempt to be a survivor when the dust settles, unlike Sega, which has given up selling game machines to focus on titles."
*ahem* Except OpenGL doesn't handle sound, keyboard, mouse, joystick, or force-feedback. But yeah, aside from that, they're just the same.
Thus, no matter what happens with game consoles, free software isn't going away soon.
I work for an embedded Linux company. It pays the bills quite nicely, and I get to write (and port, and bugfix) free software all day. WooHOO!
The advantages of open source apply here not to the end user of the embedded product, but to the folks developing that product -- permitting them increased flexibility in OS vendors, and lots of Other Good Stuff which eventually trickles down to the consumer in terms of more choice and lower prices.
M$ sees the end of the constant upgrade cycle for consumers. I just built my in-laws a box that'll last them 6-8 years, and which can be component upgraded if for some reason they find an 800 Athlon or 256 MB to be insufficient for logging into the mainframe at my mother-in-law's employer. They'll never have to upgrade past 98SE for the life of that box. Hell, the box I'm typing this on at work runs *95*. After 2000/XP, M$ had better find another cash cow.
XBox is currently the #1 contender, and
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Your argument is illogical.
PC-DOS in 1981 was what you bought when you got a new computer.
The only other alternative was CP/M-86 which sold for $175. Is that what you wish to compare Windows 2000 pricing with?
Or would you rather compare pricing to Microsoft Xenix? I couldn't find data on Xenix, except that a Tandy computer using a MC68000 running Xenix around that time period was $5,000. I imagine the OS was probably $500 or so, considering later pricing by SCO for similar product.
You'll be happy to note that the OS costs about the same as a CPU in a computer, actually slightly less.
Mass production costs may be dissimilar, but then so is after-sale product support which favors the CPU that nobody ever calls about.
It seems even by your own criteria that you disagree with your assertions.
Well actually given in 1981 PC-DOS cost $60 when purchased with an IBM PC, and today Windows 2000 costs around $125 when purchased with a PC...
The prices are basically equivalent when factoring in inflation.
After MS had run DR-DOS out of town, MS raised the wholesale price of MS-DOS from $6 to $24 within 6 months.
As for your economies of scale thing, I think you need to take a look at MS' pre-tax profit margins over the past 15 years. You'll see that their pre-tax profit margins have gone up, not down. This would mean that their unit costs are dropping or their prices are raising (or some combination of the two). You are absolutely right about the prices of business software over the past 6 years--prices have come down. However, that would indicate that Microsoft's unit costs have dropped even further!
If you don't believe that Microsoft is selling the XBox as a loss leader, you're fooling yourself. Microsoft has already admitted they will be selling the hardware at a small loss. Their licensing fees are *much* more reasonable than Sony's, so they aren't intending to make it up with software. This indicates they are doing it to gain market share, after which the ratio of unit prices to unit costs will rise so that MS makes a profit.
Now, IMHO, none of this is really bad per se. It's the work of a free economy. However, such behaviour must be kept in check in order to prevent monopolies. In that case, the original poster is quite right to be afraid of a potential monopoly for MS in this arena.
--Be human.
You do realize that what MS is doing is not illegal, right? I mean, unless they are determined to be using predatory pricing for their product, it's not illegal for a company that has a monopoly in one area to introduce a new product in another area as a loss leader. And, $299 for a product where most competitors are =$199 is not predatory pricing.
This is not "like microsoft begining to sell its own computer". It *is* microsoft beginning to sell its own computer. However, there's nothing illegal with this. In order for it to be illegal, MS must have predatory pricing, or must wield its first monopoly in such a manner as to extend its monopoly into a new arena. The DoJ had a case concerning Windows (MS' existing monopoly) and IE (MS's predatory pricing and use of Windows to extend its monopoly to browsers). It wouldn't stand a chance on this one. At least, not yet.
--Be human.
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, PlayStation 2's are still sadly VERY hard to find in a retail store. I've checked CompUSA, Fry's Electronics, Best Buy, Electronics Boutique, KB Toys, and several other places--I've never seen any PS2's on display for sale even now. At least for me, the only way I can get one is to order it online. :-(
My guess is that Microsoft may have as many as 1 million consoles available for sale within a few weeks of its November 8, 2001 launch date. This will avoid the shortages that has plagued Sony since the PS2 shipped in the first place.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
And zero PS2 consoles available to play them on...
:-(
You are so correct.
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, I've checked CompUSA, Fry's Electronics, Best Buy, Electronics Boutique, Toys 'R Us, and KB Toys--NONE of them have PlayStation 2 machines stocked on the floor. The only way you can get one is to order it online.
If both Microsoft and Nintendo can have 800,000-1,000,000 units of their respective game consoles for sale within two weeks after their November launch dates, this could hit Sony especially hard, unless Sony is willing to sacrifice the Japanese and European markets and do nothing but build PS2's for the US market and have 3-4 million PS2's available for sale by November 1, 2001 in order to blunt the introduction of GameCube and Xbox.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Having tried both Dreamcast and PlayStation 2 controllers, I think the DC controller feels too unwieldly (no thanks to having to fit both Rumble Pack and the VMU unit) and the PS2 controller--while otherwise excellent--feels a bit too small to be useful.
You forget that Microsoft's excellent Usability Lab was heavily used to Xbox development, so as a result you get a controller that comfortably fits into your hand without feeling oversized like the DC controller.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Yes, but what has been publicly shown so far in regards to Xbox is absolutely stunning, to say the least.
I think what Microsoft has in its favor is the fact that if you can write Windows 2000 programs and write for the DirectX 8.0x API, you're already most of the way there to writing an Xbox game. And Microsoft has sent out several thousand Xbox development kits to just about every major game manufacturer in the world, including most of the important game manufacturers in Japan.
One thing that Microsoft did with Xbox was to use its excellent Usability Lab to come up with an excellent design for its machine. MS even bothered to develop two different game controllers, one for larger hands in the Western world and one for smaller hands in Asia.
Microsoft also has the advantage that both EA Sports and Sega are going to release Xbox games. This will mean competition for sports games and that means we'll have top-notch quality sports games on Xbox.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
I sort of expect a Linux site to naysay the Xbox merely because of the Microsoft logo but you guys are complete jackasses. For some reason slashdot at large thinks that people will only buy a single console and that there are 50 people who do indeed buy consoles and if you sell your console to all of these people your competitors will go out of business. There are MILLIONS of fucking people in the scope of the console market and they all buy different systems for different reasons. There is lots and lots of room for multiple consoles in someone's house, they're fairly small in fact. How many of you have a Dreamcast sitting next to a PSX or PS2? I would bet plenty of you do. The market is large and one console won't dominate simply because it has a particular logo on it. Microsoft is no more evil than Nintendo; ask the UltraHLE folk or all the developers that tried to produce NES games but had cart quantities tightly controlled by Nintendo.
Merely on their technical merits the GC and Xbox are badass boxes. As always the games available for particular consoles will spell victory or defeat. Nintendo has Pokemon which is still immensely popular and alone can garner nearly a million console purchases. Microsoft is going to be competing more with the PS2 in terms of audience than the Nintendo which has always and probably always will be aimed toward the sub-14 crowd. Besides Pokemon Nintendo has their various other franchises like Donkey Kong and Mario, they've been at this for a very long time. Microsoft is still looking mostly for ports of PC titles or spin-offs of PC titles. Alot of kids with a fair amount of purchasing power are going to strip GameCubes off the shelves because of Nintendo's franchises and Nintendo Power which always manages to hype up their new boxes. Microsoft's going to have a marketing advantage and alot more exposure to the general populace. Time and games will tell if Microsoft is going to stand a chance against Sony and the PS2. Ken Kusagi(sp) is pretty hardcore about the Playstation as it's his baby. I don't know if the Xbox's manager is quite as commited as he is. Oh yeah, don't forget all that Japan is cuckoo for cocoa puffs and game consoles. Nintendo's got an enormous user base there and Microsoft doesn't (w/ respect to gaming).
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Which is exactly why I, as a parent, am planning to give my money to Nintendo this Christmas. My kids are right square in the middle of Nintendo's target demographic.
Also, as an adult gamer, I tend to prefer the Nintendo titles anyway. Mario has been good since the very first Super Mario Bros. hit the arcades. Nintendo's games are cutesy, sure. But a lot of them have a fair amount of depth to them, and for the most part they're just plain fun to play. I don't need a bazillion different titles of mediocre quality, just a few good ones.
Chelloveck
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Given the specification of the X-Box, there isn't much that it couldn't do to satisfy the needs of Joe Normal in Consumerland, particularly with a few choice hardware add-ons.
With it's low price, Microsoft name and 500 million in advertising behind it, couldn't it replace the PC in the majority of homes in the next few years? Then everybody in the world will be using a Microsoft-controlled hardware platform, obviously running Microsoft-controlled software, and the die-hards who insist on a "real" computer will be so far and few between as to not really count.
As for Linux ports to the X-Box, who says there won't be some restrictive licensing that makes such a move illegal? Or clever hardware that makes the box shut down if the monthly Microsoft licence fee isn't paid?
I mean, why is Microsoft getting into hardware all of a sudden? The last time they did that was with the Microsoft Mouse, a move needed to make mice more readily available and their GUI more practical. When these guys build hardware I'm suspicious that they are trying to manipulate the software market!
</paranoia>
Yes, but MS is probably losing more than any of the others. Early reports are that MS will lose about $150/box. I'd also heard that licencing fees for XBox games were a lot lower than those for PS2 and Game Cube; I don't know if this is true, though.
When MS plans to LOSE 3-4 BILLION DOLLARS, you know there's something up their sleeves. Dumping is their strategy; don't be fooled.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
This is untrue. MS has raised prices, both relative to the cost of the entire system and in absolute dollars. Or are you going to tell me that MS DOS 2.0 cost the same as Windows 2000 in both constant and inflated dollars?
Before you consider that an absurd comparison, compare the cost of hard drive space or CPU speed or graphics cards over time. Somehow it's expected that the hard drives and CPUs get cheaper as they do more, but the OS doesn't?
MS has raised prices as they've gained a monopoly, and only an apologist or someone who is completely ignorant of economics couldn't see that.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
There are TWO groups of people who MS can screw, game developers and end users. Say MS doesn't raise the end-user cost much as they get monopoly position in the console industry. They can still drastically raise the license fees they charge game developers. And, in classic MS fashion, they can just deliver a clone of the game developer's best title (or hire away their best programmers) if the developer tells them to piss off.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
The prices are basically equivalent when factoring in inflation.
You're figuring at the bundling cost. Figure at the stand-alone cost, instead. MS gives a price break with bundling to ensure that no one else can get a toe in the door.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Are you talking in constant dollars (without inflation)? Because if you are, you're wrong. And if you're not, you are comparing apples to oranges.
That's an easy one... the cost of manufacturing hardware has dropped dramatically... the cost of producing memory, hard drives, you name it, has gone down considerably. The cost of good programmers, however, has gone up. That's why you don't see the difference in cost.
The cost for mass-producing software is far, far lower than the cost for mass producing hardware. And the cost for good electrical engineers has gone up just as much as the cost for good programmers. Who do you think designs all this hardware, the Firmware Fairy?
Six years ago, the cost of Word and Wordperfect was some $350. Today, you can get Word, Works, Streets and Trips and Encarta for less than $100
Bullshit. I've got a copy of MacConnection right here. The cost for Word 2001 (in 2001 dollars) is $360. Gee, that's $10 more than the price you named, not even counting 6 years of inflation. Excel 2001 is also $360. Office 2001 for Mac (which includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Entourage) is $449. I'm quite sure the PC prices are just as high.
Please don't try to make up facts to support your position.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
MS' plan is to drive Sony and Nintendo out of the console business. They don't expect to make any money on XBox 1.0.
When XBox 2.0 comes out, and there are no other consoles, then watch MS jack up the prices on consoles and royalties.
Illegal? Sure. But do you seriously expect Dubya to get the Justice Dept. to prosecute MS' predatory behavior against two FOREIGN companies, esp. when MS can legally give donations to the GOP and Sony/Nintendo can't?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
I give it about 2-3 months before people developers realize that the machine is so much like a PC that they can develop games for it without paying any royalties to microsoft. Just watch.
Once linux is on the X-Box why would game developers need to pay royalties for Microsoft's libraries and OS anymore? Write their games for linux, and distribute the games themselves. Cut MS out of the royalty loop.
So, when Sony drove Sega out of the console business, and toppled Nintendo it's ok because its not MS?
They came in and launced a huge marketing campaign, and took a loss on their hardware. Signed exclusive deals with developers, and continued to market throughout the life of the product.
Nintendo was toppled and now is trying to catch up, which they probably won't, and Sega's out of the business.
Then they release their PS2, with a $300 price tag, a lot of folks paid well over $500 during the christmas season to get one. Games are significantly more expensive as well.
But MS wanting to the the same thing is worse?
Most video rental places also rent console games and already have limited space for the current systems (PS/PS2/N64/SNES). How willing are they going to be to dedicate _more_ space for these new systems? I've read that game publishers have to pay some chains for shelf space. Perhaps the same may soon hold true for rental shops...
As a game developer, I feel uniquely qualified to ask just what brand of crack you are smoking.
Seriously - It's taken years for Direct3D to basically adopt OpenGL with different names for the same functions. That's an oversimplification, but not much of one. If MS had adopted OpenGL and stayed the course, hardware/software would be much farther along today.
Wow, this is textbook trolling / karma whoring. But whatever... I like the challenge.
What I want to know is, why does free software have enemies in Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc.? I mean, granted, what those companies do as businesses are against the tenets of free software, and yes they do have products that directly compete with free software products, but how does that make them the enemies?
I mean, can't business and freedom of information co-exist in the world? Are these companies doing anything to stop the thoughts and expressions of free software advocates? Sony didn't kill Indrema, lack of funding did. Putting aside Indrema's death as a business, no one has been prevented at this point from introducing a free software based game console system. Anyone can do it if they want to, and if they have the proper resources at hand.
The essay I'm replying to does not state how the success of game consoles by these companies equates to "a crushing blow against freedom". It's simply a business. I don't think their business infringes on anyone's freedom. No one is suppressed because Sony sells a lot of games. I just want to state this not just as a reply to the essay, but to warn the rest of the free software world that declaring war on Microsoft and the rest of the evil empire type companies is illogical. Microsoft doesn't threaten free software... it's lack of interest that threatens free software... it's indifference... it's stupidity that is the threat. If people know about free software, the battle has been won... people will have had a choice, seen the choice, and someone will have expressed themselves to the world against the tyranny of anyone whose best interests is to stop them. Microsoft doesn't attack free software projects as operations and try to stop them from ever appearing... it simply tries to sell its own product as the better alternative, no matter how much spin they put on the situation. So why try to fight them? They're never going to kill free software, they never have tried and they aren't currently trying as well.
Therefore, if you're going to be an advocate, stop picking fights with people you disagree with and start presenting a better argument. That's how you win debates. Not with bitchslapping.
You have obviously never played with a Dreamcast.
The fact that you talk about "full motion video" talks for itself. We are talking about "awesome" real-time graphics. Sure, a game can have very good graphics and be boring, but at least it will still be pretty. And if the system is so powerful that making pretty games is easy, developpers wont need to spend so much time coding the graphic routines. Most DC games are "pretty" AND "fun". I'm talking about Jet Set Radio or even better Tony Hawnk's Pro Skater, whose multiplayer kicks the lama's ass. And have you ever tried or seen Powerstone?
Cheers,
Angel
P.S.- You are at least partially right though. Nintendo's games usualy are very cool, but the same can be said for Sega. I'm not that sure about Sony...
I'm not going to be pegged as another beta tester for Microsoft.. Dammit, I'm going to wait for XBox SE!
---
Just my 2 bits, or half a nibble.
GrBear.
You'd think people would have learned - loss-leader platforms that run Linux with minor hacking 'sell' well :-)
And, for that matter, neither did any of the other countless quality open source projects/programs out there that cannot be taken away.
The difference is that the "quality open source programs out there" are by and for Joe Hacker, not Joe User. As such, they are arguably technically superior, but things like logical/easy UI design and documentation are given less priority. This is expected, because hacking is more fun than making the UI easy to follow for the novice, or spending hours writing help documents. Also, billion dollar companies can afford focus groups, and useability tests, to make their apps easier to use.
Linux hasn't failed as a gaming platform.
It has, and it will, until the novice user does not have to jump through a million hoops to get X working, then to get openGL working, then to get the soundcard working, ad nauseum.
if you expect an operating system of its nature to have even 25% of the library of games dependent on Windows and its proprietary gaming graphics/sound/input/etc API.
Ask yourself if the average guy who just wants to play the latest title gives a damn about proprietary vs. open standards.
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
My guess is that they are not out to make a quick buck. They want to establish themselves in the arena, and get a few quality games out there so people can have a reason to buy the system. They'll reap the rewards down the line.
It's scary when a company is so rich it can just dive into whatever they want, spend wads of cash on advertising and R&D, etc., just so they can have their grip on everything.
This is sort of like what they did with the IE bundling, and soon, the MSN messenger bundling (with windows XP).
And you know what else? No one gives a damn... scary.
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Um, inflation would make that 360 LESS than the 350, not pull it in the other direction.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Say you're selling a toaster and you want to keep your proprietary toasting algorithm private, but its running on Linux. Can you do that since you are really selling hardware? Or do you have to GPL your software as well?
well seeing as i was at the Applied Computing Conference today and had this very chat with some of the Linux vendors, i'll field this question.
if a hardware company embeds Linux and makes changes to kernel then yes, they have to release the changes under the GPL. however 99% of all value-add is in drivers and application-level software, not in changes to the kernel. as you probably know, drivers and applications can be whatever license they want to be so this isn't a limiting factor in the decision to use Linux. sure the kernel is GPL, but all of the value-add can be closed source.
Linux is taking off like crazy in the embedded market because there are no per-unit royalty fees. this is particularly nice in very high volume applications, as once you get the operating system running you never need to pay another dime! of course Linux still hasn't got the realtime performance of a tried and true RTOS, but it's getting there. the embedded market is definitely somewhere where Linux can shine.
- j
Go to www.xbox.com
MS says they'll have between 600k and 800k units
available instores on Nov 8th. What they have on the following days/weeks hasn't been disclosed.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Blame them. ;)
Let's think about this very slowly. $500,000,000 for advertising. Probably anywhere between $50 and $300,000,000 in R&D and god only knows how many billions for production, shipping to stores, etc. Take into account the probability that MS will take a loss on each hardware unit.... that leaves the question, how will they make bookoo bucks? Unless they plan to gouge their developers on royalties, are playing hopeful, a combination of those two or I'm missing something here.
As far as I've seen, MS hasn't done anything illegal or monopolistic with the Xbox so far. While they're obviously using their considerable wealth to make an extremely bold push into a market, they aren't doing anything illegal. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in the console area, and its OS monopoly isn't all that helpful for it either. Not many people would question that MS has a monopoly. Dell, compaq, et all won't jump from windows because of the Xbox. First off that just wouldn't make sense. And second, you're right, there is no really viable alternative for an easy switch. But just because MS has a monopoly, doesn't mean the DOJ should expect them to stop doing business. You may not like it, but MS is a business. They sell stuff. That's what they do.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
I am not a game developer, but I am a programmer and I know how much work it takes just to get the basic tools in place first before you can even begin to design the application you're going to use them for. I can't imagine how hard it would be to write these games without a layer of abstraction that you can rely on to handle all this for you.
--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Ever heard of DirectX? Without it, every game designer would have to write their own routines from the video card driver all the way up to high level APIs. I doubt there would be nearly as many 3d games nand/nor would they be as detailed or consistant in quality if the developers had to start from scratch (or even their own libraries) every time. It would distract from the goal of the game design to always have to worry about developing and debugging the underlying 2d or 3d engine. At least this way they can focus on the game and not so much on how to display it.
Sure, if enough effort were put to it, a few more CPU cycles could be squeezed out of the hardware if the game would run without windows, but I think the gain you would get from this would be insignificant compared to the extra development and debugging which would be required to develop it without a standard graphical API. Besides, the CPU isn't where most of the magic is going on nowadays. Most of the work is being done in the video card, and the raw performance you get from it is not dependent on the OS (but it is on the drivers). So it's best to have a set of drivers which have maximized the potential of the video card, so you won't have to figure it out for yourself for every possible video card out there.
Many people may have a bone to pick with Microsoft for some really annoying things, but DirectX was one of their better ideas.
PS: This post is questionable, but I don't give a shit about trolls. I'm not wasting my time playing immature psychology games here. I don't reply here often and I've got better things to do with my life than to sit around and guess if I'm replying to a sincere post or some idiot who needs to go outside and get a life.
--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Yeesh.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
If you want mp3s.. then buy a $99 Dreamcast. There are mp3 players out for DC.. just burn a CD with the mp3 software and all the mp3s you want.
check it out --> dc mp3 player
oh yeah.. don't forget about all the dc emulators too --> emulators
I wouldn't worry so much about Microsoft taking over the world with their new toy, most of the public will assume it's another game console for kids and leave it alone... besides, what are the odds that it'll actually work as advertised? Have they ever made something that did? (Ok, besides DOS 3.3, which rocked the house).
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
or should I say, if, Microsoft is split up. Does this XBox group compose a 4th division (OS, Software, *Internet*/ASP/ISP, Gaming/XBox)?
Furthermore, if I go into a store, and I am Joe Shmoe and want a game console, would I really want the one that's not sold out? I look at two shelves, one is empty, and the other is full. What would I deduce over other people's desires to have the product?
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Sony? They make walkmen and memory sticks and CDrs and movies.
Microsoft? They don't know anything about games.
My heart goes out to the underdog... Nintendo! (Never thought I'd say that...
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Why?
I thought it was to categorize it as a home computer and avoid a games machine tax in some parts of the world knocking about 2% off Sony's costs.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20010516 /mdf6260.jpg
:)
Damn that bitch must be heavy! Look at the expression on his face.
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
- PS2 games
- Enhanced PS1 games
- Compatible with all your old PS1 peripherals
- CD Player
- DVD Player w/ Dolby Digital and DTS
- Internet soon
- USB and Firewire
- Linux kit
- Compatible with your PC peripherals (USB)
In my opinion, $300 is an insanely great deal for what you get.
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
Is there any word yet on an MP3 player for XBox? It can play games, surf the web, and play DVDs... if it can play MP3s, then I'll buy on in an instant.
I still can't go into Walmart or CompUSA and find a PS/2 on the shelf. I'm not paying $500 for an overpriced "game pack", I'm not placing a special order, and I'm not going to buy one on Ebay. If I could find one on the shelf at the store, I probably would have bought a PS2. But after 7 months of waiting, and its still not on the shelf, well I changed my mind. Sony, kiss my $299 goodbye. It could have been yours.
Don't make me go through hoops to buy your product. If MS follows this simple rule, they will experience an order of magnitude more sales.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
IBM pulled completely out of the consumer market. They were taking a huge loss-per-unit that totaled something like $1Billion.
In California, I never see consumer Dell machines sold. They do focus on SOHO sales over the phone/web though.
The only way that Compaq can be in the consumer market is to sell crapboxes that only serve to ruin their once excellent reputation among younger consumers.
Basically, because personal computers are all standard parts, it's a fucking race to the bottom. There's no money there (except for Intel/AMD and Microsoft) and home machines will get cheaper and cheaper until the only manufactures are no-name bozos and everything will be totally unreliable.
Then someone will look at what Apple is doing and team with Microsoft to make a proprietary "works better" version of the PC just to try to restore some sanity to the market.
Anyway enjoy the good times of cheap, good commodity hardware while they last -- it's basic economics that it can't go on forever.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
My friend has a dreamcast and I have played it on a couple of occasions. I will admit that dreamcast does have some good games to their name (most notably Jet Set (Grind) Radio, Crazy Taxi and Chu Chu Rocket (which can be picked up amazing cheap for such a great game btw)), but that large majority of what I have seen isn't all that impressive.
Take for example Sonic the Hedgehog in his miraculous new 3d world. It looks pretty watching the beautiful scenery flash by as the cruze through the level, but the fact remains that for the majority of the game you are confined to a single track which you can't deviate from. Now compare this to Mario64 where you have almost complete freedom in this 3d world and can walk, fly, run anywhere you please. The graphics don't come close to comparing with sonic on the dreamcast, but it easily makes up for that, and then some, in game play.
I am not argueing the fact that there are fun games on other systems, and in a few years when the prices drop I will probably buy a dreamcast for the games mentioned above and probably a few others. However, I will keep my main game playing on nintendo systems until the other competetors realize that there is more to making a good game than graphics.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
The only reason I will be sticking to nintendo is game play. Nintendo has a lot of fun original multiplayer games like mario kart, mario party, goldeneye, perfect dark, super smash brothers, etc.. I have yet to see anything compare to these on the playstation or dreamcast lines. Sure, the graphics may not be life like, but you know what? who gives a shit. If I want amazing graphics I'll watch a movie or go for a walk.
Granted I haven't played many of the newer games on the ps2, so this may have changed, but I am sick to death of games that have "awesome mindblowing graphics" achieved through full motion video. Who wants to sit in the middle of a game and watch a movie?
I am looking for games that I can play with and against friends. All of the different rip-offs of super street fighter (or whatever you hard-core gamers claim to be the first person vs person fighter) get boring quickly. I don't have time to memorize all the moves of 150 different characters with 30 moves per character just to properly play a game. This is why smash brothers is so fun, all the characters moves are done exactly the same way (direction + 1 button). It is simple and fun.
Until I can find a system that focuses on game play more than graphics better than nintendo does, I will be sticking with nintendo.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
Does anyone else see the XBox as a flagrant slap in the face of the DOJ?
Microsoft is about to use its monopoly power to introduce a competing platform to play games on. Games that would normally be played on PCs.
The Consumo-tron-2000 level PC buyer will consider buying a console over a PC now.
What are Dell, Compaq, IBM, eMachines, etc, etc, and all the other big computer builders going to think when the XBox starts to eat into the sales of its Home-PC lines! M$ is breaking an important business rule here: "Dont compete with your customers." Now the fact that they can do this - and dell, compaq, ibm and everyone else dont immediately turn their backs and use another OS helps prove that there are NOT ALTERNATIVES in the market - further proving their monopoly. The fact that they are trying this AFTER the DOJ ruled against them is bizarre. The fact that more people havent raised this issue is also wierd... this is like microsoft beginning to sell its own computer... why hasnt the DOJ fired up the lawyers and stopped this?
Just like the people who will port Linux to the Xbox, you don't count. If you are doing serious computation then chances are you're not running Windows anyway, so the net gain is 0.
Loki has, what, maybe 0.5% of the gaming market? Sorry, but that doesn't count for much.
Seeing as how the Xbox will most likely play the majority of existing PC games, they'll have at least 10% right out of the gate. By the end of 2002 I estimate that over 50% of released titles wil be playable on the Xbox.
We all like to think that Microsoft is slowly but surely losing the battle over free software, but sadly this is not the case. The X-box will deliver a crushing blow against freedom and the GNU flag wavers are going to be blindsided by it.
Gnome? KDE? The desktop is dead. The future of computing has nothing to do with computers as we know them, because the computers we hve now are 10x more powerful than they need to be for the tasks they are used for - with one exception: Entertainment.
Games and other forms of digital entertainment are the only things that continue to push the limits of comuting power, and in case you haven't been paying attention, all entertainment systems are closed source. The abysmal failure of a Linux-based gaming platform just goes to show that Open Source has absolutely no chance of making any headway against proprietary systems.
You can all pat yourselves on the back and cheer the Perens-penned tirade against Microsoft, but it doesn't matter. The folks in Redmond really don't give a rat's ass about the GPL, they are just making sure you are all distracted over something that is uterly trivial in the long term. Meanwhile, they are preparing their jugernaut for the coming holiday shopping season while the free software leaders are wasting time trying to attack a portion of the industry that is increasingly irrelevant.
It will not be entirely a Microsft world. It will be a Sony/Nintendo/EA/Microsoft world. And none of it will be Open Source.
So where do I get my MCSX for administration of an XBox?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
That said, that leaves Xbox and Playstation 2 competing for the same audience -- and for $300 apiece, it's unlikely most players will want to buy both systems. That's why I'm wondering if Xbox will really be able to gain a foothold; if everyone who has a PS2 already owns one by this fall, why should they buy an Xbox? Only a *HUGE* library of exclusive hits ("The Matrix" alone won't do the trick) and a dramatic improvement in graphics power will seduce fans to wait, at this point, for an Xbox over a PS2.
I'll apologize beforehand if this is repetive: I didn't see any posts on this, or I'd be replying to them.
1) PS/2:
It is already out. This is a plus. Other then that, I don't really see any postives. The graphics, while good, aren't any better then what I expect from the X-Box or GameCube. The games are also not up to par, or so I've heard. The best is supposedly SSX Snowboarding (I think) and a snowboarding game is not my idea of a landmark title.
2)X-Box:
Microsoft definitely has the time, resources, and, dare I say it, talent to pull this off. If MS can squash all their bugs pre-release they have a good shot of winning the console market. This isn't because their console is inherently good, but because people, the uninformed masses, see MS and equate it with computers, and afterall, computers and game consoles aren't that far apart, right? If MS can build us good computers surely they can build a good console thingy! (Voice of the people). Microsoft has the money to pull this off, winning the market I mean, but I'm definitely going to check this out at a friend's before buying it. (BTW, this could be the winner if MS does a good job. I do think they could do a good job if they had too.)
GameCube:
These guys, Nintendo, definitely have a strong postition. They have expierience creating consoles that sell well, good graphics, and are popular. If Nintendo can overcome the "kiddie phenomen" (only selling games to children) then they have a real shot at taking over the game market.
As to which one I'll buy... I'll definitely have to wait and see how the GameCube and X-Box look. I think what this will come down to is titles. Nintendo has a history of not so great stuff to overcome (I'm not eight), but PS/2 hasn't shown anything great so far. Looks like X-Box, if they can pull it together and get a decent title out, might be my choice.
--------------------------------------
No sig for you.
XBox is a great thing! I'll support it. I mean, Microsoft should do something that they excel.(Not server, for God's sake)
Next time when my PHB asks me to setup NT/2K server for our 10 millions database, I can say "Sound great, this company make great games box, too!"
Boss, just get that NT server off my sight.
I dunno... DirectX games in combination with nVidia drivers are the only things that have ever BSODed my Win 2000 machine.
I think DirectX is seriously flawed in which the DirectX games take place the on the same desktop as your, well, desktop.... when you run a DirectX game which changes resolution, your original desktop gets changed as well, and if the game mucks up, your whole desktop's fucked. They should have done a much better job separating DirectX video control from your normal deskop... it was kinda ok for Win9x, which was an unstable mess anyway, but it's really a piss poor solution for Win 2000. The process should be completely separate, and a 'ctrl-esc' or whatnot should, *without fail* bring you back to your pristine original desktop...
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
I understand that the PS2 and Xbox use advanced hardware and all, but why are they $299? In my opinion, game consoles should max out at $200. When you start asking several hundred dollars for a game-playing machine, you've gone too far.
Of course, I understand how poor Microsoft is. I'm sure they need the extra money.
I KNOW I'm right. And if I'm not, I'm STILL right...