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

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.

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.