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

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.

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!

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:social element

[anotherone]

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