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.
that the millions that bought a PS1 liked it so much that they bought a PS2. it could also be the fact that there aren't that many xbox games, compared to the ps2. or, maybe the reason is that the xbox sucks? i've played both, and the ps2 is better than xbox, in my opinion.
Guns are like umbrellas and condoms. Better to have one and not need it, than need it and not have one.
I guess the x-box may soon be the ex-box.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The problem with hardware is that it actually costs a lot of money to keep the development versions in the market. Let's wait and see.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
does that mean that I can start to use *BSD on it?
I intend to live forever, so far so good.
let's not forget that the PS2 debuted before the current downswing in the economy...back then ther was a virtual orgy of consumer spending going on compared to now....the X-box entered the market at a time where consumer confidence and retail spending were both at a very low point...
that said, i have a PS2 and love it...is there anything better then taking out your agressions and leftover frustration from work then with a good game of Grand Theft Auto 3???
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
First off, I must say is that the only reason that I would consider buying one would be if I needed a new coffee table for my living room. Microsoft thinks that because it is a huge corp that it can do anything in any market. Not true, stick to making software and keyboards. Better yet, don't make software.
p.s. as anyone got an X-box to blue screen?
A supplier of x-box parts recently told me that Micosoft has shut off their orders for the time being. Apparently they have too much inventory right now.
God: "I don't leave footprints!"
Don't worry. When Microsoft decides to bundle the XBox with Internet Explorer, they will do just fine!
Gamecube? It's my preferred system by and far to either the PS2 or the XBox. The XBox doesn't interest me at all (supporting evil isn't my thing :) and the PS2 is pretty cool but just doesn't have as many games out or coming out that interest me.
PS2 - quantity
Nintendo - quality
XBox - wants to be both but fails at both
Nosce te Ipsum
Since when has an MS product doing badly ever stopped it from dominating the market for which it was aiming.
1.) No sales in Japan? Lets see, choices that have existed in the Japanese console department are Nintendo (Japanese corp), PS2 (Japanese corp), Sega (Japanese corp), and now X-Box (american corp).
2.) With PS2's backward compatability, they already jump the gun with a large userbase already established AND a large game selection already established.
3.) This was X-Box's first release. Lets determine a winner after either a.) MS (or Sony) drop out of the console market or b.) The 2nd or 3rd generation X-Box.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
What's the reason behind this? Is it the technology, the pricing, or the software? Halo is cool, but its no GTA3. Is there some break-out, gotta-have-it game waiting in the wings to make x-box take the lead? With PS2 getting Everquest, the logical response might be an Asheron's Call port to X-Box, but is there anything in the wings that makes X-Box look better?
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
So, will they decide it's not working and pull-out and leave those X-Box owners dangling (I.e. future Slashdot article titles, "Linux on the X-Box a Review of Distributions","New Life For Your Old XBox - Cheap Firewall", and the inevitable Jon Katz feature lamenting how we are not all playing our fathers' video game consoles anymore)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Don't knock it cuz it's MS. People knocked the PS1 because it was Sony ("what does Sony know about video game?")
Don't knock it cuz it has less games right now. (PS1's launch was ass, as was PS2's).
The PS2 is looking older and older all the time. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of fun games on the PS2, but they can't get by on near-flat-shaded cartoonish games forever.
Halo has sold a million copies.
That's all I need to know.
this seems to be turning into the war of formats like the betamax vs VHS debate, while betamax was superior to VHS in terms of quality VHS won the battle due to more "software" being available for it, this seems to be ringing true with the X-Box vs PS2 but then its still early days and M$ have a good history of supporting developers with their products unlike Sony who prosecute and seek out anyone who even remotly comes near to improving their products.
Plus, his site is a classic.
Yes. Nearly every console loses money. It's the licencing for the software that makes the company money.
All of them. Still trying to find an atari jaguar, myself...
If you look at the prices in Sweden, you can get your X-Box for 4700 SKR (remove last digit to get US dollars). You get a Playstation 2 for 1200 SKR less, and automatically gain the possibility to play all of your old PS1 games. The much larger existing game base for the PS2, and the price, is dragging Microsoft down.
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
My kids think Gamecube is the cat's ass.
A retailer told me recently that Microsoft is gonna keep pumping money into the XBox just to keep it on store shelves for about 5 years or so. So, it won't go away like the Dreamcast did, it will just clutter up store shelves.
My personal conspiriacy theory is that they ARE gonna take XBox's off the shelves and put in their PVR and other stuff to make XBox 2.0 the "ultimate convergence box" that was the big thing in 1998.
It looked like the Xbox was trying to compete with PS2 headon, with relatively little to differentiate itself, except maybe Halo. While its 3rd party game selection is very healthy (especially compated to GameCube's meager trickle...though Sega Soccer Slam has lightened by view by a lot recently) it is having to try to build all its franchises from scratch, and doesn't have the stable of guaranteed gaming wonders that Nintendo provides for its faithful.
But competing with the PS2 on its own turf? That's tough.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
1. The XBox doesn't look as "high tech" as the PS2. - Hillbillies don't care what's on the inside, c'mon this is America. 2. I have an XBox and the controllers are fscking huge. - Games are for kids. 3. Alright, I really doubt a majority of parents want their 10 yr old playing Halo. Where is microsoft's "Sonic the Hedgehog" or "Mario Bros."?
They'll just bundle one in with every PC OS sold, the OS won't be able to function properly w/o one, and then it'll gradually take over everything, whether it's better or not, whether the consumer wants it or not. That worked with browsers, it's working with media, messaging and Internetworking; it'll work w/ consoles.
Meanwhile, on another planet, the antitrust case plods on thru uncharted, meaningless and irrelevant billable lawyer hours under Msft's direction.
The joys of closed source: you can commit any crime you want and they can't prove anything. WooHoo!!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
As previous slashdot articles have mentioned, the selection of "cutting edge" games on PS2 is far superior to those on the X-box. Think about it. GT3, GTA3, MGS, etc., etc., etc. on PS2 (plus all the great PS1 games as another poster has mentioned). The only thing that makes me even want to consider an X-Box is Halo, and as it was originally going to be a PC/MAC title, my hope is that it will eventually be released for home computer.
(The sad fact is that I haven't the funds for either unit, so this is really the opinion of a totally outside observer. Take with requisite salt allowance.)
it's in my head
Microsoft made some very big blunders with the Xbox, especially internationally. For instance, they didn't re-think their controller (already large for US hands) before releasing in Japan. The result was that they had a lot of angry small-handed customers for whom the system was almost unplayable. Talk about a rookie mistake.
I actually worked at the Xbox-unleashed launch "party" in NYC, a weekend long game tourny/media happening at a swankish club. Sleeping with enemy, I know, but I needed the cash. It was the most forced/fake hooplah event I've ever been at. Most of the hardcore gamers (who were sleeping in shifts on the corner so as to have the best chance at winning the grand prize) trash talked the system when the M$ reps weren't around.
Mostly they talked about how all the good games were already out for PS2 and about how the controller felt weird. Even though the X-box is supposed to have superior hardware, I havn't seen any remarkable difference between its graphics and the PS2/Gamecube. Unless they find some real innovative ways to exploit the hardware advantages (notably the presence of a Hard Drive) they're dead in the water. When it comes to consoles, to borrow from the Clintion-insider campaign slogan, "it's the games, stupid."
Howard Dean for president
I think it's about time the X-Box had a price drop. Don't get me wrong. $300 for all the hardware in it is a pretty good deal...to a geek...but to the average buyer (i.e. some kid), he's going to get what his friends all have which, at this time, is the PS2. While it is early in the game for the X-Box to receive a price drop, I think it would be good for Microsoft in the longrun. Nevermind the fact that they'd have to eat more hardware costs sooner than they expected. If people are indeed buying more games than owners of PS2's, they can make it up in software. And as Sony has refused to lower the price on the PS2 (even though it's definitely time they did), this could give microsoft a clear lead, as the technically superior (not to mention a hellava lot easier to program for) X-Box would cost less, sell more, and give microsoft some much needed "street cred" in the video game department.
...or something.
...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.
Givent that last week's numbers in Famitsu show that the X-Box is being outsold by the PSOne of all things, I think we can safely say that its Dead In Japan. A disappointing start in Europe has been compounded with the insider news that total European sales so far don't even match what the Gamecube preorders have managed yet with a month to release, and Microsoft really were looking at struggling by just on their US sales. Bad news there surely means a desperate price drop must be on the way.
Its kind of a pity, actually - Halo really is very good indeed, and the launch titles generally are much better than what the PS2 saw in its first six months.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
This is going to play out like other version 1 micrsoft products. Ok, this version aint blowing people away... or at least isn't selling as well as MS thinks it should. However, the gaming industry is worth $8 billion. Microsoft wants a chunk of that. They already invested a ton of money into getting it. Don't worry... the next XBox version will be better somehow... design, speed, size, etc. They won't quit now. It took awhile for WinCE to catch on but now we're on version 3 or 4 and it's starting to really heat up.
Have a Happy.
Good original games on the Xbox: Halo, Dead or Alive 3 (Personally, I thought it was Dead or Alive 2 with a bad controller and no costumes, but that's me).
Remade games for the Xbox that have been out for the Playstation 2 for at least 6 months: Genmu Onimusha, Silent Hill 2
Good games for the Playstation 2: Maximo, Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Grand Theft Auto 3, Rez, Etc.
Advantage: Playstation 2
Broadband support from Xbox:
None, and details are unknown (expect something at E3, but the broadband support is suppose be rolled out June 2002.
Broadband support from Sony:
Ethernet/Modem kit that allows you to specify how to connect, Linux kit that lets you do just about anything you want (rip/play MP3's, connect to the Internet), Upcoming AOL support (Yes, AOL sucks, but that's still a damn lot of people)
Advantage: Playstation 2
Online games on the Xbox:
Halo (need a router hack),
Coming? Um...
Online games from Playstation 2:
Tony Hawk 3 (needs USB ethernet hack), Final Fantasy XI (will be supported by upcoming ethernet/hard drive kit), Everquest (same), Star Wars Galaxies (same)
Advantage: Playstation 2
Graphical ability:
Xbox: Nvidia chip with Intel Processor, 64 MB RAM
Playstation 2: Emotion chip, 8 MB RAM, "jaggies"
Advantage: Xbox
Storage system:
Xbox: Hard drive
Playstation 2: Expensive memory cards - it remains to be seen if upcoming hard drive upgrade will allow game saves/memory card copies to HDD. (Personally, I hope so).
Advantage: Xbox
DVD Playback:
Xbox: Requires purchase of $20-$30 remote control.
PS2: Remote control optional.
Advantage: PS2
Overall:
PS2 has a bigger games library (not including PSOne games for backwards compatibility). It is "truly" online (USB ethernet) now, and will be supported native TCP/IP for broadband/PPP dialups with modem shortly. Major online games supported.
What can Microsoft do:
1. Drop price - this will only help sell more units.
2. Better games - crucial. Too many games for the Xbox (Blood Wake) seem good ideas, but are terrible execution. MS would be good to go to developers making Xbox games, look at the "final release", then say "Great. Here's some more money - spend another 3 months polishing it so we don't have good games, we have great games."
3. Strategic partners: I don't care what the fuck people say about "Square's making Final Fantasy for the Xbox", I don't believe it. I see some console support from the Japanese developers, but MS needs to do better. The big RPG for the Xbox is Morrowind - a winner to be sure - but it will hardly drive huge purchases since that game is coming out for the PC at the same time.
The best thing MS could do is go to Sega and make a deal to remake games for the Xbox - Sakura Taisen (and bring it the hell to North America!), Panzer Dragoon Saga (which evidently a "sequel" is coming to the Xbox, but the original now would help jump start things). Perhaps even coming up with some sort of generic Sega Saturn emulator system and license it from Sega - this would give a bigger backlot of games.
Either way, MS is still in a good position. They have cash. They've done well in North America up until now. Basically, all of the hard core gamer geeks have an Xbox, and now they need the "mainstream" to ditch their PS2's and go to the Xbox.
Just remember the rule of Microsoft:
Version 1.0: Sucks, Version 2.0: Sucks, Version 3.0: Works, Version 4.0: Sucks, pulled from market, never talked about, Version 5.0: Works well enough, and throwing money at people kicks others out of the market.
Of course, I could be wrong about all of this.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
go into an Electronics Boutique.
Best Buy
Circuit City
anywhere that sells console games.
compare the amount of shelf space dedicated to PS2/1 games compared to the X-Box.
there's your winner, and i guarantee that its Sony's Playstation2 line, followed closely by the playstation1
getting shelf space in stores is hard to do. retailers will only give shelf space to what sells.
guess whats selling - the playstation games.
... hi bingo
Recent scientific research has shown that prolonged use of the X-Box can be hazardous to your health:
The newly discovered problem usually begins with slight fluttering of the eyes and unconscious twitching of muscles in the forearm and hands.
In most cases, the player begins to slow down and process commands sluggishly.
If left untreated the player eventually becomes totally unresponsive, and may in fact keel over dead in front of the console.
Doctors are naming this new disease BSS (Blue Screen Syndrome)
Parents are urged to have their children tested for yearly for signs of BSS, or to purchase a PS2 which does not exhibit the same health damaging characteristics as the X-Box.
I hope the Oddworld guys decide to re-qrite Munch's Odd. for PS2, I wanted to play it badly, but I refuse to buy an X-Box.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
There's no mod-chip available for the xbox which let's you play "backup" games.
Many people are waiting for this, a plus is that by the time this chip comes out the price might have been dropped.
I'm not sure if such a chip will come, don't know how the copy-protection will work, but my guess is that it uses the same meganisms as the current pc games, which will probably mean that patched isos of games will soon be (or might already) be available on the net.
I don't want to buy an xbox, because I think most Japanese software companies will exclusively make games for the Japanese consoles and face it they make the most original games most of the time, that's what a console is about.
Here's the whole story, as it usually unravels
/. take great comfort from this fact.
- Microsoft releases product to great hype.
- Product is buggy and not very successful.
- Competition and Microsoft haters at
- Microsoft develops new version of product fixing most flaws.
- Competition is taken by surprise by much improved version.
- Competition starts losing ground rapidly to Microsoft.
- Competition sues Microsoft for predatory practices.
- Competition gets bought over by AOL.
IIRC, UltimateTV has been officially discontinued. Conspiracy tyoes suggest that this is to keep the market clear for the HomeStation, MS' convergence box that is supposed to follow the X-Box.
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
I bought the PS2 based on upcoming games and the backwards compatibility with PSX games. I waited until GT3 came out (THE game for the PS2) and have not been sorry, either with existing games or future ones. MS brings out the X-Box, promising new technology and new toys, but they also released it how long after PS2?? Given that much time, PS2 would have had a HD and other features built-in. And given the fact that MS loses money on each one, why is it still the most expensive console you can buy?? Existing consumer base + backwards compatibility + pricepoint + kewl games = PS2.... I guess we should really wait until the PS3 arrives and then compare apples and oranges again...
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Is this a joke? I'm pretty sure you haven't compared them. Everyone knows that the XBox have the best graphics, it's a no-brainer.
Sales in Japan haven't been bad. I don't think anyone is really surprised with that. Microsoft hoped to be able to sell well in Japan, but I doubt even they are surprised that sales are "disappointing".
It's hard to tell if the slowing sales are a result of a slowing economy, or a preference for PS2.
The interesting thing I saw was that retailers prefer PS2. I wonder why? Does it sell better? Do they get better margins on PS2 consoles and games? Are Sony's bundling agreements, or lack of them more attractive? Is SOny now better at getting the items distributed to retailers? Is Sony just an extablished name in this market, and retailers trust them more?
The numbers I'd really like to see are sales volumes (quantity and revenues) for the games for each console. The PS2 console has been out longer, so volumes on consoles aren't as usefull of numbers as the volumes on games.
Its usual tactics being leveraging their dominance in one area (desktop operating system) to conquer other markets.
For general purpose software, there exists the "network effect": the need for compatability between operating system, computer hardware and applications makes that he who sets a (de facto) standard in one area (the operating system in this case) can easily dictate other areas as well.
Game consoles are different (even more different than PDA's that still have to interface with general purpose computers): they are 'closed' boxes. A game console just plays the game, the console may have to talk to other consoles of the same brand (to enable network play) but no more. The user is not interested in what software is inside; all 'applications' are written specifically for the console and compatability to the rest of the world plays no role.
Therefore, MSFT cannot play its usual game here. This makes me think that, even with massive investments, MSFT shall have a hard time to make a dent in this market. Why do so many people claim that with version 2 or 3 they get it right?
MSFT just had luck in the operating system market but I have no reason to believe they can repeat they luck in a completely different market.
sPh
Sega found that out the hard way. It's all about staying power and the games that will come out.
Remember, the PS2 is already starting it's third generation of games, whereas both the X-Box and GC are starting to hit the second wave. Comparing first generation waves of both systems, I'd say the PS2 had NO killer apps (Grand Turismo is arguably the first real killer app for the PS2) whereas the Xbox came out of the door with one (Halo, which is arguably the best console game released to this day) and Nintendo had Rebel Assault.)
The second XBox wave promises tons of games on my "to-buy list" including exclusives like Spiderman, World Series Baseball 2K2, Crazy Taxi 3, Morrowind (coming to the PC too), the Matrix, MGSX, and ToeJam & Earl.
So the second xbox wave looks very good. The second GC wave also looks very good (a new mario, a new zelda, a new metroid and the resident evil remakes.)
Finally, everyone expected the X-Box to bomb in Japan. It's the first time a non-japanese company is actually making a console, and the Japanese hvae a strong tendency to be loyal to products produced in their country by their mega-corps. Look at car penetration stats for the country and it'll prove my point right away.
Besides, as ALWAYS has been the case (why don't analysts EVER remember?) it's not over till it's over. Remember how dominant the Genesis was even AFTER the SNES was out for a year? Remember who won that one?
my ex's box has been very popular recently.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
It's not even just that though : I've seen actual slowdowns in some of the demo games running at the local EBs (sidenote: Why is it that usually it's the garbage games that they have running as demos? Perhaps MS has an agreement where they'll give face time to the companies that made games, but these things are KILLING xbox sales. I have NEVER seen Halo, arguably the killer app current for the xbox, running on a demo station) in scenes that my home PC would wail through with ease at 1024x768 : Again I have to presume some gross programmer inefficiency because I know that technically the graphics subsystem is superior to mine, but it just isn't capitalized.
yes, but if you buy two or more games with your XBox, then they've made a profit.
I agree that the launches of PS1 and PS2 were less than stellar, but they were decent. They weren't as bad as X-Box which has _no_ killer apps. None. Not a single one. Halo is getting there, but as usual Microsoft has no concept of branding... they have no lovable characters and no memorable ones. PS1/PS2 do.
I dont' think the PS2's graphics are bad, either. I think they're amazing. I have a ton of games and have YET to be dissapointed. They're not flat at all. Don't know where you got that one. To be honest, it's really easy to push a lot of polygons to a measly 768 x 480 screen... it's what you do with those polys that counts. Game consoles, and computers, are sold primarily on the quality of the game which is a direct effect of the ability of the developers to use the hardware in an efficient and clever way. Don't count on Microsoft to be efficient and clever.
You could always use the 800 pound gorilla arguement-- that Microsoft will eventually crush the competition. But allow me to retort. Microsoft has made several blunders lately and people are sick of them. They can see through it now and are considering other options. Additionally, Sony is a 900 pound gorilla and will monkey-stomp the competition into submission. Look at the memory stick. They STILL haven't given up on it.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
Obviously not many of you have been in Japan. The people in there don't like the US much and they'd prefer buying something made in Japan rather than in the US.
Seems to me like console sales nowadays are pretty pathetic but I'm sure that a huge marketing campaign won't hurt any of the console makers.
Let's see... PS2 came out in a virtual next-gen void. DC was winding down, publishers wanted to go with the known commodity, Playstation's follow-on. So, PS2 started selling with major problems, but the desire for a box was so great that they were the de facto "buy" recommendation.
/. tastes blood in the water and moves in for the kill. Let's be objective!
XBox started with PS2 having 1 year lead and another top console, the Gamecube, a week away from launch.
Consoles are crowded now. It's been proven over and over that the XBox has superior visuals and audio (if only for the fact that it's 18 months newer than the PS2) but it's in a fight for growth with the Gamecube against the PS2. A huge head-start is never easy to compete with, but it isn't a reason to write off the underdog.
If you were to replace "Playstation 2" with "Windows", and replace "XBox" with "Linux", this thread would have 1200 comments all stating how just because Windows sells more doesn't mean it's better. But, when MS is the underdog,
(I like to think of myself as objective, but I do own an XBox and 6 games, so I may be biased)
How does that work? Most estimates put M$s loss at about $100 a box.
Even assuming that the games you buy are released by M$ directly they still have other costs associated with that money and they have pay-outs to the game's creators. (I doubt Bungie did Halo for a flat fee.)
That, and the fact that there are only two decent games for the XBox put them a long way from turning a profit on a per box basis... Maybe if you bought a console, a remote, a second controller, a service plan, and 2 games, but not until then.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
I'd say it's established. I was pissed when I found out the put the next one on the X-Box rather than PS2 like they originally planned. Quirky or not, it's definitely one of the greatest games ever. Of course, comparing anything to FF is pointless. As far as MGS, personally I'd rather play Oddworld, but I'll have to wait for a PC port I guess.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
For every Xbox is failing news item I've seen, I've seen one that says expectations are being met or exceeded. While it's great fun to chat about it at the watercooler, I guess we won't really know until Xbox DVD's start showing up for $.50 at garage sales. At which point I'll buy every game I can find.
:P )
(yeah, I bought an Xbox, I'm biased.
How much of the sales dropping off is related to the time of year? I've notice a TON of game development still continuing: www.activexbox.com
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
You probably have some kind of visual deficiency. Have you played DOA3, PGR, Halo, Wreckless?
I don't know but that's what I remember them saying. They hoped that on average, people will buy 2.5 games so they can make a profit.
Not at all. It's just that Microsoft isn't competing with Nintendo.
How can that be, you ask? They're in the same market!
Yes, but the market is all about games, right? Whoever makes the games, gets the market. Nintendo makes games MUCH better than Microsoft, and so it can carry the GC on its own. In addition, though, GC grabbed up a couple of exclusive franchises which will also keep it floating: Resident Evil, for instance.
The main reason that X-Box and PS2 are competing is they basically have all the same games. PS2 games get ported for other systems, in general (save Sony's games, and Microsoft's games) so if you look at the reason for buying each system, you have to ignore the "common" games: doing so basically leaves you with the exclusive games, and in this category, Nintendo's fine, so it doesn't really have to worry about X-Box or PS2 (and the numbers support this - the GCN is doing really well in Japan, much better than the X-Box, and it's doing well in the US, though a little slower than the X-Box, though that'll probably pick up later in the year after E3 when the high-profile GCN games start kicking it hard) - Sony's fine, as people have more faith in the PS2 than a newcomer. That's really the kicker - Microsoft wanted to compete with Nintendo - it can't. It has to compete with Sony first, as it's catering to Sony's market, not Nintendo's - and it's not doing a good job fighting Sony.
A bunch of U.S. games? The Japanese aren't into that. They like cute games and manga comic styles. I remember reading the creator of OddWorld saying something like, "We can't sell this game in Japan; No matter how you market it, you can't get around the fact that he's a green slime lizard with his mouth sewn shut! We put billboards everywhere- not a sale."
As far as I can tell, the Japanese don't really like our style of games (big big big monster trucks and skateboarders). And they've already infiltrated our culture with their games and style, which is, basically, Anime. Final Fantasy & Mario.
Who wants an X-Box, an oversized machine with gigantic controllers that basically runs trash US games? Maybe some 133t sk4ter d00dz or quake fanatics, but not the Japanese.
(This post generalizes. There are of course exceptions. But for the most part, I believe that this explanations holds true. =^_^=)
I'm so jealous I can't play those gorgeous PS2 games my friends have.
:-)
As someone else said, its pretty much just HALO thats the gotcha game. I'm invited to a HALO developer party tonight, so maybe I'll see something new
I've played (rented) Onimusha, and that sucked,
DoA3 wasn't that compelling,
Gotham was ok, but something isn't right about it,
JSRF - fun for 2 levels, but then it got boring,
The Legend of Black Kat -- hmm, now this one's childish, but kind of fun - seems like a N64 type of game. Hack/Slash, Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum.
Maybe I should crack open Munch's Odyssey.
Winton
Don't forget, the PS2 had a pretty meager launch itself. Massive unit shortages, which was probably fine, because there weren't any great games to go with it.
Of this list of launch titles, how many are you still playing?
In comparison, Halo is a much stronger game than any of those, and will have a much longer shelf life.
More Xbox games are in the pipe, and they will get better. (If you haven't checked out JSRF and RalliSport Challenge, go do it now. Both blew my mind away, not to mention blowing away anything I've seen on the PS2.)
- Mom buys it for you for Christmas, and you are under thirteen years of age.
- Mom buys it for you for Christmas, and you are over thirteen years of age.
- You are poor, but want a new console.
- You have every goddamn console before and you want the new ones. Everyone wins, you buy all three.
- You are a PC gamer. You have a HDTV and a kickass stereo setup. You hear that the X-Box is the only one that doesn't look like shit on your set up. You buy the X-Box. You buy PS2 when you hear your friends talk about GT3.
-
You aren't rich, but you like consoles. You don't want to pay extra for the priviledge of playing DVD's. You buy a PS2 to serve as new console and a DVD player.
Is it any surprise that all the computer gamers have already bought their X-box? Come on now.She goes to Walmart or Target, and looks at the game demo's. The X-box looks like a computer game, complete with its killer application being an ultra-violent FPS. Mom keeps going. The PS2 has a crapload of *board games, with people falling on concrete. Pass. The Gamecube has a cartoon. Mom picks up a Gamecube.
Mom buys you what you ask for. You probably already have a PS1. Thus, you probably ask for a PS2.
You don't care about internet connectivity, because 50 bucks a month is beer money for the same period. You are either going to pick up a gamecube because it's nintendo and you're a fanboy, or you'll go with the PS2 because its sony and you're a fanboy. Poor people don't take chances on new consoles.
Before you take this as a reflexive anti-XBox rant from a PS2 owner, it's not. I really like the XBox controller, because it's designed for adult hands (like mine). It's comfortable, and difficult to mis-hit buttons. I also like Halo and am looking forward to playing it online.
That being said, I'm not sure I understand the big to do about Halo. I'm still early in Halo, to be honest. Having played Tribes 2, Halo looks like a scaled back version of that game. The central concepts are the same, i.e. teamwork, first-person shooter (FPS), good graphics, variety of weaponry, vehicles. The differences, IMHO, definitely lean in favor of Tribes.
For one thing, it looks like you have to fight to score. In Tribes 2 (T2) you can fight and capture the flag (or whatever the objective is), but you can also have non-combatant roles, like repairing turrets/defenses, repairing teamates (medic), set up defensive structures, etc. You get points for repairing bases that people destroy. Vehicles have non-combatant positions (this is similar in Halo).
I really enjoyed T2 when I played regularly (I'm on a counterstrike kick right now), and it still ranks as one of the best games out there in my mind. The teamplay possibilities were incredible. Also, the map sizes, some of which were large enough to give you elbow room with 40 people playing, were incredible.
I like Halo, but not enough to give it very high ratings. The graphics are nicer than most, it's got very nice controls (unique, too), and it's definitely got a good pace to it. But it's basically Unreal + some neat teamwork feature. What am I missing?
Anyway, I would love to hear opinions from others that have played both, especially those that have played Halo more than I have (I'm only partway through the cooperative missions).
Sujal
politics, food, music, life: FatMixx
But like, three weeks ago me and my bro each went halfway on Jet Set Radio Future and we can't get enough of it. Great gameplay, beautiful graphics, and tons to play. We've averaged about 26-27 hours of playtime, well worth the $50 price tag. It's absolutely gorgeous and there is only occasional slow down.
It may be slow going but X-Box will catch up as soon as it has more A+ titles like JSRF.
Oh, my friend, how wrong you are. Let me explain.
I'm a gamer, and a professional one at that. I love games. I play them every single day, be it a PC title, or PS2, or Xbox, or whatever. In fact, I run a website devoted to the stuff, and get paid EXCELLENT money to do it.
I conducted a survey a while back on said site and the average age of the visitor was between 18 and 27 years of age -- college students. I don't know any 13 year olds who are going for a BSC at Harvard. =)
If Microsoft get $10 per game sold, then that would mean an XBox owner needing to buy 20 games over 3 years just to make back the loss.
I doubt that most XBox owners will buy more than 5 games a year to be honest - sure you will get the few game-a-month people, but they will not make up for the majority who will only buy the mostest bestest games available.
Microsoft cannot afford to cut the price of the XBox any further until product costs drop as well. Expect to see the XBox selling for $249 this Christmas, against $199 PS2's and $149 Gamecubes. Except the latter two will be at the break-even price or less from the start, so all game sales will be profit, whereas the XBox will still be being sold at a loss.
Sure, when the XBox II comes out with XBox compatibility then things will get interesting. That is 3 years away though - consumers will not like a console being upgraded every 2 years!
Xbox hasnt even been out a year yet.
Gamecube isnt even listed
How are we going to have a winner right now? Lets ask this question in a couple of years, I predict gamecube will come out on top.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I expect Gamecube to actually have victory,
so far it has the best games, the cheapest price, and the best graphics
its not even listed?!
Zelda, Pokemon, Mario, all of these games will be huge, and then theres the adult games too
Gamecube is a very good system, sold equally well to Xbox and PS2, and sold well in Japan
I think this is premature, but next year we should ask this question again.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
A 2 year old design (Playstation 2) is selling more than 7 times as many hardware as XBox in Japan, more than twice as much in USA and sales figures are so bad in Europe that Microsoft doesn't even release numbers. (Retailers slashed the price for an XBox by 80 Euros in the first 2 days! And they still didn't sell. Now a lot of stores don't even bother to display the XBox anymore, it's already dead in Europe.)
I always said that XBox has no chance but the "Microsoft is so great and strong" pro-MS folk were so busy praising it and the "Microsoft is so evil and strong" anti-MS folk were so busy whining about Microsoft "monopolizing the next market" (LOL), that nobody listened.
I also submitted several stories to slashdot, but slashdot refuses stories that question the invincibility of Microsoft.
...is obviously Slashdot. And somebody hacking it. How many units do you think they'll ship when somebody figures out how to put linux on the damn thing?
Don't forget, it's already networked (insert Beowulf cluster joke here)
The X-Box hasn't been around very long. The games just aren't there for it (yet). I haven't bought one primarily for that reason. The PS2, on the other hand, has been out over a year. It does have several games out (although none have compelled me to purchase one as of yet; I'm not a big fan of Japanese-style console games). The main reasons the PS2 sold so many units were brand recognition and compatibility with the PS1. If you'll recall, when the PS2 first came out (and probably the first six months or so afterwards), there were hardly and PS2-native games that people wanted--people mostly played PS1 titles on their new PS2s. The X-Box doesn't have the luxury of being compatible with an older console system, and the games aren't there yet.
I *want* to buy an X-Box, but I'm not going to part with $300+ if there aren't any games available for it that I can't live without. I think the X-Box hardware is vastly superior to any of the other consoles currently available, and I think that it has the potential to bring a new level of depth and complexity to console games that previously existed only on PC games. (Whether it will ever fulfill that potential is another matter.)
Bottom line: people buy consoles for the games. When the games are there for the X-Box, people will buy the consoles.
Some of us wait for the games to come out before we buy the system.
For example Halo has been delayed for over a year and it would have been a 100% hit on the PC-gaming market.
Now you can estimate how much it costs to keep a developer team on it for one year (unnecessarily) and how much money they miss because it's released so late on PC.
No way they are going to get that back with XBox software sales. No way.
My ex-girlfriend hooked up with more girls than I did after we split. Kinda cuts the self-esteem in half.
The fact that AMD makes cheaper and better chips than Intel is the proof.
The PS2 chip (Emotion Engine) was sold about 25 million times, Celerons maybe 100 million times. But actually, XBox is using a hybrid Pentium/Celeron, so PS2 is actually moving more chips.
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.
PS2 games certainly look rusty compared to the X box. I have held off buying a PS2 because in reality they weren't all that much better than Dreamcasts (which came out 2 years ealier and was great).
The PS One was great and ahead of the game, but the PS 2 wasa meger upgrade put next to the Dreamcast, and in part only had such a 'wow' factor because the Dreamcast was so poorly marketed that not many people saw it (and partly because they went off Sega after the Mega CD & 32x fiasco and the whipping the Saturn got at the hands of the PS One - which was because Sega made a primarily 2D console where as Sony looked ahead and focused on 3D performance).
If you've seen Dead or Alive 2 on the Dreamcast and on the PS 2 - and noticed how much better is on the Dreamcast (really!), you'll know what I mean about the Dreamcast's great peformance.
That doesn't mean the PS2 is consistantly always performs worse than the Dreamcast, just that it's not really much better (and as it's 2 years older, it *should* be). It's better on paper, but not to the extent that it can render games noticeably better than a Dreamcast as far as most people can tell it's not - which is the point.
The X Box however looks really fantastically better HW wise, the only thing that puts me off is that it's Microsoft. They have obvious things like bump mapping (the PS2 really should have this IMO) and nicer looking filtering on textures (IMO) and certainly seem to be able to shift significantly more heavily textured polygons. The games, like Dead Or Alive 3, look really great to me.
I would love to see GTA3 on the X Box, I think it would really trounce the PS version. This is true because, yes the X-Box is newer and so natrally should have the upper hand a little, but also because the PS2 is not all it should have been (bearning in mind how long it took to come out).
No other company has this great kind of grass-roots marketing.
And it's also ironic that most anti-MS folks don't realize how much they help Microsoft when they whine about monopolies.
LET'S FACE IT:
XBox is dead. It had it chance and blew it. And it won't come back because no gamer is going to make the same mistake again and shell out big bucks for a gaming console that might have no games a few months later. Game producers will not make the same mistake again and program games for a gaming console that might not have any new customers a few months down the road.
Game over for Microsoft.
I'm so tired of anti-M$ cronies whining about how Xbox is an inferior system based on their mostly unfounded hatred of Microsoft. I don't think the PS2 is an entirely bad system, but for that same $300, you can get one hell of a better machine if you buy an Xbox instead.
Yes, and people base their purchase on how many pixels a machine can push. Ask the average consumer what a pixel is, and they'll stare at you like a confused golden retriever.
People buy consoles for the games, dimwit. People buy more PS2s than XBoxes because the PS2 has more and better games.
Also, you don't need to spend $30 for what is essentially a glorified dongle to enable the thing to play DVDs.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
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.
"Ha ha! Microsoft is screwing up! The big bad Beast of Redmond got into a market it knows nothing about!"
This is different though. Microsoft regards this as a strategic endeavor. The X-Box is not just a game console, it's their point of attack in a war to secure dominance of your living room eyeballs. They already have your office eyeballs and your home office eyeballs (well, maybe not those of Slashdot readers, but most everyone else's). Now they want to make sure that when you turn on your TV or set-top box, it's to use Microsoft products.
They're willing to spend money for a long time in order to make this happen.
This is more than a game console. It's an economic battleground, and Microsoft donsn't give up easily.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
have you *played* Super Smash Bros. Melee?? i'd definitely consider that a killer app for the cube, since that's what convinced me (and helped me convince my fiance) into buying one ... seriously, for our christmas presents to each other we split the cost of the cube, 2 controllers, a memory card, and melee ... excellent purchase, i might add... so, go find 3 friends and beat the living snott out of each other as lovable nintendo characters! :)
09
MGS and GTA3 are both headed for the Xbox, and I think virtua fighter 4 will wind up there eventually.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
... since X-Box is slumping in Europe as well
The biggest clue that I noted that the X-Box would fail was that it was being discounted even before launch, suggesting the pre-orders where nothing like expected.
Whereas about 9months passed before the PS2 was discounted in UK stores.
Out of all the current consoles the XBox has the best features. Widescreen support, every game with Dolby digital, high definition support, Ethernet, and a hard drive. The PS2 has limited widescreen support and it can only do DD in cut scenes. The Cube has no DD support and no high definition.
The PS2 has been out longer so the 2nd and 3rd gen games are out for it. Just wait for the later XBox games. The DD already makes a huge difference in some games. You haven't played Halo until you've done it on a big screen with a good sound system.
It is exceedingly easy to port a game from Windows XP to XBox. Basically it's just another variation on the PC gaming platform...and one which has consistent hardware.
The Linux kit for PS2 will NOT allow people to develop world-class games for the PS2. The Sony Linux layer is in a virtual machine, abstracted away from the real hardware. You'd be lucky to get XBill to run on Sony Linux, much less Tux Racer, much less anything that would compete with professionally written PS2 proggies. For that, you need Sony's pro dev kit.
The XBox is getting the same treatment from Sony that the Dreamcast is. In short, its days are numbered. You cannot have success with a console out that doesn't sell in Japan. Also Euro sales of the XBox is even more anemic than the reception of the machine in Japan.
Fearless prediction: November, 2002, MS lowers the price of the XBox to $150 or less. Spring, 2003, Microsoft announces the end of production of the XBox. November, 2003, the remaining XBoxen are blown out at $50.
Too bad, it was the best architecture of the three "next gen" game consoles.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
The market was left wide open when none of them left the gate with online support (modem and/or (preferablly AND) nic). Can you imagine how the gap would have been increased if PS2 would have at least came out of the gate with the online savvy of the Dreamcast? (** For you kids: the Dreamcast was an older generation system from Sega that ruled the earth before the PS2/Xbox/GC wars of 2002.)
Or on the other hand -- what if the Xbox would of came out of the gate with online support -- it would have had a better chance closing the gap between the PS2. To me the competitive advantage in the crowded marketplace with the big money players is not only how many quality games do we have --- but what makes game a, genre a --- on system A better on which platforms....It's all about options and implementations, a much smarter (and more finicky) crowd than when us old farts were trying to decide between Atari/Coleco/TI,etc....
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Microsoft can hang in the game a lot longer than Sega had the resources to.
You are right Sony is bigger, but you are wrong to imply that the only
front Sony has is in consumer electronics, and that MS cannot
consolidate many of its marketing efforts in much the same way that Sony
does.
It can be argued that it was in MS interest to encourage the design of
games that could then be ported to the PC as well (and vice-versa); but
they do seem slow on delivering on that front.
No second chance for a console? The Dreamcast had several second chances
during its distribution, but Sega suffered from "IBM syndrome" in
thinking that marketing meant doing everything except actually showing
the product. That's not to say that Microsoft might still fail with
the Xbox, but its a bit too premature to call.
OK, now I'll illustrate you how you Microsoft-whiners are the greatest marketing asset Microsoft has:
"XBox will monopolize the console market" (I don't know how often I've heard that)
Translation: Buy an XBox, soon you won't find any games for anything else.
(After the devastating sales figures show up) "It's too early to tell yet."
Translation: Buy an XBox, that sales figures doesn't matter, don't be worried.
microsoft does not hold a monopoly on the game-console market. yet.
(rolling eyes) And they never will have a monopoly on the game-console market. Never. They blew their only chance. People like you might cause the XBox to die a few months later than it would if it were produced by another company, but it will die and there won't be a second one.
XBox is dead, why is everybody so eager to revive it?
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.
...WWF Attitude. And you can't blame WinCE for that...you have to blame Acclaim and the fact that the title is a crufty port from PS One.
I have had no other Dreamcast title crash, including a couple which run under WinCE. The DC is a work of art. Too bad Sega didn't stick with it...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
...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.
Is everyone just ignoring the fact that IT ISN'T CHRISTMAS OR THE RUN UP TO IT RIGHT NOW ????
Anywhere outside of Q4, and you're looking at nearly zero sales of toys. Certainly an order of magnitude difference.
XBox released way too late in Europe. It was stupid - why release mid year? Everyone knows that the BIG money is made at the end of the year.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Just for your information: Sony is several times bigger than Microsoft
Say what?
By Assets? Sony = $63bn / Microsoft = $60bn;
By Market Capitalisation? Sony = $47.5bn / Microsoft = $301bn;
As these are the 2 main criteria with which to judge corporate "size", I would say that there is not much between the two from an "assets" point of view. But typically, Market Capitalisation is the common statistic for "size"...which would weigh heavily on the side of MS, if anything (doubly so, given the dubious nature of asset-valuation methods utilised in Japan).
And, BTW, the last Financial Times Global 500 survey of companies placed Microsoft 5th and Sony 69th.. Furthermore notable tech companies such as Texas Instruments, Hewlett Packard, Sun Microsystems and IBM placed higher than Sony.
And Sony can concentrate on consumer electronics, while MS is busy competing in 100 different markets.
Ermm....in which market exactly does Sony enjoy the same domination as MS does in the software industry? And - in fact - you will find that Sony's activities are much more diverse than MS's.
I think you are a bit misinformed. Microsoft couldn't even pay their employees without getting more and more money out of the stock market. (which allow also nice tax-tricks) They would endanger the whole company if they start to make losses because of XBox.
And then, Sony doesn't even feel much pain from Microsoft. Ironically, Playstation2 sales were 30% HIGHER in the XBox launch-week than one week before.
Seems like the Microsoft marketing huss about game consoles have sold more PS2 than XBoxes!!
How is Microsoft supposed to win this if their own marketing seems to work against them?
But you are right, Microsoft has the resources to hang around very long. They may "hang around" for 10 years, but they will never capture any significant marketshare and they won't ever see a profit from XBox.
You're wrong. :-)
The Linux kit is documented by Sony as including a set of proprietary libraries [binary only] that give access to the emotion engine and the rest of the PS2 hardware.
In other words, it does have full access but it is proprietary.
Well, considering that the project manager for MS BOB became Bill's wife, I don't think he considers it a total loss. Considering that she's got a third chip in the fab, (somehow "bun in the oven" isn't quite right for them) they must be enjoying each other's company, at least...;-)
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
The PS2 will come out on top. The reasons are quite simple and straightforward really. 1)For one thing, Sony had a massive install base. While the initial launch of titles was weak, a PS2 still could play PSOne games... People wouldn't worry about their PS2 gathering dust while they wait for more native titles (like the N64). 2) Name recognition. The Playstation was the king of consoles. Every platform gamer pretty much had one. Most all the developers already had partnerships with Sony for the PSOne, partnerships that made a ton of cash for both sides. Even Nintendo has an advantage over Microsoft. And another thing rarely mentioned... Sony's reputation in the market is not of some predatory evil juggernaut out to kill all competition. I don't remember all the contempt and distrust thrown at the PS2 when it was announced. The main knock against Sony is that their stuff costs too much, but the products are still really good. How much anti-Sony feelings are kicking around? Compare that to the "MS is EVIL!" crowd. This makes more of an impact that most people think. 3) They got to market before Microsoft. Self-explanitory. This actually surprised me. The X-Box is basically a bunch of existing, outsourced PC hardware thrown together. The only thing Microsoft did was design a cheesy case and stank controller (I actually like the DualShock2), and stuff it with a M$ OS. The PS2 seems like it required far more time in R&D. Yet, for some reason, M$ didn't get what is essentially a stripped down PC out to the consumer closer to the PS2. My guess is that they would have released a console with NO GAMES. Overall, I don't see the X-Box putting a real dent into the PS2's sales. Sure, the X-Box is a superior hardware platform... but they have no games. Sony has been doing the console thing for a long time, they didn't just jump into the industry because they wanted to make a quick buck like MS has.
Halo marathon.
Pun intended? :)
Odds of being killed by lightning and winning the lottery in the same day: 1 in 2^55
I can hardly wait until the X-box dies so that I
can pick them up by the crateful for pennies on
the dollar. Oh the projects I can do! Real-time
video encoding, home automation, voice recognition,
the possibilities are endless.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
What makes my XBox a TV-PC? My PC has a processor, dynamic storage, a graphics processor, and static storage. Last I checked the PS2 was only missing the static storage, but that was being worked on as well.
I'm seriously looking for an answer here. What makes an XBox a PC while a PS2 is a console?
Microsoft is sitting on about 40 billion dollars in cold hard CASH. That is close to the market capitalization of SONY (in translation MSFT could just about buy every available share of SONY stock on the market and pay cash - if they wanted to).
But yes MSFT did game the tax system very nicely with their stock options - it has allowed them to have negligible taxable income.
If MSFT really wants into the console gaming market, they will persevere. (In which case XBOX 3 will probably be a true ass-kicker of a console).
A lot depends on how well the Korporate Kopyright Kartel is able to impose their will upon the Congress. If computers are reduced to little more than consoles, then you can bet MSFT will be there - they can't afford not to be. If the CBPTPA and its ilk is properly defeated. That is if the sponsors of the bill defeated by 99-1 margins in their re-election campaigns (or dragged out of their offices and hung from the Capitol flagpole), and the KKK properly chastised by having every copyright affecting law since 1860 declared unconstitutional, and every lawyer who works for the KKK thrown in jail for violating the civil rights of American citizens and resident aliens, well then MSFT may consider giving up on the console gaming market.
In any other circumstances I wouldn't care to try and predict MSFTs actions.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
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..
I'm looking at my PS2 collection, and I see sequels.
Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec
Grand Theft Auto III
Final Fantasy X
Metal Gear Solid 2
Twisted Metal:Black
Sequels are great, sure, but there's nothing new. Originality is a nice thing, but it's not the end-all be-all of game design. Sometimes another boring FPS is exactly what I want to play.
If you want an inventive twist on an existing genre on XBox, play Project Gotham. Granted, it's the same game as Metropolis Street Racer, but it's done right this time, and no one really noticed MSR when it came out on Dreamcast last year (most of you are probably going, "What the hell game was that?") On top of that, it's the same team, so it's not really a ripoff. The style idea really changes the way the racing game is played.
either - I was one of those guys who waited outside all night - which wasn't so bad - its like going on a camping trip in the middle of the city.
Anyhoo a year later and it still only had like 30 titles - many of them were disapointing or boring. I told most of my friends that I regretting buying into it. I felt while talking to some people who were also camping out for playstations that they were really getting it not because they had done any research, but because well the playstation was such a hit the playstation 2 has got to be an even bigger hit. Initially the playstation 2 rode the sales wave of fandom - now it rides the waves of having more titles combined then any other console.
Don't get me wrong - I like it today - I have several good titles for it now (like gt3, gta3, and mgs2) - but before I think you can announce something as being dead against a console that took a year to really get going as well.
In the Xbox launch, Microsoft put heavy pressure on retailers to devote vast amounts of shelf space to XBox products. Then they squeezed retailers on the margins. Then, they tied up the product in "bundles" that raised the price upwards of $600. After all that, sales were disappointing. No wonder retailers don't like the thing.
Hey, don't kill it! Keep it alive in a footlocker in the basement so we can take it out and torture it every now and then!
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Yes See Microsoft Bob, See Bob in Office and Windows XP where they put the annoying animated character concept that Was Microsoft bob.
There is a way to salvage the X-box. I'm thinking last years game of the year the Sims, released on a DVD with all 5 expansion packs for $50. Let's consider this for a minute. Sims doesn't play on linux under wine yet, so there is a segment of the PC market that might like to have the sims on X-box. Also, the X-box is the only console that can hold an 8 gig mp3 library natively that you can listen to while playing any game. The sims is great because it relies on mp3s for the in game music. This makes the X-box the only real choice for a full port of the PC sims game. While X-box could handle the graphics, it just wouldn't be the same without the mp3.
Anyways, I think X-box is pretty much doomed, there really isn't room for three consoles in the marketplace. There is room for one portable, and two home consoles. Microsoft has the money to stick it out in third place, and there are some pretty cool features in the X-box. They could also use the X-box experience to find out what works and come back with an X-box 2 console that could really take the market. Of course if the X-box did fail I wouldn't mind picking one up dirt cheap, since it's a pretty decent system, and would make a great personal webserver.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
But we can hope!
It amazes me that the slashdot community is, on the whole, totally uninterested in sticking by the widely-asserted claim that MS's monopoly status is bad for us. Well, if MS is bad for us, *STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS*. Including the Xbox, and WinCE, and PocketPC... Buy alternatives, and tell vendors that you went with an alternative because you're not comfortable with a dependancy on Microsoft.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
The GC does Dolby Surround 2. This does allow sound positioning. Most home consumers don't even have a speaker setup that can take advantage of this.
What do you mean by high definition? The GC supports widescreen progressive scan mode.
--- I do not moderate.
... but who controls that money? Robbie Bach gonna plunk down 38 billion to save the dying Xbox? I think the shareholders will be very unimpressed by the Xbox's performance.
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
Microsoft beat Netscape because they were able to bankrupt them before Netscape's cash streams (servers) got offline. They also capitalized on SEVERAL boneheaded moves by Netscape.
Microsoft beat Wordperfect by bringing out an entire office suite and charging about the same as Wordperfect. Then Wordperfect got itself acquired by multiple people and went down the drain. The real difference WAS Microsoft's ability to leverage Windows 95 and have Office 95 (pretty much a straight port of Office to Win32) out... Office was a bit player until Office 95. They leveraged Windows.
Visual Studio beat Borland when Borland stopped innovating, though scummy business tactics (like offering $1m/yr offers to top people, knowing Borland can't match it everywhere and you just need 1-2 to jump) helped.
Microsoft is GOOD at keeping a market, but their winning of markets isn't inevitable.
MS Money vs. Intuit Quicken - Intuit OWNS this space
MS Box - nuff said
MSN Messenger vs. AOL AIM
MSN vs. AOL
UltimateTV vs. Tivo
Microsoft has bean beaten, and I think that the game console busienss will likely stay elusive.
Microsoft is really only at their best leveraging Windows, they had some good luck 20 years ago, and they build an empire leveraging that good luck into a giant business. However, Sony learned and understood the market before hopping in, Microsoft didn't. Sony saw how shady Nintendo the monopolist was (and Sega aspired to be), read Game Over if you want details, a good business read. The third parties were mad, and Sony gave them an opportunity to jump ship.
Microsoft can't make a profitable play to own the Console world, and lack of interesting games for children will hurt. Better to get yourself into families and then sell your adult titles to parents and family titles for the kids then to just be able to market to 20-something computer geeks.
Alex
During the multimedia hype days, Nintendo wanted to get on board, so they were working with Sony to develop a Multimedia system. The system would play Multimedia titles licensed by Sony on CD format, and SNES games licensed by Nintendo on cartridge format.
Nintendo realized that this deal would leave Sony holding all the cards, as the SNES titles would sell the system, then new games would be Nintendo Play Station games, licensed by Sony.
So Nintendo cut a deal with Phillips and left Sony holding the bag. Sony then renegotiated with Nintendo, and Nintendo would license all games, Sony could only license non-games. In fact, Nintendo would have the final decision on if something was a game. However, Nintendo stuck with Phillips, and allowed their franchises (Mario and Zelda) to go on the CD-i.
Sony decided to limit their losses, and sell the Playstation. They didn't have a marketing budget, but they had plowed money into R&D (up until the Playstation, consoles used off-the shelf processors from electronics companies), and they cut deals with the third parties that were getting squeezed by Nintendo. Nintendo's policies were designed to keep the third parties weak, and while some bolted to Genesis, Nintendo was always too big to alienate. When the PSX started selling, Sony manuevered to push the product line.
The N64 being cartridge based is rumored to be a result of the Sony deal. They probably had a 5 or 6 year commitment to only support the Play Station CD-ROM system, keeping them off the discs. However, there is a lot of evidence to support that their in house developers hated load times and wanted the system to be kid friendly. Personally, I liked the cartridges, including the memory on the cartridge. I don't like needing to be careful with the discs so I don't scratch them, and FMV bored me.
Alex
A good point. I'm sure that's very impressive (I am more than a little jealous). However, only one among my circle of friends has an X-Box, or is in the economic position to own one. So, having a multi-X-Box party sounds great, but it sounds great the same way having a Battletech VR rig in my living room sounds great. "Oh, if only we were rich, Marge, rich as astronauts!"
Whereas GTA III's replay value pays off right here and now. No slam against Halo (again, I really enjoyed it), but you see what I'm getting at.
The original generation Atari 5200 had 4 ports, N-64 was second. :)
Granted only Super Breakout supported it, and the second round of Atari 5200s only had two ports (had to replace my machine when it died, played a nice backup machine to the NES, different types of games).
Alex
...which one do you like better? :+) (I don't have either so I'm curious).
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
The Christmas trading season probably skewed the US figures somewhat, but Japan, Europe and Australia tell a similar story. The Xbox was launched in Australia on March 14 for $A649, more than $A100 more than the PS2. It sold 9000 in the first week (after MS said they would sell 20,000-30,000) and about 3000 a week since then. The PS2 has been outselling the Xbox two to one, with average monthly sales of 6000 a week. Part of this is to do with the fact that PS2 has a special entertainment pack (with DVDs etc) on offer at the moment, but it's still extraordinary.
And yes, the retailers' attitude makes a huge difference. One of the biggest retail chains in Australia, Harvey Norman, has actually refused to stock the Xbox because they weren't going to make any margin.
There is a collection of here that tells the story.
No headphones, lots of speakers and yelling at each other. Makes it feel a lot more real with battle noise from all around.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
The first console system I bought was a 8bit NES.
:)
The next console I got was a dreamcast. I won it. I like it a bunch. The controllers are "right". The built-in online story is cool, but it never materialized. The graphics are good. The game quality was unsurpassed.
The vast majority of games for the PS1, IMO, are crap. Jaggies, no quality control, low resolution, etc etc. I liked FF7, because i liked FF1 on the NES. Look at something like GT or GT2, compare it to Sega GT. I'd pick Sega GT everytime. Look at Ferarri F355 challenge - it is the KING of driving simulations.
So when I was contemplating a new console purchase, I was excited about PS/2 because it looked cool. But on launch day, there wasn't a single title I wanted. Not a single one. Where was the launch-title racing game ? Non-existant.
No, I had to wait until GT3 came out before there was even one PS2 title that interested me.
Luckily a friend bought one and i played GT3 a whole bunch, and while its fun, well, its pretty easy. I still prefer Sega GT on the dreamcast to it, playwise.
So the next game I cared about on PS2 was MGS2. Luckily, another friend had that, and we beat it one weekend. Boy am I glad i didn't pay for _that_ bullshit. I love the tanker level. By the end of the game i was ready to fucking kill that stupid bitch. There is no place for Kojima's political and social consequences bullshit in a game I want to play. And how plausible is it that your girlfriend is your weird military communicator person. If i wanted a fucking bitch that always bugged me every second with stupid emotional crap, well then i'd get a real life high-maintenance girlfriend.
Finally, there's GTA3. Now here is a game thats actually pretty damn fun. This was almost a system seller for me.
Luckily though, I had been paying close attention to XBox. In so many ways, it is like the dreamcast. The controllers are done right (it is such a farce that the "analog buttons" on the PS2 are analog buttons. How do you properly modulate the throttle and brakes with the butttons on the PS2 controller ? Compared to the dreamcast---and XBox-- analog triggers, racing games on the ps2 controller are a joke)
The built-in netowrk connection is _there_ on xbox. From day one, its ethernet baby. I only wished that more games had supported the dreamcast ethernet adaptor. I already have a home lan, i just dropped a ethernet jack to my a/v room in the house, and now i've got a networked xbox.
Look at the titles on XBOX today. Obviously, there's Halo, and everyone likes it. Theres DOA3 - the best looking fighter on any platform IMO (and the best playing.. but, i was a DOA2 lover on DC so theres my DC bias
Next, theres Fusion Frenzy, which has to be about one of hte most accessible and fun party games there is (its one of hte only games i've seen un-interested non-gamer chicks play). Theres project gotham, which is one of the most frustrating and rewarding arcade racers ever (and a dreamcast holdover made right).
And finally, theres the king. Rallisport Challenge. All other rally games can go home. Now.
What about JSRF ? What about wreckless ? Gunvalkyrie ?
So when i look at xbox, the hardware is there, the gaming experience is there, and the games are there - today. When I consider the games coming around the corner (Sega GT 2002), and the imminent online story (that will actually _work_, because ethernet is in every xbox, from day one), and the wonderul experience of gaming with a hard drive...
xbox was an easy choice.
Hopefully, it will work out better than dreamcast. But even if it doesn't, if xbox went away tomorrow, i'd stil have a bunch of games that i love playing and that look better, sound better, and play better than anything else on any other platform.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
I feel I'm qualified to comment on this, and I find it rather funny that you have to attack me on this one. System architecture has always interested me since it helps me in my day job as well.
XBox: P3 with 1/2 the normal cache, laptop BGA package. GPU is a base Geforce 3 with some GF4 features mainly the extra shaders. Custom DirectX API to support the hardware since ATI/NVIDIA/MSFT are still fighting about what the 'standard' should be. The GPU's texture buffer shares system memory through the northbridge chipset designed by NVidia. NV also designed the I/O (MCP) ASIC which contains the real-time DD encoding, sound, and ethernet portions. 64MB DDR DRAM. 8 or 6 GB Hard drive from Maxtor or Western Digital used for saved games, custom audio, and swap space. 2-5x CAV DVD drive.
Playstation 2: 128-bit RISC-like CPU apparently designed by Sony running at almost 300 MHz. 32 MB RDRAM. Math coprocessor with vector units capable of 6.2 GFLOPS. Graphics are a custom synthesizer running at almost 150 MHz, with 4MB of Embedded DRAM for textures. Sound is also seperate, having 2 MB. The IOP is the PS1 processor running at 37 MHz, 2MB of embedded memory. It controls the IEEE 1394 and USB ports, as well the controllers and Memory Cards. Disc is a 24x CD-ROM/4x DVD-ROM.
Commentary: If the PS1 CPU can run the I/O, it must be a generic CPU! *gasp*
Also, you use the term "Architecture" pretty freely. At the highest level, both consoles have a main CPU, a GPU, Memory/cache, and I/O. Just because the XBox uses technology that mostly already exists (much like PS2's IOP) doesn't make it a PC. The PS2 isn't unique, it's just wired differently. Please don't confuse yourself.
That's right, every single person, at least everyone reading this, should own an X-box.
Why?
Microsoft supporters can buy one and enjoy the rather excellent games available for it, and
Microsoft... Um, non-supporters can buy one knowing that Microsoft loses over one hundred U.S. Dollars with each purchase, not buy any games for it, and install Linux to serve a website that makes fun of the hourly IIS 'sploits.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
My bad, you didn't say "unique" but to me it was inferred.
the fact that you don't already know this says to me that you are unqualified to argue about this
I quoted the specs back to you because you seemed to claim that I wasn't familiar with the internals of the XBox and the PS2. I am. All I wanted to "retort" was the fact that the XBox and PS2 are both computers. They both have generic CPU's that instruct dedicated hardware, much like the box under my desk. The line behind embedded system and PC vanished many years ago.
I have taken much humor in the fact that that the sole argument for your Xbox==TV-PC claim is that Intel and NVidia are major players in the XBox as well as the Dell/Compaq market. That, sir, is an argument without merit, but I have appreciated the distraction.
"Game sales are crucial because they are highly profitable, unlike the Xbox hardware, which Microsoft sells below cost in order to keep consumer prices down."
I would enjoy the irony running Linux on one of these, at least until I got tired of its lack of power/ethernet/etc. I think I'll wait till they drop in price a couple hundred bucks.
What do you want to bet Sony's going to let M$ throw a lot of money down the tube for a while and then destroy them for Christmas with their next-generation machine.
I played the street fighter type game for X-Box in Japan in a demo on the street and the graphics were spectacular. But um, I saw same or better (I think much better) rendering of the same game in a demo on HDTV, playing on an Akihabara which is the biggest electronics downtown street in Tokyo. This was 1-2 YEARS ago. (Just get enough rendering time on the Onyx..) Of course it was totally stunning but we'll all have that in a couple years. Please tell me how Microsoft is going to win a war by dumping tons of cash to stay just ahead of the polygon crunching stats war? Hint: They're pretty soon going to need a fuckload and buy everyone better TVs if that's their claim to fame.
Oh, I forgot, they also make windows. Guess what Sony's next target will be..
I had a hell of a time getting one as well - I succeeded out of pure stubornness. Only one blockbuster in town had an XBox for rent, and only one had Halo for rent - and the two were *not* close together, not remotely close together. The average consumer would have given up long before, but we were stubborn and determined.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Does it look ergonmic at ALL?
Have you ever seen an ergonomic fencing handle?
You can't take the sky from me...
The real winner here is the consumer, who has the choice of XBox, Gamecube, PS2, and even the dirt-cheap leftover Dreamcasts.
See the other posts. As was pointed out (not even by me, as I'm not a financial expert) - that's not cash. That's marketable securities, so while they have 'book value' of $38B, they don't actually have $38B cash in hand.
That said, you can't buy certain companies. You can buy the company, but the talent may or may not come with it, especially if it's an unwanted buyout. With game developers, you're MUCH better off saying you'll give them lots and lots of money "if they don't develop for other systems" - but the developers can still CHOOSE, and if X-Box is dead in the water, they probably won't take any amount of money, because they want to see their game succeed, not flounder.
MS is not going to win this with money. The only way they can win this is with 1) good games, and 2) exclusive games (lots of games doesn't help: if the PS2 has the games already, the PS2's got the mindshare, and people will buy the PS2) and 3) a LOT of hype. They don't have 1, they don't have 2, and they're losing 3. Game over, Microsoft. You lost this round. Stick in the game, learn the rules, and maybe you'll play better in the second round.
I've been wondering lately if there is an inverse correlation between the economy as a whole and videogame sales.
During the '30s the movie industry was churning out bad movies at an incredible rate and raking in the dough (that's what they called money back then). This has sometimes been attributed to the the fact that it was an interesting way to burn a lot of time which didn't cost a lot but took people's minds off their own problems.
It was also the mode-o'-the-day entertainment technology.
All of which pretty much describes a really addictive computer or video game. Perhaps a good recession is just what the gaming industry (hey, games were big in the Depression as well) needs.
Or perhaps I'm just trying to rationalize my probably-irrational desire to start a game-design company.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.