Slashdot Mirror
PS2 Vs. X-Box: Winner Emerging?
gripdamage writes "This article on
MSNBC says XBox's sales are slowing and are not expected to meet Microsoft's
expectations. MSNBC previously
reported that sales have been weak in Japan. The strongest and most
interesting assertion in the article is that "In its regular global video game survey last week, Goldman Sachs said U.S. retailers showed a
'surprisingly clear' preference for Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 2 over the Xbox."" X-Box isn't dead yet - not by a long shot.
Don't knock it cuz it's MS. People knocked the PS1 because it was Sony ("what does Sony know about video game?")
Don't knock it cuz it has less games right now. (PS1's launch was ass, as was PS2's).
The PS2 is looking older and older all the time. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of fun games on the PS2, but they can't get by on near-flat-shaded cartoonish games forever.
Halo has sold a million copies.
That's all I need to know.
The thing I don't get about this article: What the heck does the RETAILERS opinions of the boxes have to do with things? Retailers have likes/dislikes absolutely and completely different than the general public: They like high margins and lots of co-merchanidizing efforts. They like oily salesmen soliciting regions with cardboard cutouts and salesperson promos. I really don't CARE which box the retailers themselves like because I'm not a retailer, so the like/dislike criteria are totally different. Having said that, personally I have been incredibly unwhelmed by the games that I have seen on the XBox (As a home user of a GF3 video card, let me say that what I see gaming at home is vastly superior to most of the games that I've seen on the xbox, yet on paper the xbox is technically superior, at least from a graphics perspective). I am curious about why most graphics in the current crop of games are so incredibly poor or simply uninspiring given the apparent promise of the xbox : Is this just because of the race to get games out quickly, so they didn't have time to capitalize on the hardware? If anyone would, I'd expect Carmack to be the man to actually capitalize on the potentially that supposedly the xbox has, and Doom 3, if released for the xbox, might be what puts it over the top as a killer application. If I were Microsoft I'd be a lap dog at his door everyday helping him along and encouraging support of the xbox platform.
I recv'd my PS2 during the downturn. I also heard on TV that consumer electronics was one of the few areas that was not hard hit by the downturn. That included the PS2 and XBox.
I believe it mentioned something about people looking for a way to half-escape reality.
I honestly believe that it was the fact of few games, horrid controller, and did I say horrid controller?
The PS2 had the niche already. MS is going to have a really tough time breaking in IMHO.
...is a lack of high-quality games. I can count on one hand the number of X-box games that are worth the price. We always go back to Halo...the other games just can't measure up. When I buy a game system, I expect to have a decent game selection. X-box, when compared to PS2, just doesn't have that.
What the heck does the RETAILERS opinions of the boxes have to do with things?
A retailer's relationship with a manufacturer/product can make a lot of difference between a product that sells well and one that doesn't. A good example of this is in grocery stores where the store brand gets preferential treatment -- better placement, more advertising, slightly lower cost -- over the name brand. I've even seen grocers put name-brand products in odd locations (for example, name-brand crackers in a completely different aisle from the rest) or just not carrying popular brands at all. If you shop at King Sooper's or Safeway (I forget which) in Denver, you can buy three generic brands of fig cookies, but you can't find Fig Newtons in the store at all.
If you are a retailer you decide things like how many units to carry, store placement, promotions and so forth. If a product is in high demand, there's not much a retailer can do to dissuade people -- but if a product (like the XBox) is trying to make inroads into an existing market with a popular front-runner (like the PS2) how retailers treat the product can make a lot of difference. Since Microsoft isn't selling the XBox direct to the public, they have to depend on retailers. (Having a direct outlet is a double-edged sword -- retailers tend to dislike companies selling their products directly, because they have an incentive to take sales away from the retailer (more profits) and can afford to sell the product cheaper than the retailers.)
If a product doesn't have decent margins or you don't have a good relationship with the vendor (or both) you can certainly understock the product and hope that people will go to the competition's product and kill the products you don't like. I'm not saying that's happening with the XBox, but if several large retailers like Best Buy decided to promote the PS2 more heavily it could certainly have a negative impact on XBox sales. (I doubt this is the case...their margins on the XBox can't be much lower than on the PS2, which has virtually no margin. Game titles are where they make their money, and I imagine the margins are about the same for XBox and PS2.)
Oh, and speaking as someone who used to work in retail -- I don't care for "oily salesmen" any more than you do. The things I looked for were decent margins, stock when I needed it, a good return policy for unsold inventory and decent terms (net 30 or better).
This is true, and I'm sure is has some effect on sales, but really it doesn't matter.
How many of Microsoft's first products have been losers?
Quite a few. Remember the first time you tried IE? Remember the first time you tried Windows? Remember the first NT server you had to admin? You always thought there had to be a better way.
Microsoft is notorious, IMHO, for releasing losers that don't do well initially. It is their endurance that keeps them up there. They have the resources and can keep throwing money at something till it becomes a decent project, while other companies would have said, "Well, we tried to get into this market, but it didn't work. Let's not waste even more of our money..."
Instead, Microsoft is determined to be a player, regardless of what it costs - for they know in the long run they will have a good product that will increase market share and make money. Once they get to that point, they want to control the market.
So, look beyond the X-Box and think about the future... The X-box may not be it, but you can guaran-damn-tee that it does not stop here for Microsoft.
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
I disagree ENTIRELY. Where were you in Japan? I spent several weeks there a few years ago, and was shown incredible hospitality by almost everyone I ran into. I stayed with a host family who was great, met many Japanese friends at the university I was studying at, and even met many friendly folks I ran into on the streets.
The American group I was with also visited a junior high school, and the kids were all over us, many wanting autographs of their new American friends. Sometimes a few of us Americans would be standing on a street corner, and a bus of Japense schoolkids would drive by, and they'd all wave at us, almost like we were rockstars or something.
It was a somewhat strange, but really cool experience, and I learned ALOT by watching the hospitality the Japense (both our hosts and strangers) showed us. So, anyway, my experience with Japan has been entirely contrary to yours, and I didn't see much anti-American sentiment at all.
FYI, I was in Kitakyushu (the northernmost part of Kyushu, the southernmost island). When we went to Tokyo at the end of the trip, the hospitality seemed somewhat less warm, but it was definitely not anti-American.
make world, not war
Halo's out for PC (or at least, will be? Not sure).
Don't need to spend $350 for Halo + XBox.
Most people who would want to play Halo already have a computer easily powerful enough to play it (you could probably spend $500 and make one!). MS needs to get rid of the everpresent thought of gamers that since Microsoft makes XBox, and Windows, games that come out for XBox come out for Windows. I think in the back of most people's minds, they already think this, and so "exclusives" don't feel like exclusives. MS needs to make REAL exclusives.
Exclusive games come out nowhere else. Look at the Final Fantasy series: FF7, 8 came out on PC, but it's highly unlikely any others will. So no one considers that the FF series will show up on PC (FFXI excluded because of the online stigma it carries). If you want to play FFX, buy a PS2. That's why people buy consoles. That's why I bought my Super Nintendo back in the day. That's why I bought my N64. That's why I bought my PS1.
MS NEEDS to get rid of the idea that the exclusive games will show up ANYWHERE else. And unfortunately, their track record just isn't good at doing that.
The Dreamcast failed because 3rd party developers didn't trust that Sega would stick with the Dreamcast - they were right. Sega has a history of constantly jumping console ship, so the developers were worried about that. If you take a look at Microsoft, again, I'd imagine that most developers would opt to develop for the PS2 first, and then port it to the X-Box. And a system with tons of ports doesn't survive.
It's a bad, recurring nightmare for MS. The low barrier to entry doesn't matter if your games have no shot in hell of succeeding and doing well. So MS needs to get more consoles out there, and more "this game will show up nowhere else" idea. If they don't, give up.
And people who say "XBox 2 and 3 will rule!" - I once again repeat - developers do NOT develop for a system that the producer doesn't seem to be interested in supporting. That's what killed Sega. It'll kill MS too, if they don't wake up.
Sigh. It's amazing how the gamer community segments in two, the "RPG lovers" and "RPG ignorers" - don't forget FFX. (Not being insulting, just amused :) )
But, anyway, that wasn't really what I wanted to mention - what I really wanted to say was that what's really important is how MS handles the loss. Do they ditch the XBox and suck the loss? (i.e., do they rush the XBox 2 to market?) Ooh, then I'll tell you, the XBox 2 will fall like a dead monkey. "It's all about the games, stupid" - right? Well, the problem is that developers don't like consoles whose producers ditch them. That's why Sega bought it - developers already didn't trust the Saturn, after the Genesis/32X/CD-ROM fiasco - when they ditched the Saturn so early, they REALLY didn't trust the Dreamcast. The fact that the Dreamcast is still doing... not so bad in the aftermarket is a sign that Sega really screwed up.
In the console market, I think sometimes you really need to lose to win. Got a dud of a system? Stick with it. People will remain loyal, people will stick, you'll build a user base, and then developers will come knocking to your door. Sony didn't ditch the PS One - my God, they took a chapter from Nintendo's book and redesigned and rereleased it, to great profit. Nintendo has NEVER abandoned a console (besides the Virtual Boy, which they supported for far longer than they should have) until the developers did.
There's the key, Microsoft. The XBox might suck. But it's your XBox. Love it, cuddle it, and support it, and then developers might trust the XBox 2.
But you CAN'T do that with consoles. If you make a loser, you can't ditch it and go on. If you do that, developers don't trust you, even if you are Microsoft - at least, probably. They didn't trust Sega, and for God's sake, Sega is a massive player in the arcade market, and is pretty financially solvent.
That's the key. Microsoft has to stand there with a smile on its face and say 'Xbox is doing great!' and work feverishly behind the scenes to fix the problems in Xbox2 (unique games, better controller design - minimal, but still there). Abandon the Xbox, and ooh, then they'll be really confused when their list of developers (ACTIVE developers, not people who've signed up to be developers) dwindling uncontrollably. And from that, you really can't recover.
Personaly, I like to think of it like buying a $400 dedicated jet-set radio future machine :). I really didn't want an Xbox, and I still don't. The thing is just ugly (and they were not kidding about the controller).
If you ask me, I think microsoft totaly missed their target market. Rather then going after adults, they targeted 14 year old boys who want to think that they are adults. Everything about the system is gaudy. From the adds to the controler (wtf is up with the giant X logo on the controler?)
Anyway I have a test to study for.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You can't compare Halo sales to FFX sales, and you really shouldn't compare PS2 sales to XBox sales. I keep thinking this should be common sense but here are just a few reasons:
:-)
First, to refute your example, the Final Fantasy games are a best selling series that have been around for 15+ years. Halo is a single game with nowhere near that amount of history behind it. Lots of hype, and quite a few more TV spots than I've seen for any Final Fantasy game, but that doesn't go anywhere near as far, IMO.
Second, to be honest it's pointless from either perspective to compare current PS2 and XBox sales. If they'd had anywhere near the same launch date it would be an entirely different story, but the fact is they didn't. The PS2 has been on the market for well over a year longer than the XBox. How many XBoxes have been produced and purchased by consumers versus PS2's? When you probably have at least 5-6 times as many consoles in use as the competition, wouldn't it stand to reason that you'd sell about that many more copies of a (popular, well-hyped) new game?
I definitely don't disagree with your argument that the XBox needs more than just Halo. (Rallisport Challenge ROCKS but that's beside the point.) Yes, there are a lot more "Must-have" titles for the PS2 right now. But how many of them were available within 5 months of launch? The absolute first I can remember for the PS2 was Gran Turismo 3, and that was nearly a year after launch.
Bottom line, if the world were perfect and people wanted to compare PS2 to XBox, they'd need to compare PS2's library and sales figures from last year to XBox's from this year. Unfortunately the economy and consumer preferences (along with everything else on this planet) are in a constant state of flux.
So let's make love, not war, and let Sony sell PS2's and Microsoft sell XBoxes.
Look at Windows CE: The first version was atrocious, the second version wasn't much better. Neither of them sold any copies of any significance, but with unlimited resources, competition didn't work and so a third version was made along the lines of dead third-party developers. This version isn't spectacular, but is starting to sell a bit more mostly because of Microsoft's first-party software like Office, Outlook and IE.
Now, take a look at what Microsoft's been doing with games; they've been ramping up first-party titles for quite a while now. Their lineup is getting impressive -- stuff like Halo, which used to be slated for a PC version now appears to be X-Box only. Look at the number of software houses out there, and look again at the unlimited resources Microsoft has. They can own this market if they want to; even if they have to buy EA and Square to get it. You can't compete against Microsoft if they are determined to crush you.
Sony can play dirty tricks like this as well, so this should at least be entertaining to watch as two mega-corps go at it. Somehow, though, I think we'll all be left with something that sucks as the end result (witness Windows). Nintendo is going to die off first, as a console maker anyway; they'll still make games for other consoles like Sega does, and their handheld line will continue until Microsoft puts out the X-Palm or whatever.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
"Publishers" means that the company in question was interested in making or had already made the game, and were looking for someone to put forth the cost of making and promoting the game. The danger to Microsoft is that the developers won't want to develop for an "Xbox-2" because they know that Microsoft will ditch it and move on without a second thought.
Could they just up and buy any well known game maker? Eh. Not really. The major players in the console field are un-buyable, even for Microsoft. They could buy the smaller ones, but smaller development houses typically make breakout games that no one suspects. To have a console seller, you need a game that everyone KNOWS will rule, and DOES rule. SSBM for GameCube, (insert huge game here for PS2), Halo for XBox. Except they're still saying Halo will come out for PC. You CAN'T say that. That's anathema to console purchasers.
I think this is only true of 'true' console games, as people figure out exactly how the hardware works. The X-Box is a lot more developer friendly, but I don't think it has the headroom that the PS2 and the GC have.
Keep in mind that the PS2 is a wacky wacky platform with a tremendous amount of vector processing capability, and the GC has amazing amounts of sustained bandwidth that the X-Box doesn't have. Game developers need time to figure out how to use those two things. But the X-Box is just, well, a P3 and a GeForce 3. Nothing special. I think the reason that Halo was so good was because they already KNEW how to program for a PC - the game was supposed to GO to a PC.
We'll see. My instinct tells me X-Box games aren't going to improve a heck of a lot, and you'll see dramatic improvements from the PS2 and even more incredible improvements from the GC.
Games have always been huge, Nintendo is in business still because they get games made that people end up buying the box for. The Zeldas and the Marios and what have you. PS2 has some killer games, GTA3, VF4, SOE, MGS2, Ico, GT3, Jak and Daxter, FFX, and more. MS is operating with a deficit in this department. One or two good games just doesn't do it at this point for them.
Focus is also key. Nintendo and Sony are focused on games. MS sees the Xbox as their gateway to your living room. They see IE on you TV, PVR on Xbox. They've been meeting with satellite and cable vendors to get integrated with them. They want windows and office on your tv. The games are secondary.
We've known from the start that they'd take a hit on it, it's just a matter of how big of one they are willing to tolerate before they can it. What's it worth to them? $1billion? $1.5billion? We might find out. Even they can't take a loss forever and they won't. I've long thought that they would have to hit a home run to really matter because unless they clearly hit it out of the park they've got everything working against them, Sony and Nintendo beat them on cost, catalog, they've got history and reputation, they're Japanese and can expect to sell a few copies in Japan based on that alone. MS has made a good product but it's clearly not an unstopable killer. Sony still has the FUD card to play, just now when they can seriously cost reduce the Ps2 (they have a single chip solution..) they can also start talking about the PS3 that will be out in 18 months..