Moore Dissects State Of The Xbox

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to the C+VG article interviewing Peter Moore, Xbox VP and former Sega of America boss. This long, detailed, and intriguing interview covers a lot of interesting ground, such as Microsoft's online service versus Sony's ("Do they [Sony] have a service? Don't they just sell adaptors?"), the longer-term strategy of buying developers Rare ("If I thought by acquiring Rare we'd make all the money back in 12 months, that wouldn't be right"), and even a little more detail about why Microsoft aren't getting into portable gaming right now ("..we believe that the future is the social element of gaming, and that's going to be done through a console, not through a handheld gaming device.")

Comments

social element

[anotherone]

we believe that the future is the social element of gaming

hahahahahahahahahaha, he said "Social" and "Gaming" in the same sentence. hahahahahahaha

Re:social element

[Recoil_42]

one word: LANparty.

Re:social element

[anotherone]

ever go to a lan party? all the lans I've been at, there's more talking in-game than otherwise.

Re:social element

[dalangalma]

And that's the point of the XBox. I just returned from a 4-XBox game of Halo at a friend's house, 16 players in one room, yelling at each other and having a great time. Quite a bit more social than wehn we had UT LAN parties.

Re:social element

[JGag21]

Is it a sad statement that as a 15 year gamer (not 15 year old), I think LAN parties are nerdy?

Wrong leadership?

[CashCarSTAR]

I think Microsoft in general is still far too biased to expect a revoultion.

Handheld gaming is not competition for the console market. I actually think that Nintendo is on the right track with the GBA, especially with the connectivity with the Cube. Not for playing games together, oh no.

Imagine a handheld system with a good flash memory, enough to capture a 16-bit game. Furthermore, imagine connectibility with a CD-based system, and the ability to download a game to the portable system. Not to mention, every company throwing an old game or two for downloadable play. Konomi offering the old Contra games, or maybe Laser Assault (remember that?) Maybe with the new TMNT game include one of the NES or SNES games. With Metal Gear Solid, include Metal Gear 1 and 2.

Furthermore, have the ability to copy over full multiplayer versions of games, to allow full multiplayer with one cart. Not a reduced version of the game, but a full multiplayer-only version.

Furthermore, I still contend that the purchase of Rare was a mistake. Rare is most certainly a great company...however, I wonder how much Microsoft is going to let Rare be Rare. Just a thought.

Fable and Halo 2 do not a system make. Of course, MS tends to want to put games like that silly volleyball game or Tao Feng on the same level. Whatever that means.

Re:Wrong leadership?

[Babbster]

Furthermore, I still contend that the purchase of Rare was a mistake. Rare is most certainly a great company...however, I wonder how much Microsoft is going to let Rare be Rare. Just a thought.

If you mean letting Rare be Rare by making good games, I'm sure that Microsoft is not only letting them but encouraging them to do so. If you mean letting them get the game just right instead of rushing, I'd suggest taking a look at other MS development teams and recent history - Crimson Skies was allowed to slip in order to make the game better (Xbox Live style) and they let Halo 2 slip into next year when Bungie indicated they didn't feel comfortable getting the game they want to make out by Christmas. To put it simply, there's no evidence that Microsoft has pressured anyone to rush out an inferior product (some maintain that Halo was rushed but I don't believe that was an inferior product) since they learned their lesson with Unreal Championship - while Microsoft has published some inferior games (Tao Feng for example) I don't think rushing was involved.

Fable and Halo 2 do not a system make. Of course, MS tends to want to put games like that silly volleyball game or Tao Feng on the same level. Whatever that means.

There's nothing wrong with a console manufacturer being an advocate for any and all games available for their system. It's the responsibility of players and game reviewers to separate the wheat from the chaff. The console manufacturers don't care what games their players buy except in terms of making exclusivity deals and deciding what to develop in-house - and that's as it should be.

Re:Wrong leadership?

[cookd]

I would agree with the idea that Halo was rushed. The later levels lack the depth and the "WOW" factor that I felt in the first few levels. They definitely get more repetitive (think Library, as well as others).

It was definitely good enough, and it was probably the "correct" decision at the time to ship it instead of wait. At that point, XBox really needed a few good titles to get it off the ground, and Halo was needed. On the other hand, now there are enough titles out there that Halo 2 isn't needed to keep the XBox going. Shipping later will probably cost them sales, as Christmas is a great time for it to come out, but it doesn't affect the strategic positioning of the XBox any -- if anything, it improves the strategic positioning because the XBox market will not have another unfinished game. By not rushing Halo 2, Microsoft is stating "we think we would lose more sales by shipping an unfinished product than we would lose by not shipping in time for Christmas."

Peter's portable dismissal

[Rayonic]

"..we believe that the future is the social element of gaming, and that's going to be done through a console, not through a handheld gaming device."

I have to say that this is an excellent excuse to give on the matter -- bravo. I mean, sure there are real (good) reasons why MS isn't coming out with a handheld device right now, but Mr. Moore's made-up excuse makes them sound much more confident and visionary.

Really, I could not come up with a respose like that. I wonder if he wrote it himself.

Re:Peter's portable dismissal

[n_jed]

They can't even make the controllers small. How on earth would they be able to make a hand held device that also had a screen.

At least they know their limitations!

Re:Peter's portable dismissal

[Suppafly]

I for one, wouldn't mind a larger handheld device.. not everyone in their targer demographic has little asian hands..

Re:Peter's portable dismissal

[n_jed]

like i have hands like a person who is 6'7". I want something that'll fit into my pocket. I don't think the gba size is all about little 'asian' hands.

How did Sony win the console war?

[cloudless.net]

- The Playstation was significantly better than the SNES.
- Sony signed with many game developers. Many good titles were released early with the console. BTW Final Fantasy VII was the deciding factor for my PS purchase.
- Sony's marketing and brand recognition.

The Xbox has better hardware than the PS2, however not significantly, at least not in the average users point of view. Although Microsoft spent a lot of money to buy some developers, it is still not getting enough good games. I think the key to Xbox's success would be online gaming, however I think the market is still not enough to make it profitable yet.

Re:How did Sony win the console war?

[djNocturne]

Good point, but online gaming in the console market is finally starting to pick up steam, and will eventually become incredibly profitable. The real question is, for whom? The problem M$ will forever have in winning over online gamers, and the very reason I'm not the least bit concerned about that eventuality, was summarized quite nicely by the man himself:

"Do they [Sony] have a service? Don't they just sell adaptors?"

Once again, in Microsoft's alternate reality, a technology system only achieves a full state of Nirvana once it is controlled front-to-back by a single company. Hmmm ... let's see ... when I decide to pay for online gaming, do I want the money should go to, a) the console manufacturer, or b) the publisher and/or development company that worked hard to produce the game in the first place? Also, when some bored little teenage malcontent decides to DoS the gaming network using tools some clever jackass wrote and posted online, or do I want it to, a) take out the entire networking capabilities for every online-compatible game I own, or b) the specific network of a single publisher?

Isn't Microsoft that the same company that had both their primary and secondary DNS records on the same Class C at one point? Yeah, I trust them to competently administer a monolithic online console network single-handedly.

The entire issue of the M$ vs. Sony online architectures can be summarized thusly:

M$ alone controls the "Xbox Live" gate. If a publisher wants to add online capabilities into their game, M$ alone will decide how many, or how few, table scraps to throw them from the table of proceeds. They alone will also decide how much you, the gamer, are going to pay them for the privilege of having only one game-network option when you plug an ethernet cable into your XBox. As with anything M$, "ease-of-use" and "reliability" are the primary reasons given for why we should all bow down to a single network.

As this shill correctly points out, Sony just sells an adaptor. That's all. Just the hardware that you need to connect. The gaming servers themselves are independent of Sony Corp. (Actually, they will probably run the networks for their own in-house titles ... but then again, so can anyone else.)

Is a system where you simply plug in a cat5 cable, run a little on-screen config form, and then just start sending M$ money the ultimate in ease-of-use? Sure it is ... in the same way that Windoze XP is easier for my grandmother to run than Linux. But unless my grandma plans on booting up Halo 2 and dumping a 20-gallon drum w00t-ass on you---and if she is, she certainly hasn't mentioned it to me---then I guess I fail to see a market clammoring for dumbed-down simplicity at the expense of choice and some measure of flexibility.

I, for one, would actually love to see the Xbox continue down this path. It'll send most of the serious gamers (and, by extension, games) over to the online-capable console I actually do own. I'd therefore like to send a shout out to the entire Xbox division. Keep on doing what you do, baby!

Re:How did Sony win the console war?

[PainKilleR-CE]

- Sony signed with many game developers. Many good titles were released early with the console. BTW Final Fantasy VII was the deciding factor for my PS purchase.

What were the launch titles for the Playstation?
I bought my Playstation to play Tekken 2/3, Final Fantasy VII, and Resident Evil 2, but NONE of these games were 1st gen titles for the Playstation.

- Sony's marketing and brand recognition.

Their brand recognition was nil with gamers. They made the Walkman and overpriced stereo equipment, not games. This is the company that made Minidisc, afterall.

Re:How did Sony win the console war?

[Sevidrac]

The beauty of the Xbox Live is this: You pay just one fee for services. If every company is hosting on-line play for thier games, you might have to pay several bills to different people.

It's easier (And quite possibly cheaper in the long run) to simply have a conslidated system or something.

I could just be talking out of my ass though. But, this is /.

Re:How did Sony win the console war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so this is how trolls get karma. Now I understand. All one has to do is to take deficiencies of something and, after looking at them through fanboy goggles, turn them into strengths. Xbox Live has been online since November - how many DoS attacks have you heard about? That's what I thought.

Re:How did Sony win the console war?

[djNocturne]

Ah, so this is how trolls get karma. Now I understand.

You know trolls that post in that much length and detail? Wow. Those must be some pretty dedicated trolls, to spend that much time presenting a rather thorough case on something simply for the sake of getting a rise out of people. And you say that this new breed of troll also seeks to somehow accumulate karma during the process of irritating as many people as possible? That would be a pretty neat trick.

All one has to do is to take deficiencies of something and, after looking at them through fanboy goggles, turn them into strengths.

It's funny that I actually went out of my way to explain in detail why, specifically, I consider the Sony approach to be a better choice for geeks and gamers, yet you simply make vague reference to the "deficiencies" of the design without further explanation.

As I've said, I like my online console capabilities like my OS: flexibile and openly architected. You obviously prefer plus-and-play, and that's fine, but don't kid yourself. I'd wager that most of the (sufficiently knowledgable) gamers out there don't consider the flexibility of not being locked into a single monolithic network to be an inherient "deficiency." Does it require a certain leap of faith in publishers, in that they will have to run good solid networks? Absolutely. Then again, these aren't exactly clueless companies we're talking about. Considering recent history, I'm inclined to give Eidos much better odds than M$ at pulling this off.

Or, if you prefer, consider it from a larger context. Which design do you think will encourage more online gaming innovation: The one where developers get whatever cut M$ decides to give them, or the one where they control their own destiny? If I gave you a cadre of skilled gaming programmers and some start-up capital, then told you to go create a company which produces online console games, which system would you release on?

Okay, so it does take extra hassle to manage your own game network, but when you control the price point and technical aspects on your own terms, you at least have a legitimate shot, if you make good business decisions and hire the right people, to make serious bank. I firmly believe that the Sony method will eventually lead to a more robust innovation. Right now, M$ makes it easy for a gaming shop to write online games by removing the technology barriers of administering the actual network. Like any tech, however, it will evetually become a much more pervasive and widely-understood art. M$ makes it easier for small gaming companies---for now, at least---but Sony makes it infinitely more enticing, in the long run.

Xbox Live has been online since November - how many DoS attacks have you heard about? That's what I thought.

I see. So by examining the architecture of a system and pointing out specific areas of concern from a technical standpoint, I'm engaged in rampant fear-mongering. I didn't suggest that any attack was immenient, nor was I particularly vague on my assessment. I simply pointed out that the obvious: That a single large network is inheriently more susceptible to wider and more crippling attacks than an array of smaller independent networks. But I guess that simply Googling for existing exploits is a sufficient method of doing a security and health assessment of a given network architecture. Damn, I wish I had known that. I wouldn't have wasted time actually using my brain to reason things out for myself. Next time an original thought occurs to me, I'll simply have you Google it for me as the ultimate test of validity.

If you have any actual rebuttals to any of my postulations, or would like to debunk them in any way, I'd be eager to hear it. I'm certainly not claiming any additional knowledge beyond what is publicly available on the subject. No, I'm just a humble developer/admin who knows how to assess possible security concerns when I see them. If I'm missing so

Re:How did Sony win the console war?

[djNocturne]

The beauty of the Xbox Live is this: You pay just one fee for services. If every company is hosting on-line play for thier games, you might have to pay several bills to different people.

That's a valid point, but it goes back to my "who do I want getting my money: the consoler or the people who made the game possible" argument. It actually ends up being equally parts simple principle and enlightened self-interest. I do think that the developer/publishers more deserve to have it, but I also believe that the general approach itself will spur more widespread adoption of online console gaming in the long run, and probably more inventive ideas even within that. Left to their own devices, I have to believe that publishers will come up with their own unique implementations of what online gaming entails. It could get quite interesting to see Eidos and Capcom, for example, start trying to one-up each other in terms of feature integration on the servers. With the Xbox Live approach, they don't have nearly the same amount of creative license.

This is all just one man's opinion, of course. I believe that the long-term benefits of a more wide-open approach outweigh the minor hassle of making separate payments to different companies, but other people might just disagree with me and decide on the ultimate simplicity of the Xbox approach. All I can really do is try and explain why, in my opinion, the community would be better off siding with Sony on this one, and hopefully to convince enough people through valid arguments. As with most things in life, there's some room for respectful disagreement.

... And quite possibly cheaper in the long run

That's another valid point, and unfortunately probably the only one I can't unequivocally counter. (Well, I could, but I would lose all credibility when the astute reader suddenly realized that I was spinning horse shit into gold :). As you point out, that particular issue is really a big numbers game, and the final answer will vary from person to person. I'm not even going to pretend to bust out pseudo-statistics, because it obviously comes down to simply which games one will find themselves playing and to what extent. All I can really say is that from what I know about the new online-compatibile games currently in the works for both platforms, the line-ups are equally good, so it will probably come down to individual tastes. Of course, if one of the consoles ... *cough*likePS2*cough* ... were to detect a sudden influx of gamers and begin to see the scales tip in their direction, I'm sure that their online library would get real diverse, real quick ;)

I could just be talking out of my ass though. But, this is /.

Nah ... those are both legit points. Let's keep that strictly between you and me, though. Don't tell anyone I said that =)

Iraqi Information Minister?

[gmhowell]

I thought the Iraqi Information Minister was working for SCO, not MS. This interview was such a puff piece. Gimme a break. Let me bitch about a few things specifically.

First, the guy claims to have almost no knowledge of what Sony is up to, and seems nearly proud of that fact! For shit's sake, that's your number one competitor. You think the head of GM doesn't know EXACTLY what Ford is up to? He's either lying (Iraqi Information Minister) or incompetent.

He claims that MS has 'knocked Sony on its feet'. Uhh... How? You're number two in the US, number three in the world. From what I've read/heard, the only reason so many people bought the Live! thing from MS is that it's just about the only reason (other than Halo) to have the damned thing. One peripheral doesn't make up for a lack of decent games (relatively speaking). Then he speaks of vendor lockin (go through MS's service or piss off) like it's a good thing.

We're just fine without EA sucking our dick. Yeah. Right.

We're in a five year or longer development cycle. Hoo, boy, I hope for your sake that you won't be taking much longer than five years for your next console. It's clear from pricing and talking, especially by Sony, that the next consoles are clearly in the works.

Karaoke is going to be a huge thing. Even thought I just heard on NPR last Friday (on morning edition if you are curious) that that business is hurting. Hard.

He says the company never backs down. Yeah, why can't I get MS Bob XP?

"I have bigger fish to fry [than Sony's PSP]" Yeah. Sure you do.

I'm not saying things are 100% in the shitter for the Xbox. Far from it. But things are not as rosy as this guy presents. The interviewer was about as tough as Barbara Walters.

Re:Iraqi Information Minister?

[Yorrike]

"I have bigger fish to fry [than Sony's PSP]". Heh, yeah. Like the GameBoy, which controls 99% of the handheld gaming market. Which is market control Microsoft has not seen in any of it's product lines, ever.

The bigger fish you have to fry is Nintendo. And it's not going to be as easy as the Playstation taking control of the console market. For you see, at the time of the PS one's release, the SNES didn't hold 99% of the home console market.

Re:Iraqi Information Minister?

[AragornCG]

He says the company never backs down. Yeah, why can't I get MS Bob XP?

Ah, but you can, but you can. On any system with Windows XP, open up the Search for Files or Folders tool. The little dog at the bottom is Rover from Microsoft Bob. He even still has the yellow circular nametag on, a tribute to Bob (in Bob, that nametag was the smiley-face-with-glasses logo, although that logo is illegible in XP).

So yes, the company never backs down...

Social

[Boglin]

I contest his notion that console gaming is more social. Handhelds have the ability to be taken anywhere, while the console remains at your home, where it can only be enjoyed by a small group of friends. For more evidence, look at Nintendo's Pokemon, which allowed to kids to battle against each other. Now look at Legend of Zelda: The Four Swords. There is immense social potential in the handheld market; it just seems that Nintendo is the only developer currently trying to exploit it.

Re:Social

[Doctor Cat]

I think handhelds certainly have some social potentials that consoles and PCs don't - I remember taking a prototype of a Gameboy game I was working out to the park to get feedback on it from some non-gamer friends. But overall, I think screen size is the biggest limitation. For "gather in front of the same screen" playing, a handheld will never match a system that can hook up to a big TV in the living room. For "each player playing on their own screen" socializing, handhelds make it easier to do the equivalent of a "mini-LAN party" without the effort of lugging a big heavy PC somewhere for the weekend... But they don't (so far) have as much access to online gaming. Cell-phone gaming might be competitive there, once it has developed more.

Key to the social element of gaming

[Doctor Cat]

One thing Xbox is way ahead on, as far as social gaming is concerned, is how people talk to each other. A pretty small percentage of the population converses by typing messages to each other - most humans don't like to type, and they don't like to read as much as they like to watch and listen. People spend more each year to talk to each other on the telephone than they spend on movies, tv, radio, magazines and videogames COMBINED. Talking to each other is big business.

Xbox gives you a headset microphone. People talk to each other the way they like to, with their mouth and their ears. Meanwhile, none of the big MMORPGs for the PC supports voice chat at all. I think including that headset was a VERY smart move.

Console game machines have generally had a big head start on PCs at being social, anyway. They're often in the living room, a socializing room with a sofar, while PCs are usually tucked away someplace for one person to use. Consoles generally support two or more game controllers, and most games support them. Even when playing single player games, it's more common for people to gather around and watch, take turns playing, etc. Hardcore games do that sort of thing with PCs too - but with console games it's common.

Play is fundamentally a social act, too. Just watch two kittens doing it (or two lion cubs). The amount of solo-gaming we have these days is a fairly recent historical phenomenon, enabled by the invention of the computer. It's a good thing, but playing with other humans will still occupy the majority of human play - it's just more interesting.

Re:Key to the social element of gaming

[markimusk]

I agree, what games did a lot of people first experience? Methinks Pong and Combat. Any 1P modes there? Nope.

How do you reconcile these two quotes:

[Snowspinner]

"So if you're competing on NFL Fever, do you want to do that on Xbox Live with a controller, or do you want to somehow interact your PC and Xbox together? We believe it's the latter, so things change."

"Someone's yet to explain to me the value of hooking up your handheld device to your console. If somebody can tell me what the value of that is, I'm all for it."

I mean, the first one certainly seem to be saying that connectivity between the PC and the XBox is an innately good idea, regardless of application. And then the second one seems to call for applications... and, I mean, I have to point to Animal Crossing here as an example of connectivity's virtues... to say nothing of everything I've heard about Crystal Chronicles...

Oh, and while we're at amusing quotes, I offer this exchange from the article:

Therefore, can we expect further extensions like a keyboard or MSN messaging functions?

Moore: If it's core to games, we're constantly looking for ways to innovate.

Is karaoke core to games?

Moore: Yes, because it's core to the social aspect of what you do.

God, I think that interview may be more entertaining than the console itself...

How to stub your toe in the console business

[djNocturne]

Step 1: Hire an ex-Sega man and assign him a high-ranking job in your console division.

Step 2: Unknown. (The rapid and ultimate effectiveness of Step 1 renders any futher testing ... problematic.)

Huh?

[sandalwood]

"An MMORPG for a console, which the Japanese market is dying for, and we'll be the first to do it."

Guess he's never heard of a little company called Square Enix and their little game called Final Fantasy XI.

Re:Huh?

[Yorrike]

This is weird. It's not like this guy is some gaming virgin pulled out of the MS ranks to fill a position. He's Peter Moore formally of SEGA! I mean, C'mon!

Gaming and mics

[Oakey]

"Xbox gives you a headset microphone. People talk to each other the way they like to, with their mouth and their ears"

I don't know about you, or anyone else, but personally I feel uneasy about sat playing a game with a headset on and chattering away. For anyone that walks in, they're going to think you look like a total muppet. And, it's talking to complete strangers.... it just makes me feel... uneasy. I mean, talking on the phone is different, you more than likely know the person at the other end.

But as I said, sat playing a game shouting "oh my fuckin god, he's cheating, admin!!, admin!! kick ban!! now!!" just seems... silly.

Re:Gaming and mics

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, listen up you primitives. This is my HEADSET! It's lightweight, has stereo sound and microphone. S-Mart's top of the line. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.

People have been doing this for years on the PC, you primitive console people should get a clue.

Re:Gaming and mics

[JGag21]

Jeeze AC thanks for chewing up all that bandwidth on PC games that weren't ready to handle that much data transfer. I loved playing Quake 3 where I fire a shot hear f*ck you fag, then end up respawning, that was awesome.

Peter Moore..

[Anonymous Coward]

..was to the Dreamcast what Bernie Stolar was to the Saturn. I give him or the Xbox another year, tops.

Haven't they heard of wireless?

[nixman99]

"..we believe that the future is the social element of gaming, and that's going to be done through a console, not through a handheld gaming device."

With everyone living on their mobiles now, why does MS think we need a console for socializing?

Wow

[M3wThr33]

Peter Moore's been there for less than 6 months and already he's talking out of his ass.
If I commented on all the innaccuracies he made, I'd be writing a thesis paper.

Something he's ignoring is PROFIT. Why do you make a product? For PROFIT! For as much as you mock Nintendo for, they still make MONEY. Have they gotten so far into this they've forgotten that CORE ideal? Rare will NEVER, mark my words, make a return equal to a 1/3rd of a billion. Enter The Matrix hasn't yet, and probably WON'T.

further proof..

[Suppafly]

further proof that ms just doesn't get the gaming subculture.

("..we believe that the future is the social element of gaming, and that's going to be done through a console, not through a handheld gaming device.")

sounds good to the uninitiated though.