Slashdot Mirror
Xbox for $99? Xbox 2 in 2005?
TimeForGuinness writes "CNN is reporting that Microsoft's Xbox may be on the verge of a substantial price cut, falling from $179 to $99 by Labor Day, and Microsoft will launch its next generation console in late 2005 - a year earlier than has been previously rumored. That would put the Xbox 2 on store shelves up to a full year before Sony's PlayStation 3."
xbox linux project
There are others too. Just do a search on google. But thats a good start. Not sure about NetBSD.
Ahh, here we go:NetBSD on xbox
I don't think anyone is using it as a standalone PVR (does it even have PCI slots?). They're using them as a MythTV frontend box. The actual encoding and storage is handled by a seperate backend box (which can be conveniently hidden away in a basement or closet so it can be noisy and not bother you). All the communications between them is just over a network connection. You can of course have a frontend on the same box as the backend though too and communicate over the loopback interface.
Yes, but in a product's lifespan, manufacturing processes are streamlined (ever seen the inside of a 3G Playstation 1?), and cost falls dues to volume manufacture - initially tooling up a production line to make a new item costs a lot too.
But, a lot of these are one off costs that need to be recouped. You spend $10 million on a production line, then your consoles are selling at a loss, then they break even, then you streamline the process and make profit, recouping costs etc...
So, loss initally, recoup costs, profit eventually. Welcome to the wonderful world of manufacturing.
So make sure you do get a 3rd generation (or preferably older) XBox with the old pre-"Live 2.0" dash.
You can hack any version of the XBOX with a hardware modchip, regardless of whether Live 2.0 is installed. This applies to all versions: 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and the 1.5.
I will agree that the software exploits won't work with Live 2.0. However, most XBOX hackers chip their boxes anyway.
See www.teamxecuter.com for more information.
People who say you can't do this or that with a hacked Xbox are just wrong.
The list of things you can do with a hacked Xbox is lengthy. Dropping to $99 is a steal for the best console out there (due to the hack).
For $99 (or $179 imo) + $50 mod, nothing beats it.
um......
2003 Top 10 Console Video Game Titles, Sorted By Units
RANK TITLE PLATFORM PUBLISHER RELEASE DATE
1 MADDEN NFL 2004 (PS2) ELECTRONIC ARTS AUG'03
2 POKEMON RUBY (GBA) NINTENDO OF AMERICA MAR'03
3 POKEMON SAPPHIRE (GBA) NINTENDO OF AMERICA MAR'03
4 NEED SPEED: UNDERGROUND (PS2) ELECTRONIC ARTS NOV'03
5 ZELDA: THE WIND WAKER (GCN) NINTENDO OF AMERICA MAR'03
6 GRAND THEFT AUTO: VICE CITY (PS2) ROCKSTAR GAMES OCT'02
7 MARIO KART: DOUBLE DASH (GCN) NINTENDO OF AMERICA NOV'03
8 TONY HAWK UNDERGROUND (PS2) ACTIVISION OCT'03
9 ENTER THE MATRIX (PS2) ATARI MAY'03
10 MEDAL OF HONOR: RISING SUN (PS2) ELECTRONIC ARTS NOV'03
Source: The NPD Group / NPD Funworld(R) / TRSTS(R)
Now, granted, I got these figures from planetgamecube and I don't know much about the place that did the study, but these figures sure seem to contradict what you are saying. Maybe Xbox sales are spread over more titles or something but you would think Halo at least would be in the top 10. As far as Microsoft positioning itself as being in competition with Sony for the top spot, I can position myself as being in competition with Brad Pitt for the top poon but that doesn't mean I have a chance.
Doesn't seem like anything's changing here folks....
:
:
:
:
Nintendo
NES : 1985
SuperNES : 1991
N64 : 1996
Game Cube : 2001
Avg Time Bet Releases : 5.3 years.
Sega
Master System : 1986
Genesis : 1989
Saturn : 1995
Dreamcast : 1998
Avg Time Bet. Releases : 4 years
Sony
PS1 : 1995
PS2 : 2000
PS3 : 2006 (projected)
Avg Time Bet. Releases : ~5 years
MS
XBox : 2001
XBox 2 : 2005 (projected)
Avg Time Bet. Releases : 4 years
Microsoft on the other hand has to contend with all these disperent companies who wouldn't be too keen to letting each other have a look at the insides of their hardware...
Fortunately for Microsoft, they're not dealing with as many companies as people seem to think they are. Sure, nVidia and Intel aren't going to swap specs so that one or the other can build an integrated CPU/GPU, but they don't really need to in order for Microsoft to save money, because Microsoft would still be paying Intel and nVidia the same amount. In fact, nVidia claimed that they were losing money on the XBox because of some problems where Microsoft wasn't buying parts from them as quickly as they had scheduled production.
Also, unless Microsoft has set up its own fab plant, Intel is running a line of celerons just for Xboxes. Likewise, Nvidia has to put manufacturing capacity aside to make video cards for Xboxes. I don't see either of those companies negoiating a lower contract to continue to build an antiquated product...
nVidia and Intel both have fixed price contracts as far as I know, but Microsoft doesn't pay for a part until it's delivered to them. nVidia's building the entire motherboard, GPU, and sound processor, too, not just the video card. nVidia then turned around and leveraged the technology for the GeForce 3 line and the nForce line, which is pretty much the only way they made any money from the deal. The Intel chip is a special line anyway, as it's been modified to the specs MS and nVidia came up with to optimize performance for games, so Intel can't just shovel whatever chips they didn't ship from that era over to MS, either.
In the end, though, MS has come up with ways to reduce the cost on the assembly end. They still have the problem of Intel and nVidia being at fairly fixed prices, but they may have learned their lesson on that one. Notice that the official releases regarding the deal with IBM on the next XBox don't mention IBM actually producing chips, but rather Microsoft licensing technology. MS is currently limited in how much they can cut their costs, and they still will be in the future because they are licensing technology, but not to the extent they are now as they are buying hardware (at fixed cost afaik).
Sony has none of those problems. In fact it could be argued that it goes the otherway for Sony. As Sony works to create a more integrated PS2, that know how gets used to integrate other products in the Sony line and visa versa.
This is true, but it still costs Sony money to change their production lines for the updated (cheaper) chips. They have to weigh the costs against the gains, and I'm sure they only change the chips when they stand to make significant amounts of money off of it. At the same time, this whole concept is what allowed them to do PS1 compatibility, and now that they've reduced the PS2 functions outside the PS1 chip to a single chip, they can possibly do it again on the PS3 (and are currently using the single-chip design in the PSX afaik). On the other hand, there have been rumours that the next XBox may have to emulate the XBox hardware in order to successfully play XBox games. While this would result in lower hardware costs, to some degree, it would also result in a significant investment on the front end to produce the emulation.
-PainKilleR-[CE]