Slashdot Mirror
Why The X-Box Network Will Fail
angkor wrote to us an article from The Register that looks at what Microsoft is planning for the X-Box Network. The factual information is educating on it's own - and the analysis of why they think it will fail is interesting as well.
We just want the X-box to fail soooo bad, don't we?
yay slashdot
This article sounds like wishful thinking at its best.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
So sayeth the flock.
Get the flock out of here!
They want you to get on the service and pay a fee per month. This way you are subscribed and you don't own the product. You are only "licensed to use it."
The thing is that this is a proven profitable model. Look at Ultima online. It's pulling in a cool US$million every month with no signs of stopping. And Everquest is delivering on similar dreams of avarice.
It seems to me like MSFT is trying to cash in in the same manner with using a proven business model.
Seriously, why are we so fascinated with failure. It's like some gossip rag that's so excited by some movie star getting busted for drugs.
The factual information is educating on it's own.
Sheesh. Would you dorks learn the difference between the contraction it's and the possessive its? "The factual information is educating on it is own" ? Thppft.
Well, it would step on some toes though ;-)
There are just 3 factors that will decide whether the XBOX Live Network will fail or not:
1) The amount of playable games.
2) The quality of the service (reliability, speed, etc).
3) The price.
XBOX does indeed have a very good amount of games coming, theres no denial for that. Unreal Championship is one, MechWarrior is another and more and more are being announced. However, the 2nd factor is what I think will decide the fate of this Network. If it's avaible to a lot of people, is relatively fast and is reliable, then you can count on a lot of people shelling out quite a lot for it.
Yet somehow, I wouldn't count on the service actually being as reliable as they claim it to be.
MS goes for control, Disneyesque experience for Xbox Live
Microsoft habitually announces billion dollar bets that aren't really, but Xbox Live really is one. That's not to say the stated billions are correct of course, but if this one flops it'll still cost Redmond a pretty penny. In the event of failure Microsoft would be left clutching four datacentres, a sophisticated broadband voice, data and messaging network waiting for clients that aren't coming, and - bizarrely - some kind of online Disneyesque experience.
And it's risky because - as was not the case in the pre-XP hype period - Microsoft is trying to carve its way into and dominate an entirely new market that it doesn't already own. As The Register has been known to observe in the past, Microsoft is actually not very good at this kind of stuff, so don't get your hopes up (or do, depending on your inclinations).
The script for Xbox Live is approximately as follows. It will roll out around Q3 of this year in the form of a $49.95 starter kit that contains Xbox Communicator, a game and a year's sub to Xbox Live. Prices outside of the US haven't been disclosed yet, although after the bloody nose Xbox collected in Europe this spring, presumably we're not going to be too greedy this time. Prices for continuing subscription don't appear to have been set at all yet, but it'd be a surprise if the target wasn't something like $9.95 a month.
The important bit isn't the money as such, but what you get for it. Microsoft will have a clutch of games ready for the big push, headlined by Star Wars Galaxies and online versions of current Xbox games, including Halo. Lucasfilm is also developing the Star Wars title for Sony, however, so this probably isn't the one that's going to sell the network on its own.
Microsoft does however need Xbox Live to drive Xbox sales. Even if current sales levels can be sustained over the next few months it's doubtful that there will be more than ten million Xbox units out there by the time of the Xbox Live launch. Sony sold 30 million PS2s in the first year, which means Microsoft has a mountain to climb. Games sell consoles, developers target the consoles they're likely to get the most sales from, therefore the prize goes to whoever has the most units out there, and anyone who wants the prizes will have to spend heavily to get the units.
The economics of online gaming may change that to an extent, in that a successful network could produce a healthy rental income of approximately $10 per member per month. But again, games will sell networks, and Microsoft will need to spend to get the self-feeding cycle going. We wouldn't be at all surprised if the kit was bundled with Xbox for free in Q4.
The key difference between Xbox Live and Sony's version is that Microsoft's is controlled/closed/paid for, while Sony is going for a looser approach, which for the moment seems to consist of selling the adaptor, enabling online gaming then standing back to see what happens. In some senses this means that Microsoft could view Sony as not competing at all, but the difference does leave scope for Redmond to suffer an embarrassing self-inflicted defeat. If Sony's initial experience is good, it will undoubtedly put more muscle behind online gaming, and will have left itself sufficient room to undercut Microsoft or just blitz it out of the business with a free service.
That would require some investment on the server side, but one does kind of wonder why the blazes one needs four whole datacentres with more capacity than microsoft.com to run an online gaming network. MS senior VP Robert Bach gave some hostages to fortune here to John Markoff, in a piece published in the NYT yesterday, and the release itself offers some more clues.
Bach "said the company was planning a service that he compared to Disneyland for its safe, wholesome environment - in contrast to the 'Coney Island' he said that the open Internet can sometimes become. 'Compare Coney Island to Disneyland,' he said. 'When you're at Disneyland, there's no trash, no violence and you never see security. That's what we have in mind.'"
Actually, The Register has seen security, looking chillingly like the feared French CRS riot police, at Disneyland Paris, but they might have been with the RER, so we'll let that pass. Bach is actually telling us about another big, dangerous bet Microsoft is making; the company is estimating that parents will be the people who actually decide which networks are appropriate and who therefore gets the money. This would seem to us to be a big blooper, because although teens and above can like Disyneyland, they generally like it because of the great rides, not because it's wholesome. And what kind of games do teens plus like? Exactly - Bach would do better pitching this network as Coney Island without getting mugged, but that might interfere with Microsoft's attempts to present itself as the safe, wholesome Disyneyland of software. Sony, we would estimate, has more sense and fewer scruples.
Aside from crunching power on the virtual Disyneyland, the datacentres will be dealing with other stuff, some familiar, some not so. There will be Gamertag, a unique online ID for each member that can be used across the entire network. Note that this is a unique ID that's being pushed as a positive feature, which may be something of a first. There will also be a buddies list, which is again familiar, and voice communication, which "enables voice interaction with teammates and opponents."
That's going to soak up a good bit of datacentre, and has massive potential for embarrassment for Redmond. Which it seems to have thought about, if only a little. Again speaking to the NYT Xbox general manager J Allard (why so bashful, J? Doesn't stand for Java, does it?) said it would include a voice masking feature that would conceal identities and ages to deter adult expoitation of children online. Which it might, but what about foul language and general abuse? Sure you can monitor for abusers and kick them before the parents go ballistic, but considering how good online services (Microsoft included) aren't at doing this already, one doubts this will happen, and one can see the Disney experience crumbling.
The central difficulty as we see it is that kids like doing horrible things online, talking dirty, playing unsuitable games and worse, that online services protect themselves by denying responsibility, and that parents accidentally protect themselves by not having any clear understanding of what their kids are up to in the first place. This system kind of works, just check your son's palms for hair every now and again, and the Internet facilitates it. Attempts by services to control and sanitise the experience too much are doomed to failure, because the potential customers won't come to the old 'parallel, controlled and secure Internet' gag. Microsoft still has time not to try this one again, but if it does, it won't work. Again.
Big surpise this article comes from Register who has made it its sole purpose to badmouth MS.
Anyhow, it's unfortunate that the Register is so shortsighted. People love to say how the XBox is losing money, or can't possibly ever make a profit, or how Live will fail, etc.
They don't realize that gaming isn't the only thing MS has planned for the XBox. MS, and many other companies, have always wanted an integrated home media box that does everything from check your email, to help you plan a grocery list, to play video games.
The XBox is just the first part of the plan. Live is the second. Next, media boxes with interactive television.
It's unfortunate that the Register is on such a crusade that they can't see the forest from the trees.
Just in case The Register gets slashdotted, there's an american version of the site called The USA Register with the story here
We already have a tool for online gaming - the computer. Consoles are elegant in their simplicity; put in a disc (or cartridge, for you old-skoolers) and play away. No hassles, no logging on, just gaming, pure and simple.
What Microsoft is doing may be a good idea, but it's better IMHO to create a network for where they're already dominant, the PC market.
I am the evil aardvark!
I'm assuming all this is supposed to work over dialup?
I don't see how you could have a decent FPS session complete with voice chat over a dialup line.
Also, I pay ~$50 a month for broadband, which lets me play just about every online game free of charge. Even if the network is compatible with existing broadband connections, who is going to pay an extra $10 to do what they can already do with cheaper/better games (Star Wars Galaxies sucks BTW, which they are going to try and make their killer XBOX Live app).
Unless they pipe in gigabit connection in, I don't see anyway for this to fly.
Some may remember the hubub last week about EA expressing an unwillingness to participate in the XBox network, citing (among other things) Microsoft wanting a piece of the pie, as opposed to Sony's free-for-all approach.
Says the RIAA: When you EQ, you're stealing bass!
The only way M$ will dominate the market is by a pyric victory, they will have to spend so much money it just isnt worth it in the end.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
When you look at how people really behave and cut through some cultural taboos, amazing things happen.
Bech said the company was planning a service that he compared to Disneyland for its safe, wholesome environment - in contrast to the 'Coney Island' he said that the open Internet can sometimes become. 'Compare Coney Island to Disneyland,' he said. 'When you're at Disneyland, there's no trash, no violence and you never see security. That's what we have in mind.
Come on... this is a gaming network, not a theme park.
Kind of like a Microsoft OS, you never see security...
There's no "I" in Linux.. err..
Fewer scruples? Than Microsoft? <Bill_And_Ted>Whoa</Bill_And_Ted>
Best Slashdot Co
My stance on Microsoft is literally militaristic. That said, my wishes are that Microsoft fail with every single venture that they try, starting with the X-Box.
Wow, really? Because as we all know, The Register has never been anything but impartial and fair when dealing with Microsoft in the past...
I can already hear the trolls licking their lips to get onto this service ;-)
Kinds makes goatse tricks seem tame.
What is the MS business plan for XBox Live?
50 Bucks per user per year. 50 bucks per year isn't enough to cover basic infrastructure much less anything else. They are sinking money in data centers and support. Then they have to give a cut to the game makers.
Lets say 10% (an overly hopeful figure) of XBox owners sign up. If we come up with another hopeful figure of 6 million total XBox owners in 3 months time.
600,000 x $50 = 30,000,000 million revenue.
Heh, that isn't even enough to pay for the yearly bandwidth costs. This is nothing but another giant earnings hole for MS. MS is going to put 2 Billion into developing this?
Microsoft compares XBox Live to Disneyland? Microsoft is touting games such as counter-strike and halo and in the same breath comparing that bloody fragmire to Disneyland? The real counter-strike players of the world already have their playgrounds. Even though those playgrounds are frequently home to cheating, the advantages of open and player controlled servers far outweigh whatever disneyland-effect that MS is hoping for. That market is taken. And don't even get started on the hopelessness of playing FPS shooter with a console gamepad.
Could MS have anymore disregard for the concerns of their stockholders? This is a pure financed by the desktop monopoloy blackop against Sony and Nintendo in a last ditch effort to save the XBox (2.5 million sold) which at this point has been outsold by the GameCube (4.2 million sold) nearly 2 to 1.
We all know that Microsoft is losing money on the deal, so by buying an xbox, we create some demand for the machine and more will be produced to meet this demand. Thus by buying an xbox, you get your video games and you hurt the man at the same time.
Of course this falls apart if they quit producing new xboxes but it is interesting to think about at the same time. I wonder if this online service will be profitable either - i.e. will the subscription price defray the costs of the network or is M$ just going to lose more money?
It's almost like they are *trying* to lose money when they are so far in the hole yet they continue to push the xbox.
"I turn away with fright and horror from the lamentable evil of functions which do not have derivatives."
Who'da thunkit ?
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
We would have a consule with old games ported from other consules, programs made to mimic other consoles, and it would be the prefect low end DVD player with free software for changing channels, recording, and displaying UHF signals. It would have a small but rabid following of users that hate the other consoles, but in secret really want the respect that other consoles get from the world. Although it would have better software for core fuctions, it's playablity would suffer from poor graphics, and sad user friendlyness.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
The article takes into account the progress of Xbox since last year to now. I too believed intially that Xbox is on its last legs, but after looking at what the Xbox team has in store for this year and what games they have worked with developers in producing Xbox may have a chance yet.
Exclusive titles, online thing, getting Sony to blink first on the price war. Most importantly is the first point exclusive good titles, not some junk no one will buy but they realize the market and making the exclusive are the games people will flock to that happen to work into the Xbox Live.
Wouldn't it just make a better business case to dump all the kiddies who'll go with Nintendo
anyway and produce an online virtual porn park? I mean just think of the VR those 4 datacentres
could cook up not to mention the revenue MS could bring in by selling special , umm , attachments
for the machine....
This looks to me more like an end-run around the internet itself. It will essentially run in a tunnel through the existing infrastructure, but at some point in the future, there's no reason that they couldn't migrate on to something else, say a wireless network that had its own protocols, address scheme, etc. Bill Gates has been kicking himself in the ass for the last 10 years because he didn't discover the internet soon enough to dominate it, and he's got to be salivating at the idea of an essentially private user space that he controls lock stock and barrel. If he pursued this for all it was worth, he could do it with his other $39 billion... I wonder what kind of return on his investment he would eventually get?
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
It might fail, or it might not...
Food for thought:
1) Which is the strongest driving force for Console/Console-Accessories/Console-Games:
a) Whinning kids.
b) Grownups buying presents.
This whole MS approach to selling a "clean" network for kids to play in will appeal to parents but not necessarily to the kids.
2) Can/Will Microsoft buy legislation forcing ISPs/GameNetworks/etc... to "protect" children?
If they get there first and then they buy the legislation, they will be first to market with a product designed to fit that legislation (actually it will be the legislation designed to fit the products, but in practice it's the same).
Would it really piss off the xxAA? Let's see... They have copy-crippled format. They have a Microsoft only network. They have monthly fees. They have the cash. Why couldn't they just pay the media industry for the rights to use their content?
What are the most popular on line games?
First person shooters and RPGs.
Why would anyone want a forum for first person shooters and RPGs to be known as Disney-esque in any way? These games are mainly about killing stuff and in many cases have extreme graphic violence. I think someone got their focus group polls crossed up.
If the core of on-line gaming was 12 year olds they might have something, but if the core was 12 year olds then Nintendo would be the king of all gaming anyway.
I'm fairly sure they will be dropping this comparison in the future, or at least trying to explain how it was not taken the way it was intended.
The problem with the piece is that John Lettice approaches the subject from an axe grinding position that blinds him to judging anything on its own merits. Microsoft? Ooh, it's just gotta be bad. The Xbox Live approach is thus far the only fully formed end-to-end solution for adding online to the console world in a way that delivers a consistent consumer service, minimizes the infrastructure requirements to developers, and insures a revenue stream to make this a worthwhile thing to do for both the platform company (Microsoft) and small developers who don't want to run a back end operation and the related hassles for billing and customer support. If it doesn't grow the market in a big way online is simply betterleft to the PC realm which is better suited to small but profitable niche markets. The companies like EA that claim MS want to control everything are blowing smoke up the public's collective hinder. What they're really saying is "WE want to control everything and most importantly not share so much as a penny of the revenue with anyone else." Considering that EA has managed to dump over $100 million down their online sinkhole I'm more than a little interested in seeing someone else take on the task. THe Xbox setup doesn't prevent a developer from going their own way on online activity. It would just be very stupid on their part to waste resources duplicating the work and facilities already built by someone who can afford to shoulder the long term risk in pursuit of developing a new market. At the other end of the spectrum it's easy to see why Nintendo is taking the approach of, "Here's the modem and Ethernet if you want to try something but don't expect any deeper involvement from us." Nintendo has been beating their head against the wall of online ventures for consoles since the mid-80's. Although I'm sure their management appreciates that it is an extremely different environment for such things today, especially the broadband aspect, it will be up to others to prove this is a worthwhile business. Even if they have to scramble to catch up later giving it a pass is a better thing to do right now while they have no shortage of opportunities to make massive sales intheir proven markets.
Right now, it does look like M$ are throwing good money after bad, in some respects..
But, theres not much doubt they have the resouces to do that. And sooner or later, they might just swing things by getting hold of some killer online game and getting exclusive rights to it.
I personally already feel tempted by Morrowind (The daggerfall follow-up) since its cheaper then a PC that could run it and I REALLY want the game.
So, sure, a smaller company would be dead in the water, but the X-Box while in trouble, might yet prove theres no problem you cannt solve by throwing enought money at.
I saw the light at the end of the tunnel... But it was just someone with a flashlight bringing more work.
Although I think Microsoft has a really tough row to hoe and the fact that I am not a fan of Microsoft, I still have to diss this article. It has a number of facts wrong. First the $9.95 covers a years worth of subscription. There is no hardware to purchase such as is the case in the PS2. I frankly don't see the differnce between paying the subscription or being forced to buy hardware. The price is going to be about the same.
The other item that I have a problem with is that it is suggested that people won't pay to play online. Wow is that wrong, look at Everquest alone, (not including other pay buy month MMPORG's), it now ranks as having an economy that is larger than a bunch of real countries out there. People will pay and people will play. It's going to boil down to who has the better game line up. That is PS2, (for now).
they don't want to believe?
Sure, on technical merits, gameplay, any "quality" issue, I'll grant you that it's probably a flop. But no one seems to understand, maybe they're blinded by love for the gamecube or ps2.
Microsoft is doing more than just trying to leverage into another hot market... this plan is so much bolder than that. They're out to chop the knees out from under Dell, HPaq, and Gateway.
Xbox2, most likely, but possibly xbox3 will be the "home computer". It will be marketed as such, a computer that is "so much simpler to use" and never has compatibility problems caused by all sorts of 3rd party drivers. It will be cheaper too, loaded with software and still well under then $700 price mark that consumer pc's are shooting for. This too, will look like a failure
But it will just be beginning. Next version will be the Xbox Corporrate edition, loaded with the new version of Office XP, cheaper, with no annoying expansion possibilities. Relatively nicer licensing... cheaper, easier for your bonhead MCSE's to administrate, and having the latest office software 6 months before it's released on the PC.
And linux won't run on it, ever. They'll find some way, even if it means adding chips with no purpose other than to thwart it. And no matter how good at reverse engineering you are, what happens when you recieve the DMCA cease and desist?
At this point, the Xbox family will be making serious inroads into the desktop PC market, without annoying competitor operating systems. Maybe 40% - 50%, which in an industry with razor thin profit margins, will kill Gateway. Hpaq will hold on, and Dell will license it... the Dellbox will debut. No, I'm not kidding.
Also, at this point, the price starts to rise on bare mobo's even more, as the taiwanese manufacturers see the advantages of high volume manufacturing evaporate. These are the same people that make mobo's for Dell, and if they aren't making those, the cost slightly rises on *ALL* their products. And as someone that builds your own box, you are further marginalized... people laugh at you for spending that much more on a system that can't run Halo 5.
Now, M$ starts to really drag ass with the PC versions of Office. Salesmen that arrange licensing with the Fortune 500 starrt pushing the Xbox 5: Professional Edition as the only real choice with a future, Microsoft may not be able to continue the cost of developing M$ Office PC edition, and you don't want to be stuck with 10,000 machines that won't be able to run the latest software.
Market, better than 70% at this point. All the industry rags coo and blush, telling how M$ cleaned things up when customer service was in the toilet. The PR campaign is heavy duty now. Prices continue to rise, and HPaq gets out of the consumer PC market, content to sell servers and laserjets. Dell is licensing Xbox, but still retaining the PC line... but prices rise due to no serious competition.
The DOJ initiates an investigation into further illegal monopoly practices, but this will take years, and M$ buys the right politicians. Whenever anyone important and unsilencable bitches, they hold up Dell like ventriloquists hold up the dummy and insist he really is real, and talking.
The market share of Xbox hits 80%, with %5 for mac zealots (no offense, I have 12 macs myself guys) that only leaves 15% for the do-it-your-selfers and linux zealots (no offense guys, I have 5 linux machines, including Amiga Linux, on a 2k). At this point, Dell does a press release how there really isn't enough market to support selling general purpose PC's. There are lots of little 2nd and 3rd tier vendors... but none that make any inroads into the corporate or even medium sized privately owned businesses. Plus, the cost for general purpose components is now through the roof, and taiwan is bleeding hardware manufacturers left and right.
I'm thinking Intel will be compelled to go along with it, knowing that they'll have exclusive for the Xbox cpu, and still retaining their server market. Places that need mid-range to high end rackmount servers, if they use x86, have always shrugged off paying $600 for a motherboard, $200 for a nic. They won't notice.
At about this point, M$ will quit supporting mac, which may be the only viable alternative.
And you thought it was just an ugly games machine.
They're trying to use NetBEUI!
(HAHA)
While El Reg does love to bash Microsoft (one of the reasons I read it!) they also have a point here about the various companies different strategies for online gaming.
MS is building a theme park, and will charge a toll for players and (probably) for game companies too. Sony is staying out of the expensive business of physically connecting game players to game servers, and instead letting the game developers provide the servers. If the history of the Internet so far is any guide, Sony's approach is more likely to succeed.
--
E_NOSIG
Gamertag ... *cough* passport *cough*
The article does have some very good points, but underestimates the power of the MS marketing department.
The article could probably be right, but still. There is already 10.000.000 sets out there and that is likely to increase. MS will give away that Xbox-live pack with every new console, just to get the initial crowd in place.
MS might forget a couple of things though. Like mentioned in the article, they're going for the wrong crowd (parents iso teens). But the article forgets that Xbox-live will probably be the biggest/best online gaming option for the Xbox, which will have 10 million+ sets out there.
One thing I am missing in the article is : what about the bandwidth on the users side ? I'm sure MS can buy the biggest datacenters in the world, and implement all the cool features mentioned. But if the users don't have enough bandwidth to make use of it... then the disney experience will be a burst bubble. People get annoyed easily.
And they don't control that (yet).
More specifically - Fantasyland.
Fewer scruples then MS? And this is coming from the Register? Those guys really know how to insult Sony.
Attempts by services to control and sanitise the experience too much are doomed to failure, because the potential customers won't come to the old 'parallel, controlled and secure Internet' gag
I just don't get it, why does MSFT just HAVE to try and control everything they get thier hands on! Sure, I think that joining a voice over IP system with a console game is a great idea, so is console gaming with multiplayer internet, but unique id's? Disneyland? I read that - anti piracy and censureship. Two things that not only will give them a significant benifit, but the public will hate. They always package it up nice, to try and get you to think it's desireable, but the thing they are missing is the fact that they don't totally own this market, and unlike with windows, the average home user is not someone who knows nothing about the product or how to use it. The end users are mostly teenagers and young adults who have been at this gaming thing a while, and have other choices than the MSFT console. I think they will find that in a competitive market people don't have to, and won't, stand for 'big brother' controling thier game experiance.
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
I think the name was 'Indrema'.
"Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
...and essentially negate all of microsoft's effort. perhaps you have heard of sony records, or sony's movie studios. is microsoft really interested in purchasing content? and, from sony? a ps2 with ethernet and the software you mention, would allow sony to simply feed the beast it created.
Note: I have the XBox and enjoy it, however I won't subscribe to ANY game service from ANYONE. Just not worth it. That said....
Read the article. It's not $50 a year, it's $50 to get started (Mike/Headset + Game + 1 year free) then $9.95 per month afterwards. So the answer is ~$120.00 per year after the first year, which changes the formula somewhat.
First:
6,000,000 x$50 = 300,000,000 million revenue
600,000 x $50 = 30,000,000 million revenue
Second:
6,000,000 x $120 = 720,000,000 million revenue
600,000 x $120 = 72,000,000 million revenue
Now is there enough money to host 4 datacenters?
I have one last point.
$10.00 per month to play any XBox game on line (that is supported)
$10.00 per month for each game company (EA etc.)
If I were to subscribe to a service I like the $10.00 for all model better.
MS has the money and power to hang in until things turn around, sure they will take a loss but in the long run they will eventually carve out a market share. What will make the difference is game content, and MS has that, the games coming out for xbox are excellent, and even games which are released cross platform are being supped-up for the xbox. Meanwhile Nintendo Released the Game Cube without any real flagship games, and we are still waiting on them.
Yes, MS will lose a lot of money,
Yes, MS is an evil mega giant,
but the xbox is a good machine, the online subscription based business model has been proven to work, provided there was good games to back it up.
So this Mickey mouse BS isn't worth a row of beans because the avg. gamer is there to play games and doesn't care about the security guards in the corner with the mouse ears.
All this rambling has a point, that the software will, in the end, decide the fate of Xbox.
Geoffrey Cameron Peart
McMaster Software Engineering
Monkies? I like Monkies
Microsoft is not good at infecting and then dominating new markets? Hello? Does anyone here remember when Word was considered a joke among users when compared with Word Perfect? Anyone remember when Netscape actually had a share of the Windows market? Anyone notice the upsurge in usage of Windows Media Player? What about that 32-bit hack to a 16-bit desktop OS (aka NT) that is now trusted and used by the US government and the world over?
Love it or hate it, do not laugh when Microsoft has its eyes set on a new market. They have the money, they have the marketing, and they have the power to simply outmuscle anyone who gets in their way. (Isn't that what this whole lawsuit regarding IE is about, in fact?)
If Sony's initial experience is good, it will undoubtedly put more muscle behind online gaming, and will have left itself sufficient room to undercut Microsoft or just blitz it out of the business with a free service...
Ha ha ha. Just try it. I will bet that a free service and blitzing is exactly Microsoft's tactics in this arena. They are infamous for releasing a product (often of inferior quality), and once it develops a stable enough userbase using their money and their might to simply give it a way and force their competitors to follow suit or die. Remember those posts on Slashdot about how Microsoft has amassed enough liquid assests to buy a small country? What do you think they're building that war chest for?
Bach is actually telling us about another big, dangerous bet Microsoft is making; the company is estimating that parents will be the people who actually decide which networks are appropriate and who therefore gets the money...
Sorry, folks, but the mid-20s geeks who like violent and mature games are a minority. Parents are concerned about violence in video games (watch the news whenever there's a school shooting or other such incident.) Anyone (even Microsoft) knows that Sony has cornered the mature gamer market. This is why Nintendo has remained in the kiddy corner ever since the PS1 went live. Nintendo is not moving into online gaming at all. Online gaming will most likely pick up speed, at which point every kid across the country is going to want to play. When that happens, Microsoft will be ready.
Sure you can monitor for abusers and kick them before the parents go ballistic, but considering how good online services (Microsoft included) aren't at doing this already, one doubts this will happen, and one can see the Disney experience crumbling...
No kidding winston. That doesn't prevent protective parents from buying and/or using every monitoring, moderating and otherwise every form of kid protection possible in online media. We're talking about Microsoft here. The fact that it doesn't work is nothing new to them. More importantly, we see stories here every day about the fits parents can throw over internet access and games available to their kids. Microsoft is appealing to this market (which, for better or for worse, is substantial.) Microsoft is very good at selling things that don't work properly.
Don't be so sure that Microsoft is going to lose on this one. It may be a bungled product off to a bad start in a static market, but those are exactly the conditions Windows started off on.
It sounds like pretty much the same concept and bearing in mind the recent demise of Hailstorm they must find *some* way to recycle all the intellectual capital(??!) they poured into that...
A little planning goes a long way...
I think you are really wrong here. MS is out to prove something. They want to show that they can dominate a marketplace by simply providing a better product. They want to show that it doesn't matter if someone else already owns the market, they can still win. You say that teenagers won't stand for big brother type manufactures? I don't think they care, they just want the flashiest game playing experience out there. Simple said they xbox owns that trophy. Now they just need to line up some more game titles to hold on against sony.
What is to hinder anyone to provide their own network? Note that MS doesn't just want to provide the network to drive sales of games, they're looking for a source of income too (if we accept that MS is actually loosing money on the consoles, and has a hard time making up for it in sold games, let alone making some actual profit).
But if online networks are profitable, then the software publishers will want their share in that and won't leave it all to microsoft. Microsoft has not yet the leverage to dictate software publishers too rigid conditions, especially if they want said publishers to produce interesting online games for the Xbox, even more so as the puplishers could as well partner with Sony if they don't like MSs conditions.
So since Microsoft has no leverage to press their contracts on publishers like EA, what is to hinder them to draw up their own gaming network and compete with Microsoft? This could become even funnier if MS then got to be at the recieving end of the "being screwed by badly documented and slightly changed protocols" tactics: it's the publishers and programmers of the game that control its interfaces, and they could just do the very same thing to microsoft, that microsoft did to others with the "standard" for "Word".
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Factul information? Where? Interesting? About as interesting as your commentary Hemos. You should get out more if you thought that article was enlightneing and factual.
Final nail in Microsofts coffin. Who is going to give up their privacy and pay Microsoft to play games. Kids can already pay games over the internet and they do not need .NET. The BBS had games years ago kids were playing games over the internet long before Bill Gates and Microsoft came along. Rip off scam one big con. Sorry Bill Gates kids do not need any of your bogus shitware the kids can be found at http://www.linuxgames.com. Why would the kids want Microsoft when at school and home they are using Linux :) Microsoft Game = Monopoly $
Theory: Microsoft wants to monopolize the console market.
How to make it work: Why don't they just take X number of units and give them away? They can afford it, it wouldn't be a huge hit on their budget (judging by the cover of at least half a dozen magazines last month, they have some reserves). My theory on console games is that once people have the consoles, they'll buy the games. Coughing up $200 for a console and THEN coughing up $50 per game is a bit steep, but if people got the console for free, I think their train of thought would be "Well, I have this game console,I need some games" and they would buy them.
By saturating the market, they'll sell more games, have a larger player base and be the most popular. Once everybody knows at least 1 person that has an XBox, I garantee they would spread. Quality or not, you give someone the console and you've garanteed at least 1-3 game purchases. Not to mention if someone is given an XBox, they (more than likely) won't go out and buy the Gamecube or PS2, they'll spend that $150/$200 on 4 games for their XBox.
Just a thought...
--trb
"J Allard (why so bashful, J? Doesn't stand for Java, does it?)"
Oh come on. Does a childish dig like that belong in any respectable journalism?
Yes, it's true.
Just because they developed a kinda unfriendly OS there is no reason to hate the whole company and predict failings and spread bad mood.
The gaming sector of Microsoft has nothing in common with the part of the company that produces the OS, except the name.
Take a look at Microsoft hardware, the controllers, the joysticks, the mice. They deliver rock steady quality for a fair price.
And I think it's the same thing with gaming here. The guys responsible for that DO have the balls and the money to pull this thing off.
Why do we always have to bitch about EVERYTHING that MS does? Why can't we just be grateful that they give us more freedom in choosing our online/gaming console?
More drivers just improve the quality of the race.
So, let's see how they do, and hey, if it's cool don't be ashamed to use it.
Here's the summary in this article:
Although MS has a real plan, real financial muscle, and the technology to pull this off, we think it will fail because MS is too organized, and kids like to do naughty things online that Microsoft says they'll prevent.
I'm not saying MS will succeed, but I'd like to see real analysis and not knee jerk "Xbox is failing" arguments that we all seem to enjoy as a guilty pleasure.
I think MS stands a god*mn good chance of setting up the first viable multi-game network. They have the experience with MSN. I think they have every chance to succeed. But I may be wrong. But at least I admit my analysis is shallow and wrong. What's up with the Register?
Look, Mr. Bill Gates wants to everyting on X86 base.
That Xbox thing is not only game console. Its prototype of the M$ PC.
Also M$ wants all that X86 game market. Look current M$ games and upcomings.
Tellme that Dunegon Siege is better version of Diablo ?
Its very clean, M$ uses old tricks to against to PC game developers.
Are they creator of OS ? Yes, Are they creator of
DirectX ? yes. Are they had close reations with NVidia ? Yes.
Later or sooner, M$ will gain domiant game devloper/seller postion in X86 market.
Expecting other than "Dominance" from M$ is very mistaken.
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
The Xbox releases the online network.
6 months later: Xbox releases an add-on Digital Camera, allowing you to place video-phone calls over their network (while being monitored and recorded for sake of the children)
6 months later: XboxS Stereo system released - allowing people to trade approved WindowsMedia formatted music files over the internet, not allowing you to play CD-Rs. Adds realistic sound to the gaming experience.
6 months later: Xbox phone - Now you can receive all your phone calls through the Xbox, other xbox owners can do video-conference style calls, while all others you talk to like you are on a regular phone. Again a language filter is used to protect the children. All suspicious communications are recorded when keywords are spoken.
I can go on about where they could go with this, but I will stop here. Some things in life I don't want. I don't want my fridge to call the serviceman when it thinks it's going to break. I don't want my washer to call me or anyone else when it has finished a load. I don't want the same company to own ever appliance in my home.
...sony will rely on game publishers to supply online features, and will work with any Internet service. here's the article: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-919372.html
As far as kids tehy have their own credit cards these days and will be able to set up their own online accounts. So parents may be out of the picture in some households.
I want to know if the monthly fee for X-Box Live will allow you to play all of the games hosted on the service (provided you also own the game). If that is the case, then I think MSFT has a winner. I would rather pay one fee per month and be able to play all of my online games than have to pay separate fees for each game.
I imagine there is probably a small fee attached for ever game that you want to play though, otherwise how would the relationship between developers/publishers and MSFT work? It could still be worthwhile if the overall monthly price for two games on X-Box Live is less than the monthly price for two online games for PS2. Obviously.
In sum, the price and the company that comes to market first is going to win this battle and perhaps the console war. This battle is possibly more important than anything seen yet in this competition.
I'm amazed that I have yet to read a single article that draws together the most obvious strands of Microsoft's Xbox strategy.
1. It has nothing to do with the old razors/blades chestnut, whereby companies exclusively focused on gaming subsidized the hardware in order to make money on the software. Most commentators are so dazzled at their own brilliance in understanding that rather simple business strategy that they've failed to notice that the market has moved on, increased it's complexity and now has substantially expanded ambitions.
2. MS might be saying that their only focus is gaming but you'd have to be retarded to believe it. Their major international investments in cable companies make it obvious that some sort of Personal Video Recorder and possibly also basic decoder capability will work it's way into the next Xbox.
3. The current iteration of the Xbox is all about establishing it's credibility as a consumer device. They will achieve this because they have to and that sort of acceptance absolutely CAN be bought. I'm not saying that MS would madly throw money at this regardless of eventual profit but you have to realize that the eventual market they're aiming for is FAR larger than gaming.
4. Apart from PVR, Gaming, DVD and cable TV decoding, there's also the fact that the Xbox will be the hardware incarnation of MSN Messenger and THAT'S the biggest game in town. An often overlooked part of their upcoming online gaming package is the headset communicator that they're bundling with it. Stated purpose of this device: to allow gamers to lambast eachother while playing. Actual purpose: to allow millions of people to chat. THAT's why they're building data-centres with such massive capability. Think about it, they become the world's defacto IM service with no Yahoo or AOL to compete with them.
Let me just make this clear: the Xbox is going to be the world's telephone/watercooler/flirtation device. Your sister will buy one.
The proof: MS aren't going to reduce the Xbox's retail price any further but, by Xmas, they WILL add the headset communicator and a years subscription to the bundle. Seriously, this will happen.
Next, expect to see the introduction of a non-gaming based chat service by next summer.
5. MS don't have to keep lowering the Xbox price. In fact, a major sales channel that Sony and Nintendo don't have is the cable companies. Expect to see the Xbox offered as a rental item, for about $15 per month along with Xbox Live subscription and stripped-down broadband Internet Connectivity (i.e. Xbox only).
I'm not for or against MS, I'm just calling it as I see it. Personally, I might buy a GameCube when Pikmin is released. I might also buy an Xbox when it's functionality stretches, as I've predicted, beyond just gaming.
600,000 x $50 = 30,000,000 million revenue. ;^)
Whoa. Whenever I multiply those two numbers, I just don't get the same result. What's the trick, here?
main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
If they end up competing with AOL/TW (or another broadband provider) - whose to say they don't fiddle with their broadband service to make MS online gaming "a hassle"?
1- XBox Live online with the communicator will cost $50 for the first year and $10/month afterward, for all the online games.
2- PS2's strategy is to allow publishers like EA to create there own online network and charge a monthly fee per game. Has anyone tried EA's online service yet? We all know how awfull it is.
Here's a video preview of what XBox Live is all about.
A decent troll if not used to the point of annoyance (*cough* recipe troll *cough*).
Satan is GOOD
Satan is OUR PAL
Satan drives a PLOW
Satan says "MEOW!"
Hmmm, at first I thought this was from The Burbs, but the quote from the movie is, "I want to kill everyone, Satan is good, Satan is our pal."
Right, and thats when they TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! MUHAHAHA!!!!
Sorry man, but I have to take a more positive "it could happen" approach. How 'bout this:
As soon as their network goes live the Xbox is hacked and is running apache on their OWN datacenters faster and more efficient then IIS. The MSFT lawers realizes the court battle is hopeless and quit and the court smacks down big daddy M$. It is ruled that proprietary protocols are a threat to national security and MSFT is outlawed from public sector use in the US. The PR is so bad for MSFT that there is a social stigma for even using it. The Tonight Show and others are constantly tossing out MSFT jokes (more then they do now) and Apple suddenly gains a significant market share. MSFT decides to totaly drop Apple. No more mac IE or mac Office. That is the final straw for the courts, and MSFT is de-regulated. They are split into a million pieces and FORCED to honor government regulated price caps, and to open up all their API's, document formats, and network protocols. Many of these become international standards, and Linux and Mac are now AMAZINGLY compatable. Meanwhile the Apple XServe has been gaining in popularity. Sun and Apple own the server market and practically drive intel out of business. Apple now totaly owns the market, and for fear of being a monopoly they decide to licence aqua for x86 and give intel and MSFT a subsity to keep them in business. *NIX is hands down the most common operating system in the world and the open source software community receives government funding in the interest of national security.
The future is what you make of it. I'm not going to give up yet!
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
They are sinking money in data centers and support. Then they have to give a cut to the game makers.
This is why EA aren't going to be releasing any XBox live games this year. With the PS2 and PC games they can charge the gameplayer a subscription for the months that the player wants to play that particular game. With Xbox live they would only a get a fraction of the cash the player pays, with their own games that get all the cash.
Lets say 10% (an overly hopeful figure) of XBox owners sign up. If we come up with another hopeful figure of 6 million total XBox owners in 3 months time.
I'd say that the 10% signup ratio is probably a slightly low estimate for North America. However it's probably too high for Europe where broadband internet access is not very common (i think maybe 10% of homes have it installed).
Also the sales of XBoxes would have to rise to about ten times current sales to reach 6 million within 6 months, and I don't see any killer games coming this summer for Xbox, whereas the GameCube has a great lineup.
As for the stockholders, you've got to ask when they're going to rise up and demand that Microsoft gets its act together and start actually innovating and introducing good products rather than bullying there way through business.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
Bill wants to live forever. Now he's looking for a telepathic child.
No mention of the bandwidth needed at the subscriber's end. I see flooded cable modem networks in the future.
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
Check the difference between the number of units sold for a high profile console title against a comparable high profile title for the PC. The number of units that a console game will sell is almost always better then what a PC game will sell. I will admit to being wrong if you can name a single PC game that has outperformed a Final Fantasy title.
When you want to play a console game, you insert the game, and turn on the console. When you want to play a PC game, you have to make sure that your machine can run the game. Then you spend about a half hour installing it. Then you can play it, but you will probably want to update your patches / drivers first. Such problems are unheard of with Consoles.
The reason that Microsoft is creating a network for a market where they are not dominant is precisely because they are not dominant there. They are hoping that the kinds of games that they will be able to offer will put them ahead of their competition. And while it is likely that they could create a dominant gaming network platform for the PC, the profits involved will be much greater if they can succeed in the Console market.
END COMMUNICATION
You can get voice with about 8 kbps or less. If they had a server somewhere that received voice, put multiple voices into one stream and sent it to the receiving X-boxes, you'd only use 8 kbps up and 8 down.
It's not like you need CD quality.
You're wrong, and the proof is:
America
Online
The XBox is just the first part of the plan. Live is the second. Next, media boxes with interactive television.
Interactive television. Another thing folks have been trying, touting, and dumping millions into for nearly 30 years now.
No one wants it.
No one has ever wanted it.
Until there are some seriously fresh ideas going around, no one ever will want it, either.
Here is a hint: people don't want to interact with NBC or CBS, people don't want to play peanut gallery to the x-files, people don't want to play patty cake with the idiot box. They want to be entertained when they watch TV. Not entertain themselves, *be entertained*. In essence, they want to sit back and get a blowjob, not engage in fabulous, athletic intercourse.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Of course you're assuming that it's going to be $50/year after the first year. I wouldn't bet on that. M$ has always had a great strategy of luring customers by lowballing (compared to alternatives) the initial costs, while hiking it after the hook has nicely settled. SQL Server and Windows Server both come to mind to that point. Shelling out $50 for the first year and the headset hardware is easy for players to justify, but you can bet on a monthly rate of ~$10-$13/year after 12 month honeymoon is up.
Jim Harry
wow of course everyone will want to drop $200 to do what they can already do on their computer for free! gee, it's so obvious i'm surprised everyone didn't think of it!
oh wait everyone did think of it and they all dismissed it because it's the dumbest idea i've read all day. here's a free ride aboard the cluetrain: nobody's going to spend $200 for a big box to sit on their TV for stuff they can already do on their computer for $0 (or in the case of many people, $9/mo with AOL.) the proof is in the pudding, not many people are spending $200 on an X-Box to play games they can already play on their computer.
you're so wrong i hope you were kidding.
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
And its the games that lost it, Sony just locked up GTA till 2004, and EA decided that its online components for its games will only work on PS2 (they had some problems with xbox live), and the FF series is only on ps2 (or pc for 11). Stick a fork in it, its done.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
Actually, I had the impression that Microsoft blinked first, decided to cut their price, but Sony beat them to the punch anyway.
Sony is still making money on the console, even with their price cut. Remember that they merged two chips into one, cutting costs. The price for the PS/2 was likely going to be cut soon anyway.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, this article is taking the Microsoft Domination angle. Sony is going to take the domination route too, of course. Console makers want tight control over everything (Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can reject games because they don't like the concept), and naturally that includes networks. But this is ignoring the bigger issue.
Console gamers have gotten used to lightning fast games with no slowdown. PC users halfway expect bugs and long load times and frame rate stutter--or even frighteningly bad frame rates--from PC games. And so when they deal with the inherent unreliability of playing networked games, with all the joy of lag and dropped connections, they're used to it. But this isn't going to fly well with console gamers. There's no 100% bulletproof way to make a 60fps game play over the internet. No matter what you do, you're either going to get frame rate stutter (because the clients are in-step with the server) or phantom hits and misses (because the client is extrapolating to make things *seem* smoother). And this is goimg to be a mess. As it is, most PC gamers don't have a clue about what lag really is, and they seem to think that it's the fault of the developer. Heck, now the term "lag" is applied to non-networked situations: "Black & White lags on my Pentium II."
Developers would best steer clear of the whole mess, unless they're going to write low-latency games like The Sims. But that's not what the console market wants or is expecting.
Step away from the graphing calculator, sonny, it's time to learn to multiply again.
I've got a PS2, Dreamcast and an Xbox. None of these machine is the alpha-omega of video-gaming and all have at least one excellent game. While its not perfect the XBox is a damn good machine with some really well thought out features (same as the PS2 and DC). Unfortunately because its made by Microsoft it gets bashed by the Anti-MS lobby as well as the Sega/Sony/Nintendo fanboys (why such loyalty to a single multinational?). Obviously if it ran Windows 9x/ME/XP I wouldn't have touched it with Richard Stallman's beard: but as it stands its not half bad.
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with Microsoft running my game server code for me; as others have mentioned, they probably won't do that good a job. And who will the customers blame? Me.
Microsoft's strategy is much higher risk than Sony's. Sony says "Let's put this out and see what people do with it." Microsoft says "Let's build an enormous system that hopefully people will use.
According to an excellent Salon.com article, the Xbox has little in the way of compelling games to differentiate itself from Sony or Nintendo.
The Register is right about one thing: Salex of the Xbox have been dropping. That makes me give their opinions the benefit of the doubt. Just because they're biased doesn't make them wrong.
D
Xbox Live and You
20-MAY-02
Microsoft's Xbox team works the same way as the U.S. government--anything they do, they do big. Everything from the system and controller design to Microsoft's library of launch titles was specifically designed to make the Xbox the highest-selling system in the world. They haven't exactly had the commanding success they were hoping for, but even the undisputed king of the PC industry has to start somewhere.
Now their attention has turned towards online gaming, a field they're far from alone in. Sony is positioning its upcoming PlayStation 2 broadband service as the future of the system, and even Nintendo is making its first baby steps towards wiring up the GameCube. With its Xbox Live service, however, Microsoft has what is probably the biggest and most ambitious network project of them all. The only question: will it have anything interesting to play?
Question 1: What Do I Need?
The Xbox's built-in Ethernet port will make connecting to Xbox Live a fairly simple process. All you'll need is a working broadband connection and Microsoft's Xbox online kit, coming to retailers sometime this fall. The $49 kit contains the basic tools of Live navigation: the Xbox Communicator headset, 12 months of free service, and a disc or two with the online install software and some free games and demos. Microsoft hasn't decided on a service rate after the first year, but it's likely to be around $10 per month.
For most people, the main sticking point will be finding a broadband connection, whether it be via ADSL or cable modem. Xbox Live won't support 56K modems at all, and broadband service still runs over $50 a month in most places. Microsoft is working with major Internet service providers to create special deals for Live users, but until then, many Xbox owners could have a hard time finding their way online.
Online software will be sold in regular retail stores, right alongside offline Xbox games. You won't have to download them off the network and store them on your console's hard drive, as some net rumors have claimed. Some game publishers may charge an extra fee for online play or other extras (like downloadable levels), but the great majority of Xbox Live will be available for free once you pay the flat $49 for the online kit.
Question 2: How Do I Get On?
When you go on Xbox Live for the first time, you'll have to set up user account IDs for you and the rest of your family. This ID system works roughly the same as the one America Online and other ISPs use; your ID will serve as both your nickname and contact address for friend lists. All personal user information is stored on Microsoft's servers, and not your Xbox, so there's (hopefully) no need to worry about malicious hacker kiddies stealing your account.
You're free to try out Xbox Live at a friend's house without signing up, but a user account allows you to use the Xbox Communicator for voice chat. The Communicator headset is, without a doubt, the coolest feature of Xbox Live--it allows you to talk whenever you want, wherever you want, to fellow online players during games. Imagine playing some 4-player title with your friends on a big couch, laughing and trash-talking to each other, and you get the general idea of what this accessory has to offer. There's a half second delay between when you talk and when everyone hears you, but the voice quality is solid, and the system overall has the potential to take online play into a new stratosphere of addictiveness.
Of course, Microsoft isn't daft enough to believe that straight voice chat is for everyone. Players can use all kind of software effects to alter their voice if they want to protect their identity, and if you don't want to talk at all, you're free to do so. Annoying players can be muted temporarily or added to a permanent ignore list, and parental controls will allow concerned moms to keep their kids from talking or listening to strangers.
Before all this, though, you'll need to find someone to talk to. Xbox Live offers two basic matchmaker services--a "quick match" that finds someone for you instantly, and an "option match" that lets you customize your search based on the game you want to play. Gamers won't see any ping times and other PC-centric jargon during this process; Microsoft is trying to make the system as simple and transparent as possible to use.
Once you find some people to play with, you'll be able to store their names in a friend list similar to the ones used in instant-messenging software. The really cool part--you'll be able to contact friends on your list anytime they're online, no matter what game they're playing. For example, let's say you want to play Phantasy Star Online with your best bud, who's currently in the middle of an NFL Fever game. Send off an invitation to him, and he'll have the option of accepting or ignoring your message. If he decides to join your quest, all he has to do is switch game discs and he'll be teleported right next to you. Convenient, that.
Question 3: When's It All Happening?
Although Microsoft is busy organizing a "technical beta" to test out the effectiveness of their online system, the real Xbox Live beta test (with approximately 10,000 participants) will begin this summer. Microsoft is being very coy with the official consumer launch date; the Xbox team wants to make sure there are at least a dozen online-compatible titles out or coming soon when the online kit hits retailers. They promised us, however, that the system will be ready by Thanksgiving this year.
There's no doubt that Microsoft has its act together with the Xbox Live system. The network still suffers, though, from the curse the Xbox itself is fighting against: Where are the games? The only sure hits on the Live roster so far are Phantasy Star Online, the new Star Wars Galaxies, and the usual cavalcade of Microsoft and Sega sports titles. After that, gamers will be forced to take chances with Whacked! and other games of (to put it nicely) unknown quality. Still, Microsoft has repeatedly stated that they're ready to wait as long as it takes for some Halo-like breakaway title to spark a surge of online customers. With dreams of 10 million online users in five years, the company has set its sights straight for the skies. It'll be up to them to find the must-play title that'll take them there.
I think a network requires working hardware. I've been window shopping for a game console for my daughter. About 50% of the time the store demo Xbox has a "black screen of death". Store clerks told me it's like that most of the time. They have to be ever vigilant to keep it going. Two ~10 year olds were playing yesterday on the Gamecube and the Sony box in the store. I asked them what they thought about the Xbox, their reply: "It's a piece of junk that crashes all the time"
This feature alone will kill the Xbox in the long run.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
It specifically says that $50 is just a "starter" package, which includes a 1 year subscription. After that, it switches to a monthly fee of $9.95/month, which I think is a reasonable fee if it really covers every single game on the Xbox platform. Right now many people pay that just for one game in the PC gaming world.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
but in the article it mentions that lucas is developing the star wars galaxies game for sony, too. i wonder if an Xbox user can play with a PS2 user. hmmm, oh well, i own neither.
.cig - what you do after winning a good flame war
I think you've hit on most of the major points. I'm not quite sure I'd go quite so far as to claim MS plans on re-incarnating the telephone with a new X-Box that everyone will buy just to chat with their friends/relatives.
More likely, they realize X-Box gaming will be one step ahead of everyone else's gaming offerings if the players can yell at each other through a headset and/or type to each other. By merely offering this capability, a 3rd. party will surely come along and say "Hey, I can make this thing work as a voice over IP free telephone device too!" and add that functionality. (Following usual MS trends, they'll wait and see how well it works, and if it's promising - buy it out from whoever developed it.)
In the end, you'll have just one more tool for communication - but nothing earth-shattering. At the end of the day, the X-Box is really just one more attempt to sell an inexpensive computer to people who might not own one otherwise. Those who already do own computers won't find the X-Box much more attractive than, say, owning another spare computer.
Let's be smart and let them duke it out.
Now we have Microsoft... I *DON'T* want them in my living room, EVER!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I can give you 40 Billion reasons why the X-box network will succeeed.
Back when the X-Box was being developed, I had a chance to "play" with one, as well as talk to the big guys behind the project.
Working for a university, they were very interested to learn all they could about the "state of the art" in university dorm networking. Well, after a brief chat, they weren't too happy. Apparently the xbox is stuck on a single subnet (although this could change). Furthermore, our university requires residents to register their MAC address.....well, since the MAC address on the X-Box is hidden, this is simply not possible.
I'm sure given time, MSFT will correct these issues, but for now, they are stuck.
I don't know, I mean Integration and size are really nice when I'm carrying things around like with my PDA, Cell phone, etc. But with something that sits in my livingroom, I'm not so sure, especially where we are at in the development of it.
I bought the GameCube because it was cheap, I enjoy most of Nintendo's franchises and it does what it does well. It's a gaming machine. I already have a DVD player, etc.
And at $299 the XBox wasn't even something I would think about, but now at $199 it's a little more tempting, but the games don't seem all that great to me. Oddword maybe, PGR seems ok, but nothing really grabs me.
I dunno, YMMV.
The Voice over IP (if it really works) will be the killer app for the XBox. You'll see people paying $19.95 a month to log in to Everquest or whatever Microsoft's equivalent will be to talk to mom in Bangalore or their online Japanese girlfriend. Expect the voice scrambling to go quickly.
There will be Gamertag, a unique online ID for each member that can be used across the entire network. Note that this is a unique ID that's being pushed as a positive feature, which may be something of a first
What about the WON ID???? It came out _way_before_ the Gamertag, and it's essentially a unique id every HL gamer has......
No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
They are quite capable of losing millions of dollars, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars a year for the next five or ten years, or more. All it would be for them is a tax-loss write off. I do not doubt that they would be willing to LOSE as much as Sony has ever made on the Playstation, if it meant that there was a "TV in every house, all running Microsoft Software" in 20 years time.
Give the devil their due, the Information Superhighway is littered with the corpses of companies and products that were technically superior but underestimated Gates and Co. Who *EVER* thought that Word stood a chance against WordPerfect? How many of us laughed at Runtime Windows 1.0, or 2.0? And of course Novell had a much better product and was earlier to market to boot.
I'm no real fan of Microsoft, but IMHO nearly everyone is seriously underestimating the amount of money and effort they will put into this; I also bet that they are currently 'playing nice' due to being under a lot of legal scrutiny; once the various attorney generals' attention is elsewhere, the gloves will come off and people who do NOT release for Xbox first, or exclusively will find their "air supply choked off".
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
... most or all new XBox games are required to have online features, and perhaps online upgrades for older games (DOA3, etc) that are downloadable from the network.
If Microsoft implements that policy, developers will be annoyed, but users would have many more reasons to get online with their XBox.
One of the reasons Sony is not charging per month for online gaming is because of the amount of MMORPGs coming out for it. I'm sure as heck not gonna pay 49.99 for a game, 9.99 for MS "content", and then 9.99 for the game.
I dissagree, computer games have always been better than console games. Graphics and playability. Every major jenre out was started on computers. real time stratagy, first person shooter. rpg. Test drive on my old amstrad kicked outruns butt. What computer games lacked are 1.) good two player action. one guy joystic one keyboard. 2.) big screen. My computer is in my study, I have a 19" screen. I woudl much rather relax in my living room and play on a 32 inch screen with my friends. what i believe console companies need to not do is charge for provider service. why not just intigrate a tcp/ip protocal and let the game programer handle the rest. This way pc and console games coudl join together. and creat a much bigger user base.
is that a healthy percentage of us hate Microsoft and their products. We especially hate the coercive element - the thought that we are "forced" to use them because all of society does.
Because of this, any effort made by Microsoft to monopolize yet another market makes us feel nauseous. Thus, our desire to see Microsoft fail.
D
Remember that J Allard, Microsoft's X-BOX guy J Allard is also the guy who brought us Internet Explorer. This is the guy that built the foundation for Micor$oft's new monopoly.
the guy who replied to me didn't seem to realize that
a) i was talking about people not buying it because they already have copmuters capable of chatting.
b) it doesn't matter what it costs to buy a computer that can play x-box games, because the fact is people are *not* buying the x-box, and part of that reason is that they can already play the decent games on their computers.
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
...granted, I agree that M$ would happily lose $100 million next year to monopolize the market (they probably paid at least that to own the Justice Dept after all...oops).
But it's not for a tax break: they certainly don't need it. YOU probably paid more in taxes than they did last year.
"a Microsoft spokeswoman would not say whether that firm did or not [pay any taxes]. But its annual report for fiscal 2000, which ended June 30, shows stock option income tax benefits of $5.5 billion, exceeding its $4.85 billion provision for income taxes. (Its actual federal and state tax liability for 2000 was $4.74 billion.)"
-Styopa
M$ has always had a great strategy of luring customers by lowballing (compared to alternatives) the initial costs
Yes, I remember that with fondness.
I spent a lot of time using MSN for free during 1995 and early 1996. They seemed to not have any good records of how many new accounts one had set up, and I used 'free trial' accounts for five months.
I spent most of my time on MSN downloading Linux stuff, which I was starting to get heavily into at the time.
GASP! Sounds like they plan on using TCP/IP as a BACKBONE to run some HIGHER LEVEL - PROPRIETARY PROTOCOL over it to their DATACENTERS. I bet the bastards plan on having high-speed direct links between datacenters to prevent the Internet itself from being a bottle neck for there customers
THOSE CRAZY NETWORK ENGINEERS AT MS! How dare they think this through! How dare they learn from Origins Ultima Online, Sony's Everquest, and the other doze MMORPG that had painfull starts and data center nightmares.
EGADS You're right! That's the point of www.teledesic.com and why bill invested in them so long ago! They are going to spend billions ot get a LEO sat constenllation in the air, offering the world high speed anywhere/anytime internet access, and then they will cut off their own legs and force users of their system to only interact with other users of their system. Because Compuserve and AOL and even early MSN all proved that CLOSED NETWORKS BEAT THE INTERNET EVERYTIME! i mean, not like i ever leave the *.msn.com domain structure.
I can tell you read his books. You speak with perfect clarity on the matter. Not like those others that simply read The Register and rehash the viewpoint of a disgruntled poorly paid writer.
Do you think Sony salivates over Sony Station? Wouldn't Bill be salivating over The Zone right now? How about the old HEAT network and some of those other gaming lobbies. MMMmmmmm those were profitable weren't they!
Do you think EA's going to be any different with their OWN proprietary lobby system running ontop of PS2? The difference will be you pay them directly, and every other publisher you use an online game with PS2.
Nothing, he'd lose 39 billion. He'd make more money leaving it in the bank than he ever would on an lame Dr. Evil plan like you thought up here.
I wonder what you and some others around here would do if he DID take his billions and do something like wire every community with it's own community computer lab. Praise him as the Carnegie of our time? Doubtfull, more likely bitch that the computers ran windows. Or worse, act as though you are, and have always been, entitled to it.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
So which one do people think is the better deal? I have both consoles, but will probably only go online with one. The games will make a huge difference, naturally, but right now I am only looking at $50 for a year of XBOX online, which seems like a good deal to me. Especially since with the PS2 I will have to buy a network adapter/modem and a hard drive (I'm guessing together that will be $125-150, but maybe someone else knows better) and then pay different people on a per game basis? That seems a little unreasonable. So if all I care about is FFXI, I'm going to have to drop like $200 (game included) on top of the $300 I paid for the PS2 to play?
-- Hobbits suck!
If you want another example of technology writers not having a clue, check out the RedHerring 100 issue. They are arguing that Microsoft will or can take over the PC world because a XBox is cheaper than a Dell PC. I can't find he comparison chart on the web, but they compare the list price an Xbox with no monitor, less RAM, no keyboard, no OS, no Office with a 1.2 GHz Dell with all the trimmings. Of course they forget also that Microsoft is selling below cost.
Pretty fun actually.
I am sorry, I have never read such a terrible article in all my life.
Microsoft doesn't want to censor you morons, they want to make sure nobody cheats or hacks into the system.
If anyone has played Counter Strike on the PC, you will notice multiple problems. People try to run their own servers on their DSL line and the quality sucks, then there are cheats you can install to look through walls and get head shots everytime and then you can ban anyone you want.
Its like cowboy gaming, uncontrolled and very piss poor.
This and along with ease of use is what Microsoft wants. They don't want to censor or control what people play or say.
People are so discusting. I mean this is the kind of reporting that makes me sick.
I hate this world and this misinformation and outright biased lies against anything Microsoft has become so fashionable its like people will make up negative stuff just so they can feel good about themselves.
Jealous of Bill Gates and Microsoft, get a job and or build your own and find out how much work it is and how many jackasses try to tear down your work just because they are jealous of you.
How can the police wiretap the voice channel? I could imagine a terrorist network of XBox systems. And now the police will have to travel from Minnesota to Redmond to witness the wiretap. What about PTT complaints of violation of phone tarrifs? If you make international voice connections, there could be some serious legal issues. I hope none of these systems make their way into the PRC!
cabg x3 is a life changing event...
Why is it that none of these articles even mention GameSpy. I can play Halo (and a few other games) online right now with my friends for free. I am sure not going to pay 9.99 a month just so I can play Halo online in a "safe" environment. It will fail because you can do the same thing for free right now. Unless they plan to sue GameSpy out of business right before the launch. Which would not surprise me.
...is a master of none.
Why do we always have to bitch about EVERYTHING that MS does? Why can't we just be grateful that they give us more freedom in choosing our online/gaming console?
Beacuse they are a 2000lb gorilla. Within 5 years Microsoft will _own_ the game market (not to mention the consumer appliance market via Xbox)... Sony and Nintendo will either go bankrupt or leave. What kind of freedom of choice is that?
Cuz Pikmin was released last year in November. :)
This post sponsored by Ninja Burger.
"Please do not tip the Ninjas."
This post sponsored by Ninja Burger. "
The Register did a great job. It printed a story, got Slashdotted, engendered tons of click-throughs and comments regardless of its accuracy or relevancy, and created a nice click report for its advertisers so that it can create more revenue. Creating controversy, people. That's the name of the journalism game regardless of all the "they're entitled to know the truth" crap that's bandied about in movies and, oh yeah, college.
Hrm apparently I'm a geek cliche.
27 years old, getting married June 7th, and its costing more than I'd like to admit.
I wonder if they're called consoles because they exist to comfort you as you hand out thosands of dollars to strangers that you'll only see for about 6 hours of your life.
-- Button up, your ignorance is showing
OK there's some justification for all that data centre stuff in the El Reg article but I was amazed that the author didn't even gesture in the direction of pay-to-download-or-rent music and video from the MS network. Seems kinda obvious to me that MS would want to claim they had a massive and 'secure' DRM plug-n-pay (yes pay, not a typo) so they could then do what they could to control as much netertainment media feeding into your home as possible.
Of course, we all know they'll ask permission before using your demographic don't we.. (I wonder if they sold the entire Hotmail database snapshot 30 secs after they altered the opt-in to opt-out)...
Keep in mind, Microsoft may make a few dumb moves occasionally, but they make a lot fewer than most companies. Also, when they settle on a goal they typically acheive it (though maybe a year or two later than originally planned).
Gates is an entrepreneur -- you've got to respect him for that.
Amazing magic tricks
I wish you people would TRY a goddamned xbox. Who cares if Microsoft dominates the operating system industry. Microsoft has the BEST console out right now, and it's starting to pick up steam.
If you'd all only stop bitching for one minute and actually take a look at the quality of the system, maybe you'd see something.
But if you can't be objective about this, STFU.
is what you are if the register think themselves to be a totally 'serious' news source. Look at some of the other recent articles http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/25395.html and the brilliant t shirts design page http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/25355.html
It's tongue in cheek reporting. Do you expect anything less from the true home of the BOFH? It's sometimes going into ntk territory in places...
Andyboy_H
You can sign up to become a Beta tester for the Xbox Live here
What I really wanted to say was Sony has decided to release the PS2 Linux kit in Europe. Sign up Linux Play
Looks like Sony is covering all their based. Look at the deal they just made with IBM about Setbox technology that I am sure will find its way into PS3 related stuff.
Help fight continental drift.
There are several obvious reasons that the X-box will fail (at least in the short term).
/. post from last week). The main problem to developers other than the cost is that the developers lose control in a service based industry like online gaming. If you look at the customer service contract for a MMOPRG like Everqest you'll see that it is 80-pages long, it'll be extremely difficult to manage your service when all your equipment is controlled by a thrid-party.
#1)Broadbrand penetration is low. There are only 13.2 million households in the US with broadband connectivity in 2001, this means that less than 10% of household connected to the internet uses broadband (source: cabledatacomnews.com). The prefered choice of internet connectivity will likely be dial-up for the next several years(the end of X-Box's product cycle).
#2) Broadband connection is usually not in the living room where the X-Box and TV set is. Like most people my broadband modem is not next to my TV set in the living room, it is next to my computer in the next room. I certainly don't plan on running a long line from my computer into my living room everytime I want to play a game.
#3) The developer has to pay MS for the online infrastructure (look at the NYT and
"Now, you'll need to download patches onto the XBox hard drive in order to play games, a concept that was familiar only to PCs in the past and something that, IMHO, console gamers never wanted to deal with."
This assumes two things. First, that patches will be required. Second, that the patches can't be handled in a seamless way which doesn't affect people.
You're wrong on both counts. I doubt the console will require patches, as it's mostly hard-wired. The ROM stores the base kernel, etc. Second, any potential updates to things like network components will probably be handled the way AOL does it: "updating ART...." and no need to find any files or run or reboot. It's ludicrous to think otherwise.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
having grown up with pong, atari and nintendo... I can say that my 'relationship' with Nintendo was very frustrating. Price setting first comes to mind... or should I say price gouging... using MS style strong arm tactics to force stores into agreeing to the price ceiling and floor. Then there is the direct annoyances as a consumer (caused by their anticompetitive and just general assholishness). They pissed off most vendors to the point that no one wanted to develop for Nintendo systems. All because of draconian measures, strong arm tactics, dynamic NDA's (meaning that in such an industry that basically then had only about 10 ideas that were rehashed over and over, they actually had the nerve to sue and threaten dev studios YEARS later if they even remotely thought the game that had been developed resembled some portion of what had been seen by the dev under an NDA) That is like Ford suing BOEING for installing an AM/FM radio with CD inside an aircraft
and lets not forget:
Ken Kutaragi has always had this plan for the PS2. He just couldn't convince Sony to ship it with Ethernet built in. Where as Xbox's Allard went to the mat to ship with the extra cost.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Just jack thier DSL connection into the back of the X-BOX? I play halo all the time and it doesn't cost me an extra cent (over my broadband bill). try it some time. what the hell did people think the jack on the back was for, pretty looks?
"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"
Start a website dedicated to accepting donations for the purchase of XBOXs. Once appropriate donations are in place buy an XBOX (no software) and destroy it. Send the donors a bag with the percentage of parts that their contribution paid for. Send donors beneath a certain threshold a digital picture of their machine being destroyed.
Try not to think of it as an earnings hole. Think of it as a tax writeoff. Last I heard, Microsoft was still profitable. If they can spend part of a tax rebate they wouldn't otherwise have had, they can afford to expand their monopoly, even if it cost $1 million per customer.
if you open up an xbox youll find a microphone and pinhole camera inside, if you hook it up to m$ it will start sending back an audio/video stream to m$
I never thought slashdot would become so low.
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt used to be what slashdot preached against. Infact the attack of "FUD" as we call it was a major part of slashdots credit in helping get linux to the masses.
Now it comes up with headlines of how the Xboxlive will fail.
I'm sorry, but it won't.
1. Affordable. Seganet costed more, was slower and offered alot less
2. Feature rich - Gaming is about community and NO ONE or NOTHING can produce the community microsoft announced. Hell, slashdot even asks for money
3. Interactive - Leagues, Championships, Stats, Scores, player trading, character trading, virtual worlds. Not to mention the voice communicator by default.
4. Immersive - Add up all of the above and add some great games. NFL, NBA, Baseball games will all be interactive, manage teams, manage players, trade skills. RPG's will have characters that reflect your personality. Worlds where every player is on par and no one is an LPB
5. Games - I'm sorry, but i don't care for ANOTHER GTA3 or ANOTHER FFX or ANOTHER rehash. I like the new stuff coming out for the xbox for the very same reason i liked Sega and the dreamcast. GAMES, GAMES, GAMES. I mean quality games, beautifull games, and UNIQUE games. This is the same reason i'm not a nintendo fan..i'm marrio'd out. I can't take any more metroid. No matter how purty or how neat i had fun playing those games 10 years ago. not now.
So please, don't spread fud. This place has gotten rather immature if i must say so. PS2 is nice, linux is nice, but so is the xbox and you or some other website won't change that!
You own the game, you can sell it to a friend and do with it you wish, as with any PS2, Gamecube or any console game.
The online strategy is mainly a focal point for gamers to have a centralized community. No product activation, no special codes downloaded to your xbox. Just a place where i can login and kick some unreal championship ass and guess what, everyone will be logged in. No more logging into 50 servers to find a good game as all the servers will be listed centrally. Your friends will be on your buddy list, hack even your enemies.
Microsof IS creating a virtual world and for this 5 to 10 bucks a is pocket change.
(NOR IS XBOXLIVE REQUIRED TO PLAY THESE GAMES, THEY DO HAVE GREAT SINGLE PLAYER FUNCTIONALITY)
is set to launch during the summer.
why the hell should people buy the thing, then buy the online game then have to pay to play the thing they just bought. its bullshit.
The wire had it that Microsoft had shipped about 1.5 million X-Box units to distributors by Janurary of this year, with Nintendo shipping about 1.3 million units by that time. If the figures are correct, and Microsoft loses money on each unit made and sold (we will take the lowest end of the spectrum and say $20 dollars), then Microsoft must have lost at least 300 million dollars in the US market by now. Nintendo on the other hand (as an example) should have earned roughly 260 million dollars on hardware sales alone by now (going by the figures that they were earning about 18-20 bucks off of each sale).
Now Microsoft, whoms software sales are the lowest of the three systems (so I have heard from my "Manager of a local EB" friend), is investing heavily in it's yet to be launched online gaming service. More units will likely have to be sold in order to insure a large enough customer base tro turn a large enough profit to cover past and continuing losses. The units that they must manufacturer to meet this goal are going to cost Microsoft even more.
Frankly, I don't see how much longer Microsoft can throw money at this system. I understand that they have a considerable amount of assets to fall back on, but at some point the stock holders have to start questioning the motives of Microsoft executives.
Which box will you buy?
This one:
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or this one:
xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
or this one?
xxxxx xxx
xx xxxxxx
xxxxx xxx
x xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx x
The spaces are because of lameness filter
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
Remember this phrase:
"His, hers, its: all posessives, no apostrophes."
and never write it incorrectly again.
http://hishersits.com
(Godwin's Law intentionally invoked to kill this thread)
All Liberals Are Racists
Better graphics, better sound, funner games, why bash it. As more titles come out, and MS leverages the 80billion in cash that is it's empire to tirelessly lower prices and crush the competition, there will be little else left.
Personally, all consoles are a huge waste of energy and money. PC gaming is where it is at, no matter what the so called experts think about set-top technology. Until HDTv is the standard (years away) and these consoles become more functional and easier to use with that functionality (no clunky wireless mini keyboards and add on plug in boxes for HD's and networking), they serve little purpose but to divert the weakminded from the drudgery of their ghetto and sub-urban lives.
switch to decimal mode.
Those numbers are real, but there is a huge math error. $30,000,000 buys a lot of bandwidth. Like a whole lot. And a whole lot of hardware. And plenty of developers and admins and tech support.
With that kind of money you could get:
60 employees @ $50,000 apiece
60 fancy datacenter servers @ $50,000 apiece
60 DS3s (2.7 GB) @ $50,000/year ($4200/month -- overpriced) apiece
and still have $21 million left over for advertising and Windows Datacenter Server Licenses.
I bet the bastards plan on having high-speed direct links between datacenters to prevent the Internet itself from being a bottle neck for there customers
By gwad you're right! I sometimes overlook the altruism and nobility of microsoft. Thank you for your insight.
How dare they learn from Origins Ultima Online, Sony's Everquest, and the other doze MMORPG that had painfull starts and data center nightmares.
Oh they learned all right. They learned that to eliminate all competition, you have to provide a technically superior product. Which would be terrific in and of itself, but they tend to the carrot of technical excellent in combination with the stick of their well-tested monopoly generating machine.
offering the world high speed anywhere/anytime internet access, and then they will cut off their own legs and force users of their system to only interact with other users of their system. Because Compuserve and AOL and even early MSN all proved that CLOSED NETWORKS BEAT THE INTERNET EVERYTIME! i mean, not like i ever leave the *.msn.com domain structure.
That's your problem, chum. They'll offer some REAL good reasons to get off of the riff-raff-ridden internet and migrate to their proprietary for-pay network... I imagine working out deals with RIAA, MPAA, etc will be 100 times easier, since Microsoft can GUARRANTEE total "rights management", along the entire length of the pipe. And if you think granny or little susie give a RAT'S ASS about the internet per se, you're even more demented than you sound. Just as you don't even get off of MSN, there are a shitload of people out there who never ever EVER leave AOL... and guess what? A lot of them are abandoning AOL for MSN right now.
I can tell you read his books. You speak with perfect clarity on the matter. Not like those others that simply read The Register and rehash the viewpoint of a disgruntled poorly paid writer.
Dammit! What was I thinking???? I should have known that the first place to find out what Bill's secret long term business plans are would be found in his book.
Do you think Sony salivates over Sony Station?
No. Sony has a way of creating great products, then sitting around eating sushi while the rest of the world catches up and then passes them. The playstation was an accident, but an accident that's currently generating something like half of their revenue.
MMMmmmmm those were profitable weren't they!
They had competition. As you will see, Microsoft WILL structure whatever product they eventually market to eliminate as much competition as possible.
Dr. Evil plan like you thought up here.
All kidding aside, do you truly not realize that there ARE "dr. evils" in the world???
I wonder what you and some others around here would do if he DID take his billions and do something like wire every community with it's own community computer lab. Praise him as the Carnegie of our time? Doubtfull, more likely bitch that the computers ran windows. Or worse, act as though you are, and have always been, entitled to it.
You are extremely naiive.
They want to show that they can dominate a marketplace by simply providing a better product.
Sure, they've shown they can dominate a market with an inferior product, why not try a better one this time?
they just want the flashiest game playing experience out there. Simple said they xbox owns that trophy.
On what planet? Surely not this one.
We like seeing Enron fail because they bilked consumers, investors and even their own employees out of billions of dollars. We like seeing the bad guys get their due.
During California's rolling blackouts, Ken Lay said something to the effect of "At least the Titanic went down with the lights on." Pretty ironic considering the state of his own company now. Its called karma.
Rest assured Enron's competitors are not feeling all warm and fuzzy over Enron's failure, indeed FERC is widening their investigation. And, which of Enron's competitors owns a tv network?
1) Microsoft stockholders dont' care about profits: no dividends
2) Even if they did, they'd rise up just about the time Microsoft's strategy failed to increase their wealth, which it hasn't yet. Innovation is expensive and risky.
The XBox only supports broadband connections and it doesn't look like broadband access is going to expand anytime soon. They *may* be able to capture a sizable portion of the broadband console market but that market is itself only a small slice of the overall online console market.
If that's not a dead giveaway that this is a pro-Microsoft post, I don't know what is. See, this troll is smart, though, because he doesn't say "but I'm impartial!" till the end.
. . . when it's functionality stretches . . .
That should read if it's functionality stretches. Microsoft is already losing money on this baby; do you really think they're going to dump more hardware into it just so they can lose more money? Also, any product that tries to compete with the already established market leaders on features will lose. Didn't you get that memo? One last thing is that I think I'll trust a truly unbiased source with years of experience in the industry before I trust what is obviously an end user in this market.
Nathan's blog
How is the parent a troll?
Given Microsoft's investment in Xbox Live and their expertise in online and online gaming, I'd bet on Xbox Live being a high-quality service.
Remember, Xbox Live has:
a) Data centers that are localized
b) Data centers that are very high-bandwidth
c) All-broadband clients
We've never witnessed a gaming service like this. Truely it will be in a league of its own; certainly it will be fast.
The reliability issue isn't as clear. Part of reliablity is how fool-proof and easy it is to get a game. Many online gaming services, such as Battle.net, get the job done, but not without a lot of frustration. It would be interesting to compare across gaming services the ratio of time spent getting a game versus time playing a game.
But Xbox Live has a large team behind it. Again, I expect the engineering investment to be much larger than anything we've seen in the realm of online gaming. So I wouldn't at all be suprised if Xbox Live turns out to be quite a pleasure to use.
My final point regarding quality is the Xbox Communicator. As we all know, communication is one of the key aspects of online gaming. But communication via a keyboard? It doesn't quite fit the console gaming experience, and it inhibits game play. It seems likely that, if the audio is reliable and of high quality, that the Xbox Communicator will make Xbox Live much more pleasant to use than alternatives.
This $50 startup deal also seems quite good... a mild fee up front and you're good to go. Plus the beta test will have 10,000 gamers to spread the word (and get addicted this summer).
Where I expect Xbox Live will struggle is this $10/mo fee. For many it will be enough of hurdle that they'll just pass Xbox Live by.
The point is that for a game that is not made by microsoft you will pay the same for that game per month whether you play it on PS2 or xbox. The $50 is just a microsoft server fee, the publishers will have to charge on top of that.
There is a slight possibility that the monthly fee will be marginally smaller because microsoft is running the servers, but it may also be much higher, because microsoft is running the servers. The point is microsoft is not sharing the xboxlive money with other publishers.
The only differance if you plan to play either console online for 1 year is that you get a headset for free from microsoft, and get to play microsoft games online for free (possibly). That doesn't mean that sony won't make an online game with no monthly fees (less bandwidth, using smaller resources from fee servers).
Right now you can't tell what the total price is, but if you plan to enjoy playing games online, might I recommend a PC?
Not quite... For EA, they would need to arrange their own fees in addition to microsoft's $50/year to profit from the online portion. It makes a lot more sense for EA to bring a number of titles online at once and start their own server grid (just not ea.com again).
Stop now.
You're giving trolling a bad name.
Okay here comes the rant.
Lousiest damn controller on Earth, though.
GameCube isn't much better, but better controls definitely
Oh and like the PS2 controller is God's Gift to ergonomics. Talk about inconvienence. They are smaller than the original Nintendo controllers.
But PS2 has the best selection and is overall the best to me
Well when the console was released a year before that makes a nice impact on games. Plus it is compatible with nearly every PS1 games. (nearly) So yes the selection is better. HOWEVER! XBox has a huge developer base that is working on games that will appeal to the crowds. It also wouldn't surprise me that at some point games from PC's have the ability to be ported to XBox since the big X is virtually a PC in itself.
Game content is more important than the name on it
Okay, well guess what. PS1 had a shotty game content when it was first released and you can't argue otherwise. What console can actually say they had a killer game content on first release. Not many save Nintendo because Mario brothers rocked. (imho)
You are judging a console while it is in its infant stages. Give it time. I will bet... just bet... XBox will rule. Not because it is Microsoft, but because it is PC Developers writing the games.
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
I thought the whole point of the XBox was that it was ment to be marketed to an young adults age group to compete with the Sony PS2 and avoid being seen as a children's toy, as it is apparently tagged by the media for Nintendo GC.