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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.