Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Rush To Xbox 2 A Danger?
Game Boy writes "Brit games business site Gamesindustry.biz has posted a fascinating editorial asking whether Microsoft is about to shoot itself in the foot over Xbox 2 by rushing to launch the console years ahead of its rivals' next-generation platforms. It's a pretty good analysis of how Microsoft is thinking about this marketplace, and why they could be pretty drastically wrong - I work at a major games publisher, and a lot of people here are worried about exactly the same things, but it's rare to see anyone actually discussing them openly. Xbox has done pretty well so far, but Microsoft could be heading for a disaster that even Bill's billions won't dig them out of..."
i'll be playing NES games on my modded xbox for the rest of my life.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
You do realize that you are talking about a company that has almost $60 Billion (with a B) just in reserves alone. They are sitting on this money! Add into what they make in revenue and the profit off that.
I know this is an editorial and all and very light on research findings but this paragraph right here struck me as odd:
Just because you release a platform before a competitor doesn't automatically make it better. The movie industry is notorious for this. Think back in 1999, The release of Armageddon was very hyped at this time, Hell, McDonalds had a friggin contest for it. However, before that release came this little movie called Deep Impact. It was an OK movie, but lacked some parts. It was rushed, designed to make it out before Armageddon and take a cut into it's sales. The movies had the same premise and theme, but Armageddon destroyed Deep Impact in both the box office and dvd/vhs sales. In this case, Microsfot doesn;t know when Sony will release the PS3. The PS3 is so highly anticipated right now, that developers are already writing games for it, studios have already put aside funds. The same cannot be said for a next generation Xbox.I am not totally sure on this, but has the Xbox managed to outsell the PS2 in any month except for when the Xbox was first released? When will companies learn that to make a market share, you have to be different. Playstation become popular back in the day because they were disc-based. They were able to hold more space, add better graphics, play music, play full-motion video. But most of all they had the game developers behind them.
I would be very interested to see what Microsfot has to offer that will be different from the rest. It definitly wasn't a 40 GB hard drive. I think this will be great for Sony to see what they can enhance upon for their game system, considering the PS3 has been in development for what? 3-4 years now.. perhaps longer? I think they might have a slight advantage and a better product.
Just my $0.02.
Hmmm.
Microsoft is bad for rushing to release XBOX 2. Microsoft is bad for pushing back the deadline for Longhorn so they can make it better. Nice logic, everyone.
Don't even try to argue. It is NOT worth the while to go round the world to count the cats in Zanzibar.
Well I actually like the Microsoft plan to release it before their rivals, because to be honest, there are people who would buy this. If they release in between ps2 an ps3 they maybe able to pick up on the ps2 heads who are looking for the latest system. And if they are the only ones releasing during these years that will increase their profits, because there will be no competition, people will always buy whats new even if they already have something similar.
For The Best Jazz/Hip-hop fusion > COlD DUCK
Poor sales and weak titles may be one reason for the change.
On a side note, I couldn't believe my eyes the other day when I saw a brand new X-Box on sale for $99.
Sigs cause cancer.
Nobody has forgetton what the real evil is. Everyone now has to deal with it everyday, whether you are an American or not. You are preaching to the wrong crowd.. We are NOT behind any of these killings, or their beliefs.
Maybe if they would innovate new games they would not have to worry about the crappy sales they have now based on *sequels* to games.
"Microsoft may be making a colossal mistake by trying to force the industry into a next-generation cycle before it is ready to move."
MS has been doing this for years in the IT industry, and succeeding at it. Why should this be any different? Microsoft says Jump, and the IT industry asks "How high?"
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
But I thought "good" and "evil" were relative! Stand down, zealot! These people did what they thought was right, and who are YOU to judge them??
By releasing their console years ahead of Sony and Nintendo's next boxes, Microsoft will lose on game selection, unless they plan on writing all the games themselves/and or hiring games companies to write exclusively for the XBOX. Seems like most really popular games come out for multiple consoles simultaneously... (a certain non-swimming action franchise notwithstanding). Where will the developers be at when XBOX2 comes out?
"I had another dream the other day about music critics. They were small and rodent-like with padlocked ears..."
Three points
1) The article does point out (correctly) that Microsoft's idea of first to market being key to the next generation is not supported by what happened to the Dreamcast console, which was first to market.
2) Even if Microsoft does come out with the Xbox 2 sooner it would have to be light years ahead of the PS2 to get an audience, because both the XBox and the Gamecube are better machines in terms of graphics capacity now, and that is not enough to overcome Sony's dominance
3) I find the generation counting (5th generation -- since NES) offensive. What happened to Atari 2600/Intellivision/Coleco Vision?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Sega tried this. Remember the dreamcast erhmmm the 32x and THEN the dreamcast?
Remember the CD-i?
Remember the 3D0?
Remember the Atari Jaguar?
These weren't experimental systems. They were meant to beat the big guys to the punch, whether it was Nintendo or Sega back then.
The Dreamcast (still my favorite recent gen system) got trashed by the ps1 and the n64. It keeps me up at night thinking about how much better games for the Dreamcast would have been.
However, if I remember correctly, the PS2 was launched a year before the GC and the Xbox....Hmmmm, no one was naysaying when Sony was planning on doing that, and look at them now - on top by a large margin.
XBox shooting themselves in the foot? Not if they have Ninja Gaiden, a Halo spinoff and other stuff coming out. Oh and backwards compatibility, they NEED backwards compatibility, no matter HOW HARD it is. I'd put some cash, money, hoes on that being the reason the PS2 succeeded as quickly as it did.
schild
editor, f13.net
The Dreamcast bombed because sega screwed all their customers beforehand with their last 3 systems. Customers had no confidence in the Sega the company, and showed them that by not buying the dreamcast which was actually a pretty good system.
Microsoft hasn't displayed the same hubris ( kind of a shock ) and it's probably a 50/50 chance of success. It would be made better with backwards compatibility, but i don't know if thats a feature of the xbox 2
This is what I'm picturing... stay with me here...
A white background... a blur of blue goes by the center of your screen. The word "SEGA" appears, and resounding voices sing the name "SAY-GAH"
The dreamcast, although ahead of it's time, came out year(s?) before the ps/2. Now look at Sega.
I say this is a good thing and microsoft should release XBox-2 as quickly as possible to get the jump on Sony and Nintendo...but of course I am not one who appricates Microsoft...
WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
This is what I've suspected all along - delay halo 2's release another 3 months (which considering it's already 3.5 months behind schedule already wouldn't be a surprise), and expedite release date of the xbox 2. That way they can force everyone that wants halo 2 to upgrade (and who didn't buy the xbox at least partially because of the existence of halo?).
In the console market, a company MUST consider the needs and focus of the game development companies.
Because a console can do nothing without games written for it, and you cannot use a console for really anything but the licensed games (unless you mod the box, possibly breaking ability to play regular games), launching a console line without a strong commitment from development houses is just asking for a financial flop!
Of course, Microsoft does have enough muscle to do it's own development, but not enough to pump out enough games to support a purchase decision to buy the console.
--- It's not my fault this post looks redundant. I just type too slow.
In other words, studios are being asked to invest in next-generation R&D two years before it's required for PS3, and to spend more money developing an Xbox 2 version of a cross platform title - for an audience of a few million people - than they'll spend developing all three current-generation versions of the game - for an audience of well over a hundred million...
...Herein lies the arrogance; Microsoft isn't used to making decisions as an industry small-fry, and it's trying to act like an industry leader in an industry it simply doesn't lead.
Microsoft is so proud, that they're becoming blind to the fact that their brand name is become a joke in pop culture. Add that to the fact that Sony's PS3 will be a revolutionary CPU design, whereas Xbox2 will only be cutting edge.
Pride comes before a fall, guys (Prov 16:18). Just keep focussed on making something great and forget about the competition; Sony did.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
If they want to damage Sony's market share, they should make the console as good as possible and release it at the same time as the PS3... releasing it a couple years before hand just means people will have that much time to save up for their next system, the PS3, not to mention the millions of kids that will have entered the 'video game playing' age bracket that weren't there for xbox2, they will be getting the PS3, not that 2 year old crappy xbox2 system.
Sure, if failing to make a single penny in profit is "pretty well"...
...if having only 1 game in any of the annual top ten sales charts, and that being "Halo" from back in 2001, is "pretty well"...
...if having sold even fewer units than Nintendo's GameCube is "pretty well"...
...if being outsold by the PSOne in Japan is "pretty well"...
...then yes, Xbox has done pretty well. And to think people accuse Slashdot of being anti-Microsoft!
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Isn't this just what Nvidia did? The XBOX is already the most capable console out there, it makes the ps2 look primitive, and it is signifigantly more powerful than the GC but I wouldn't say dramatically so. For years when Nvidia was the only real manufacturer of GPU's, instead of resting on their laurels they pushed ahead and released new products month after month after month. A lot of companies were prevented from competing with Nvidia had raised the bar dramatically. I submit this is exactly what MS is trying to do, raise the bar for Sony, make it more expensive for them, to screw up their PS3 plans, and prevent competition in the general sense.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Since PS2 dev won't have to stop for PS3, all the investment and tricks learned will still be valuable. Sure, some developers and publishers will stop PS2 coding, but look at how many PS1 games are still out there!
Microsoft won't have that, and they're also asking gamers to keep two systems. Sony is effectively saying "Upgrade to the $350 PS3 by trading in the PS2 for $100, and keep all your games!".
Much less risk to go Sony.
I still want an X2, but I know who's getting my money first!
GTRacer
- Read the FA for once!
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
*IF* the Xbox2 will be backwards compatible (and considering the architecture of a proposed PPC chip and all, that will be very surprising), then this will be a good move. New games that the article talks about that are multi-platform will still work with the Xbox 2, and new games will look "neato!" on the Xbox2's new hardware.
BUT!
If the Xbox2 is *not* backwards compatible, then yes, this could be a problem. If I have a choice between Xbox 1 with a library of games, or the Xbox2 with a few new games, or the PS2 with a ton of new and old games (with the promise that the upcoming PS3 will play all of my current games), then it's going to be a no-brainer for the majority of people out there. And all it will do is change the Xbox divivion from losing over $500 million to one losing more.
Even Microsoft's investors can't stand a division losing money forever, no matter how much Windows and Office brings in.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
MS NEVER gets it right the first time, but they almost always get it right after years of trying. The quicker they dump xbox and move on the better. If they can deliver a great toolset in XNA (admit it, MS does great developer tools) and a platform that makes it shine, they will have a winner. In any case, they can afford many more losses.
Wasn't X-Box the last console to market? Like, 18 months after the PS2, if I remember correctly. So, while the X-Box may not have had it's full life, but it's not going to be that early for the next-gen consoles?
Also, isn't the PS2 meant to be coming out in late 2005, early 2006? In which case, it's not going to be all that early, really, is it?
Studios which focus on cross-platform titles, as many of the largest publishers in the world do, face a gigantic problem - while developing a title on PS2, Xbox and GameCube is an easy prospect as code, art and audio can be effectively reused on all three platforms, adding a next-generation platform to the mix will require complete re-development.
What the buzzing? Code, art, and audio can all be shared across the current generation, but not into the next? Code cannot be shared between the Xbox, the PS2 and the GC. They are completely different platforms, with completely different architectures. Any code you can share between them is algorithmic code that can easily be shared with any next-gen system. Art? If you can share art between current systems, why couldn't you do it between a current system and a new system? It may not be everything the new system is capable of displaying, but these consoles don't exactly choke on images that are too easy. (And if the art is designed from the start to be displayed on the Xbox2, then they've already spent the money developing for that system, and it is a trivial process of dumbing it down for lesser machines.) And audio? AUDIO? It's exactly the same. All of it. No difference. There will be no problem here, at all.
I don't think it's a good idea for Microsoft to try to be the first to market in the next generation, but this chap is a raving lunatic. That point is completely invalid, as anyone who's ever even USED a computer or a console before ought to know better than this.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
I personally would rely on PS3 being a reaction to XBOX1, then crush them into the ground with XBOX2, but then again, maybe that's why I don't run a multibillion $$$ corporation.
What is to stop Microsoft from releasing this at the end of the year and then relasing the NEXT version a few months after the PS3? They would get all the folks who picked up a Xbox 2 looking to get the 3. This would greatly expand their user base. They have a lot of $$$ to throw at this.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
The Xbox is in a catch 22 situation. Because it loses so much money on every console, the more it sells, the more Microsoft loses.
s /
e ct ion_name=pub&aid=3489
s p
2 00 3/06/02/story7.html
The loss estimates so far are in the billions:
Here read this:
http://www.itworld.com/App/4201/030203xboxlosse
this is about their losses in 2002 doubling!!
in this more recent piece the Biz magazine says Msft has lost BILLIONS so far.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?s
Here's an article on its big loses in 2003
http://www.1up.com/article2/0,4364,1519194,00.a
here's an article talking about how they are losing money despite sales increases:
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
From the article, MS thinks that they can corner the next gen market by jumping in early, much like the PS2 did by coming out first (well, except for the Dreamcast). While they may get an early lead, Sony's next system will have better tech (like the XBox has now, and a reason some people claimed to get a XBox.), probably pulling customers back.
Sounds like a high risk move, which could backfire like Fahey thinks, or it could set them up to win large chunks of marketshare. Probably will come down to developers and actual games. And Sony could always start saying "PS3 coming out reeealll soon now" to try and blunt MS's early edge by making people wait (one reason why Apple is so tight lipped about new products, they don't want people not buying current systems and waiting for new stuff).
Fahey also points out that MS is losing money with each XBox sale. Assuming this is true, how will that change with a new system, unless they don't put in the best hardware, making a PS3 system look even better, tech wise?
Let MS try it, but I think they need something more compelling than "early mover" status to topple Sony as the game console leader.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
PS2 has a year+ lead on the Xbox and that's a good thing. Xbox2 has a lead on the PS3 and suddently it's a BAD thing.
These microsoft guys just can't do ANYTHING right by you guys.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Remember the CD-i?
Technology was too new at the time. Too expensive. Just not very well thought out. This was Philips, not Nintendo.
Remember the 3D0?
Way, way overpriced. They thought young adults would pay $700 for a game system. Not gonna happen.
Remember the Atari Jaguar?
Attempted last gasp for breath from Atari in the home market. They hadn't had anything remotely successful since the 2600.
[attempted humor]
but wait! no one is even mentioning how Nintendo has a part in all of this! Why?
[/attempted humor]
WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
"could be pretty drastically wrong"
Look at BetaMax. It was a superior in quality to VHS, however, the VHS standard won out because it was marketed better.
For the record, I'm not a big fan of the Xbox.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
I thought I read AT LEAST two years ago that Sony had all the parts needed to make a Playstation 3 but was holding back due to the fact that there was no competition they needed to whomp at the time. Had XBox done better the PS3 would probably be out there now. I'd love to see the PS3 come out though, since as it was described it might not only be an XBox killer but a PC killer as well.
I hardly see how this move is a "risk" for Microsoft though. The bigger risk to Microsoft is that they just sit on their 50 Billion $ nest egg and wait for the Windows/Office monopoly to dry up. Having shot blanks with just about everything else they have tried, even Bill must be doubting his own genius by now.
If you had Sony to go up against in consumer electronics, IBM in IT consulting and hardware, Google, Yahoo and AOL in Internet space, and Open Software gradually picking up steam against your existing monopoly, wouldn't you be a bit worried? I bet the stock holders are.
Besides, who says the end of 2005 is a rush? In MS time that means 2007 at least.
But your point is right on. Sega proved it not once but twice!
As Iposted earlier, the current Xbox loses a LOT of money, possibly billions of dollars. And the better it sells, the more Microsoft loses.
So, if the Xbox2 is cheaper to produce, and does not bleed money with every console sold, then it would certainly be in Microsoft's advantage to change over as quickly as possible.
However, if it's still a money pit, then there is absolutely NO reason to switch!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
...third time will be the charm.
If I had to guess, I'd say the XBox 2 will suffer from second-system effect. (Although to be fair, everybody seems to be suffering from that on the next generation, except maybe Nintendo.) Which means it may actually be a cool device over all, but will probably not do well.
Look out for their third try.
(Hopefully it will get a more "fair" trial, as by then some of Sony's IMHO undeserved lustre will have worn off. Sony does not suck, but they do not rock as hard as everybody acts like they do. Take the three modern consoles, strip them of the "brand" they carry, and drop them into a hypothetical "fresh" market, and on technical merit, the PS2 is the big loser, in many ways that were actively bad design. (Parts of FFX made me almost cry... from the sparkles that should never have been there. Polygon counts aren't everything; quality counts too!))
(Forgive me, I'm still a secret Dreamcast partisan, and every time I see the PS2 botch something graphically the DC doesn't I am once again amazed at the design of the PS2; by all rights its quality should be uniformly better than the DC but it isn't... amazing.)
The real reason that companies are kissing Sony's ass is because Sony is a Japanese company. Japanese studios never support American companies no matter how good Microsofts hardware or software is they will never win the Japanese developers. The problem is the Japanese developers make all the good games and these developers are all loyal to Sony because Sony is run by Japanese people who look like them.
So the real reason Microsoft can't win developers is pretty obvious and until western developers can make decent games everyone will buy a PS2 and then a PS3.
Microsofts best move right now would be to buy Sega.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Time to start hacking for America!
It seems to me that Microsoft would do better to concentrate on pressing their advantage in the online console gaming market with their XBOX Live service. This is an area where Microsoft is definitely ahead of Sony, which has left online gaming largely up to the individual publishers whereas Microsoft has concentrated on a single branded and managed service. The XBOX Live network can include a greater variety of content and better integration of online gaming services with the centralized service model. Also, smaller publishers, who would balk at the cost of maintaining their own online console gaming infrastructure, would definitely take advantage of the Microsoft branded service and the marketing support that comes with it.
The next generation console wars will clearly be decided in the online space. If Microsoft concentrates on this then they have a chance.
The only reason I can say that XBox is not currently the market leader is the fact that the PS2 launched a bit early.
I own all three (well, four, as I also own a Dreamcast) of the current-gen systems. If I were starting out today to purchase my consoles, but with my current experience with the systems, XBox and Gamecube would be a toss up for my first and second purchase, and the PS2 would be dead last. Put simply, Nintendo has great, great first party games, and the console just has a certain "character" that the others lack. XBox is vastly superior to the PS2 in hardware specs, from video and audio, even down to the fact that it supports four controls without an additional purchase. This means that cross-platform games end up getting purchased for my XBox because, simply put, they're going to look better and sound better in 99% of the cases. This is compounded by the fact that since I don't really have time to devote to lengthy RPGs or Turn-based strategy games (an area that I understand Sony has been shining in lately), I simply haven't seen a large amount of compelling, PS2-only titles in the last five or six months (although I'm certain someone will be more than happy to post some laundry list for me).
I wasn't always like this; I had a PS2 on the American release date, and I held off on my XBox purchase until they had two games that I was really, genuinely interested in (turned out to be DOA: 3 and Buffy, although I was pleasantly surprised by Halo, which I had discounted as yet another FPS). A year after my XBox purchase, it's rare for me to purchase a PS2 game, but still very common for me to grab GC or XBox games.
Although the first mover has technically lost the last three generations (you'd have to include DC in this one, which I do), the first major mover in the last three gens was also Sega, so I suppose we could simply chalk it up to mismanagement. That said, the only logical reason that I can see for the PS2's success was that it was first out of the gate, and the majority of people, the ones who don't own all the consoles, thus purchase PS2 games by default.
Now, whether or not MS will shoot themselves in the foot with an early XBox2 launch is another story. While there is a lot larger market for game consoles now than there used to be, it's hard to discount the sore feelings of people who "just bought an XBox1."
Why does everyone always tell you they work for a major airline or a major pharmacutical research corporation? Do you think anyone cares? People just think you're a major asshole!
The logic is due to the fact they are in different markets, that operate differently..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
MS products have been crappy until the third version. Why should this be any different? Xbox-1 tanks. Xbox-2 is rushed. Xbox-3 will kill off Playstation AND Nintendo. (Well *I* hope not). But given the company's long history of the Third Version Charm, I'm saving my money for PS3.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
How do you sell a console?
Bundle it with a great game.
How do you get great games?
Get developers to create them.
When will developers create a great game?
When the console has about 10 million shipped world wide.
Its a Chicken and Egg problem. Its been around for years. The Atari VCS (aka 2600) was the first to go big time. It did so because of the sheer number of games availble for it. However that was also its demise. There was so much crap that people got fed up with it and burnt out on the console.
Nintendo re-established the industry by maintaining tight control over content (literally control freaks about it). They came in when there was basically a huge demand that no one knew about, and they kicked butt.
These days the demand is predictable. The number of games purchased per month is known and predictable. There is no pent up demand, no WOW effect. Everyone knows what video games can do.
The issue these days is: why would people upgrade to the XBOX 2? Only for exactly the right killer game... Half Life 3 or something beyond that.
But developers don't want to support too many platforms. Three is their max. Any more and the amount of resources involved affects the bottom line.
If they support Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft XBOX, they would have to give up one of those to support XBOX2. If there are only a few hundred thousand out there, and there are millions upon millions of the other platforms, why would they support XBOX2? For the WOW effect. WOW don't make money or pay wages.
To get titles for XBOX 2, Mcrosoft is going to have to pay developers. Its lucky they have that 60B in the bank.
And there's another issue. I heard XBOX 2 is going to cost $500.00. That's what we in the biz call a two parent decision. Actually that is more than double a one parent decision. In some families more than five times a one parent decision. They are simply not going to be able to sell those at that price. Video game consoles are very cost sensative. You think they're losing money shipping XBOX? You should see how much they'll lose on XBOX 2 if they want $500.00 for it and settle for $199.99.
Microsoft could well be digging their own grave and filling it with money and throwing in a match.
--Raydude (Ex Atari Games employee)
The Dreamcast on paper was a success. It sold very well, and it was a good system from a hardware and software point of view. The price was even great.
Why did it fail? It failed because Sega lacked the money to pay for its marketing, Sega lacked the business sense to develop games and then profit from them (Sega developed hundreds of games with no way to make the money back)
Ultimately Sega broke themselves and wasted all their money on game development when they should have just made 10 good games a year like Nintendo.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
So let's say MS releases a next gen XBox that is superior to current offerings, and provides a large window to be the leader.
This would be a great opportunity for smaller game companies to take advantage of microsofts well funded gamble--something the article actually alludes to.
The crux of the article is that established game companies won't want to develop for XBox because they would have to neglect existing profit streams. This is part of something termed "The innovators Dilemma" by a guy named Christensen.
Hey guys, tough cookies. You can milk the cash cow and go out of business, or come up with a way to innovate AND keep up the revenue stream. Nobody said the tech biz is easy, and it seems a bit silly to whine that technology is advancing too fast when it is in fact the reason you exist.
Microsoft is so proud, that they're becoming blind to the fact that their brand name is become a joke in pop culture. just like Cannondale tried in the 90's to make a motorcycle to compete with Honda, Yamaha, etc...
They made a great product with a few problems but made...big loss. And in the mountain bike world thet were laughed at. Their products are good, but not great(I snapped the headtube off one). They had all the money in the world to attempt what they did, but they had no business trying to make motos.
That would make a great movie title, about an obscenely wealthy man who stumbles from one cockup to another, only to be rescured from each by his vast fortune.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Just like with the Apple Newton , first to market doesn't ensure that you will succeed. You need a few other things. Xbox has pretty much failed so far on those things (price point, and in the case of a games system - good games). If they are true to form, they will simply throw money at the problem, and try to buy their way into the market.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Getting it to market after the PS3 will help the Xbox2 how? Getting it to market first doesn't mean success, but surely it improves their chances compared to getting it to market after.
--- What?
Don't get me wrong, the discussion on this topic is interesting and all, but...
Other than dramatic headline writing, how is this a danger?
Sticking your wang in a pickle slicer? That's a danger. Beating on a hornet's nest with a baseball bat? Also a danger. Releasing your next-generation system early? Arguably (or not) a bad business decision, but I hardly think the word danger is justified.
Why do you believe in a supreme being? Has this being revealed itself to you in some way? If so, then what was the point of doing so if such revelation has no impact on how you live your life? You may as well tell me that you just farted. Who cares? You sir, are a fool full of incomplete thoughts. Please examine your convictions and follow them through to their logical conclusions.
Halo
At the time that Halo came out, it was the next Goldeneye. Who wasn't excited. Intelligent enemies, sweet multiplayer options, "I can drive this hum vee while you shoot people with the minigun!?" -- KICK ASS. Halo gave the Xbox its biggest breath of life. Maybe its only breath of life. What other "must have" games are there for the Xbox? The kind of games that those of us without an Xbox know about and can say "That game is amazing."
Look at Sony and Nintendo, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, and Grand Theft Auto (before it came to Xbox) are more than enough to justify the purchase of a PlayStation. And there will always be people in line to buy the next Zelda, the next Metroid, and the next Mario.
Microsoft's problem is not developing/licensing enough cutting edge "must have" games for the Xbox rather than just a sequel to it's flagship title. Unless they release mindblowing titles along with the launch of the Xbox 2, its doomed to follow the same path.
The Dreamcast came out before the PS2, but that hurt it more than helped. By the time the PS2 came out, it was obvious that the Dreamcast was underpowered campared to the PS2.
I think something similar may happen if the XBox2 comes out early with hardware that isn't as powerful as the eventual PS3. XBox Live may help early XBox2 game's popularity, but if the PS3 can run circles arround the Xbox2 with graphics and interactivity, then the XBox2 won't last long.
Reports have indicated that the XBox 2 may not be able to play Xbox 1 games; a serious point of consideration for the large numbers of people who bought their XBoxes recently.
They've also indicated that they XBox2 will use non-standard hardware in an effort to fight piracy and hacking. 90% of my reason for owning an XBox is emulation and media. The platform games are a far distant 3rd and of those only a few are exclusives. If they lock down the XBox 2 as severely as the GC, I for one will NOT be buying it and (as pilthy as it may seem) the sales for the few games I would've bought for the system will be going to Sony.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
The early bird may get the worm....
but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Microsoft is asking for trouble by trying to be the first to market with its next generation console. If it manages to beat the competition to market, odds are either it's going to be too sloppy or too expensive to get a large following. Even if it is good, the competition will probably be out to market with superior technology before a critical mass of the XBOX-2 units have sold.
Sega tried this. It worked ONCE with the Genesis, mainly because Nintendo rested on its laurels too long and the SNES (IIRC) didn't come out until a year or two later, and wasn't that much better. (Don't forget all the other companies that beat Nintendo to 16 bit system. All are gone.) The Sega CD, 32x, Saturn, and Dreamcast never captured the market share that the Genesis had.
This is a risky and highly dangerous gamble for Microsoft
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there was a major 'break' between the 2600 days and the Nintendo days. For a couple years, no one did much in the game industry, atari killed it with a glut of bad games.
Since the NES, the game intrustry has been running continusly, and well.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Sega used to try and beat everyone to the punch as well, look where it got them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't all of the consoles that were released first in each generation fared much worse than those released towards the end? For example: Sega's Master System vs. NES, Sega's Genesis vs. SNES, PSOne vs. Nintendo64, Sega's Dreamcast vs. Microsoft's XBox.
Personally, I tend to wait about two years after a new console's been released before buying. The first couple batches of games are usually slow and/or buggy, the console's price hasn't been lowered yet, there's a very small selection of games, fantastic games are still being released for the last gen's consoles, etc.
open proxy?
because it was backwords compatible with my PS1 game collection. I suspect the PS3 will be backwards compatible with PS2 games. Microsoft has a history of making their latest release be incompatible with earlier version.
:-), plus provide some additional value that isn't available on the market, and meet my price point.
In short, it doesn't matter if company X releases a product ahead of the competition. If the company has shown itself to be untrustable, and MS has, then I won't be buying into their products.
If MS really wants to get a jump on the competition, they need the Xbox2 to be compatible with PS2 games
their efforts to make this whole enterprise actually profitable. They do want that. Essentially subsidizing XBox2 developement would be a huge expense. Top that with the hardware discounts they'll continue and it starts costing real money. And while it won't seriously dent their cash reserves, it will look bad on spreadsheets and to investors and make the whole process more vulnerable to pressures to quit.
One of the reasons why the Xbox is even doing as well as it has, is that though there are a lot more titles developed for the PS2, the XBox had a fair amount more power and thus some things came out better on the XBox.
But by rushing out early they throw away the only advantage they have - the lead on power. What happens when you release a console that weaker compared to all the other next-gen consoles coming out not long after, and has smaller developer share to boot? I think you end up with a rapid decline in market share as game makers line up to develop for the system with the (probably) larger market share (like an order of magnitidy larger!) which also has more power (hwich the gamer makers love to play with).
I don't think the PS2 lead had as much to do with the success of the PS2 as it did with it coming from Sony. Plus the PS2 landed in the right place at the right time by offering a DVD player when they were still a little expensive, and the backwards compatibility helped as well. Bteween all those things it made it easy to justify a purchase.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
i wonder if i could find out something cool about PS3...i live in austin where some companies (notably ibm and intel) have been getting sony ppl from japan in to help engineer ps3...i teach english to some of their wives and generally chill with them...so maybe i have an 'in'??? ^o^ hohoho!
note: this post was only done to see if gaming nerds would bow down to me...apparently they did not...please disregard this post ^_^
Clearly being the first mover is a risky proposition. If it works, then lots of folks will buy Xbox2s and MS will have a nice installed base before the compettition releases their next gen consoles. In other words, MS can assume a leadership position and make their Xbox product line very profitable. If it doesn't work, then MS has a flop of a console and they've wasted a lot of time and money. That sucks and all, but will it even ever show up on the company's bottom line? Will they even have a quarter where their earnings per share is down a single penny because of an Xbox2 flop? So why shouldn't they roll the dice? They have the money to get the product out the door ahead of their compettition, promote it like crazy, and get lots of games written for it (like what they did buying Bungie and getting Halo out there.) MS is not going to be content to just release their console at the same time as everyone else and hope to eek out more gains slowly over time.
There's another thing that the author of this article missed out on. He seems to think that no existing software houses will be able to leverage existing work for Xbox2 games. That's just plain crazy to start with. Clearly things like art, design, production can be leveraged. It may not be as easy to leverage code, but it might be easy to leverage code from PC games. DirectX9 anyone?
The REAL reasons that the PS2 is numero uno: 1. BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - the previous console leaders (Sega, Nintendo) failed to realize that this simple tactic ensures loyalty and almost guarantees success during the platform transition period 2. 3RD-PARTY SUPPORT - Square/Enix guarantees Japanese market, the strong relationships with EA,Konami,Namco 3. HYPE - the ridiculous BS that Sony spread in the mainstream media "the PS2 is a super-computer that the DoD wants to restrict exports of" made all the idiots out there decide that this machine is the one to get when in reality it is inferior to the older DC in many aspects 4. SYSTEM-SELLING TITLES - GTA, Gran Turismo, Ratchet, etc Sony clearly has more exclusive must-have titles than Xbox or GC The reasons that Xbox is numero dos: 1. FEW SYSTEM-SELLING EXCLUSIVE TITLES - Halo and... maybe Metropolis, Ninja Gaiden but clearly not enough to win the war 2. DESIGN FLAWS - too bulky and big for non-US markets; too expensive - the features that make the Xbox superior also make it unprofitable to build, no chance of seriously under-pricing the Ps2; 3. UTTER FAILURE IN JAPAN Xbox market share in Japan is zero, nullifying its advantage over N in Us/Europe. This makes strong Japanese developer support impossible - yes there are some (Sega, Tecmo, Capcom) but the bulk of Japanese "A" titles are still on the PS2
They already lost the money making it, whether you buy one or not. When you do buy one, they get most of that money back.
Buying an X-Box gives them money back, and the volume gives them the the ability to further streamline each hardware revision, reducing their costs.
How phatetic is the gamer Bill Gates ?
open4free ©
They more the sell, they less they lose on each one, and gives them further incentive to streamline each successive revision of the hardware until they're not losing money.
Just because they lost $100 on the first one they sold, doesn't mean they're still losing $100 on the 500,000,000th they sell.
Why is it that Microsoft can never enter and compete in an industry? Of course every company is out to 'crush' its competitors, but that's rhetoric - except for Microsoft. In most industries, despite talk of 'crushing' there's a competitive landscape, and things go from generation to generation with the advantage shifting back and forth.
Microsoft is EVIL, if for this reason alone. They really do CRUSH their competition, and after they do innovation in that domain DIES, because they're expending their energy CRUSHING someone else in a different arena. This behavior is obvious and self-serving, and what any company probably should do. Antitrust laws were meant to keep markets competitive - it's actually regulation to preserve free markets, and at this point the laws are broken by broken enforcement.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I'd guess that the average game console life is probably around three years.
You guessed wrong.
1985 - NES released in the USA
1991 - SNES released in the USA
1996 - N64 released in the USA
2001 - GCN released in the USA
6, 5, and 5 years
1994 - PSX released in the USA
2000 - PS2 released in the USA
6 years
The title says it all. Once can only hope that something, somehow knocks MS down hard so that we can finally get some real progress and innovation in the Tech field.
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
One word: Dreamcast.
My blog can kick your blog's ass
If an Xbox 2 can be converted to an Xbox 2.1 with a CD that flash-upgrades the OS, then we have a new paradigm in game consoles.
Such an "innovation" introduced to the console is a double edged sword. I'd advise against going that route myself as it would enable all that is bad and wrong about the proprietary software world (led by Microsoft) to infect the console market.
I haven't owned a console in my adult life (although I was quite a fan of the Colecovision), so maybe my perspecive is skewed. However, don't most people buy consoles because they want to play games with a high entertainment value and great sound and graphics without the troubles and complexity involved with PCs? I'd say most people with consoles also own PCs, and if it was just a matter of wanting to play games then the market for consoles wouldn't be nearly as large as it is today--most people would play on the PC, perhaps electing to equip their PCs with TV-out for big-screel livingroom experience.
I figure if you have to worry about buying a flash upgrade CD every few weeks or months or having to use your x-box live subscription to run "x-box update" regularly because the product was slapped together and rushed to market to beat the competition then you might as well stick with your PC. The last thing a kid needs to worry about is having his x-box turned into a spamming zombie because he forgot to load in the upgrade CD before connecting to his buddy for network play.
Nintendo has always been late in delivery, but Nintendo and Sony's game markets don't over lap very much. If you only have a one console game house, here's how it breaks out:
1) Nintendo is usually for younger kids and more conscious parents who want their kids to have fun but want games like Pokemon, Mario, Zelda, or other similar games they approve of. They are more cartoony, less violent, and suitable for youngsters. Nintendo's market is smaller but its a tight niche and Nintendo works just fine in that niche and PS2 has a hard time cracking that niche.
2) PSX and PS2 are more for teens and adults, especially hardcore gamers. They always have and by establishing their niche, they have a wide range of games.
These two platforms have different niches and have differentiated themselves in order to compete, which is the whole point of capitalism.
3) xbox pretty much seems to appear to be another flavor of PS2. I don't know if there are any differences, except that PS2 has more games. At best I've noticed some games which historically were for or were going to be for PCs are showing up on xbox, but I'm not sure.
And therein lies the problem. The only thing I know that differentiates the PS2 from the xbox is the games! I'm joe average gamer, not some hardcore player who buys all the platforms and 500 games. How can xbox compete?
Now, it becomes a catch 22 to try to eat a competitors lunch when there is nothing to say you are better than the competitor. What this move does do is a risky attempt to say "we are better because we are first!!!"
If they are first, more developers may flock to them,m and people may accept this argument of first being better
OR
More developers may get pissed because their old xbox development investment was blown because they ended the first console's life cycle way early. Also, people may reject it, because of its reputation.
We know that Nintendo doesn't have to be first to market to keep its niche satisfied. We also know those other first to market consoles like Dreamcast, 3D0, Saturn, etc, were flops.
So the question is will the Xbox2 get lucky? It's decidedly against that possibility but you never know.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Without disclosing any NDA stuff, I can say that developers will likely continue to have much less a learning curve with Xbox 2 than PS3, and this advantage must be factored in.
So "Nintendo" is thinking of developing for Xbox2 or PS3 now?
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Actually, not that much underpowed. PS2 and DC are comparable in my mind.
Two things hurt the Dreamcast:
1. PlayStation 1 backward compatabilty on PS2
2. Sony announces PS2 when DC debuts to hurt Sega sales (and it worked).
Frankly, the launch games for Dreamcast were much better than the PS2 luanch titles.
Political correctness is the newest form of slavery.
We *are* talking about Microsoft here, a company that can not only afford plenty of screw-ups, but also has the resources and capacity to brute-force things into their favor if they should screw up.
I was a little off on the date, but my prediction that Microsoft will have the dominant gaming platform still stands.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
First off the Xbox is a computer and the mods that can be done with it (ie: Linux and Xecuter) are awesome. However the games (good games) are few and far between and many are still on their way. Now as a disclaimer when I say good games I mean games that get "editor choice awards" and "above 8.5's on 1-10 scales". If you take a look at say Gamespot.com and compare the top rated games on the PS2 compared to the top rated games on the Xbox you can see quite a good comparison. Granted this is mostly due to the PS2 being around longer, but the point is many games have yet to come out for the xbox...
Second MS by bringing out a new version of there console next year with stilla huge amoutn of games being developed for their first console should prove to everyone just how much MS DOES NOT GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT making a great console. And instead want to simply saturate the market with their product and get everyone using it. Then they can make the Xbox 3 which everyone will have to have and no one will complain about it.
Third MS has shown their recrds indicating they have more money than god or rather something to the affect of 84 Billion in the bank with more money rolling in. They lost shitloads (millions) of dollars on the xbox 1 they may lose a few more million on the xbox 2 but you know what? 84 Billion minus 100 Million is still more money than god...
Ave Molech Setting
Had to write this, because it hurts to see so many people get a small, but important difference wrong:
M$ is not losing money on every xbox sold. They lost the money when it was produced. They really have maximum incentive to sell whatever they already made, in order to make at least some of the money back. Millions of the things are still sitting in stores and warehouses, and it's not exactly a PS2-on-launch situation where they are pretty much guaranteed sales. As a matter of fact, many of them will be returned, costing M$ even more $$$.
Pushing xbox2 out before most of the xboxes are sold will only make it worse.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Parent highlights the real point here.
Sega screwed everyone first, then was tagged as a weak company, and everyone knew it. They could have come out with a console 50 times better than anyone else's, and they still would have failed, because nobody believed they would be around next month.
If you knew Mercedes was going broke, would you buy a Mercedes? Of course not, you'd buy a Lexus or a Beamer or something else equally silly and ostentatious.
Everyone knows Microsoft is going to be around, and they've already shown extreme patience in this market. So there is no risk buying their new console.
Which is why the whole Sega analogy is dumb, as the AC points out.
The games don't even have to be good, they just have to be *there*. Nintendo still doesn't seem to have learned this after the debacle of the N64, reasoning that 'a couple of really good games is better than 50 okay-ish ones', not taking into account that most people don't play games to the death, trying to uncover every last secret. Most people play a game for a few weeks, then toss it aside for something new. If there *isn't* anything new, they won't go back to the game they're bored with - they'll just do something else. Or buy a PlayStation(2).
You must think in Russian.
i dont anticipate ps3 that much, sony has backed out on the PDA market, their pc products are junk, their eletronics is doing horribly, just their ps2 games and movie business holding them up. and they are launching another super expensive and doomed from beginning PSX line.
for xbox, it's never the problem of new hardware, xbox is powerful enough for the tv now, xbox2 specs sounds like a super computer which will cost over $1000 to build, ps3 has aweful similarity with it though.
I think M$ should seriouly try to lower the game price and sabotage the gaming industry's profitbility, then buy all those talented studio which has no money, then they shouldn't have any problem with their xbox, with no need to put more money into xbox2.
Ok people, when Microsoft is about to "shoot themselves in the foot" be quiet about it and LET THEM!
as a disaster that Bill's billions couldn't dig MS out of. The man is richer than God. He could probably just write a cheque to the United States government and buy Manhattan.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I may be getting into a habit of replying to you (i.e. a well-known troll), but I saw your posting got "5, Informative", and I can't hold back. :-)
It's not just the technology (i.e. engine/framework APIs) that's the problem. The problem is game production. And the problem is that game production is not just about technology. It's about game design, asset production, and so on.
Producing assets that will work fine on a GC, PS2, but hey, also on an Xbox 2 (and take advantage of the Xbox 2) is not as easy as 're-exporting'.
As for different tech capabilities limiting game design, look at the complaints about Thief: Deadly Shadows, where PC users feel the game (level design/size) was compromised to make it work ok on the XBox. I keep seeing comments on the web from people who feel that games out on PC and console suffer on the PC, because the levels expansiveness, draw distance, etc, have to be compromised to make it work on the consoles (which have much less RAM, and cpu/gfx hardware is for many tasks not as capable). These problems, despite what armchair developers like to think, are hard problems to solve in a real shipping game. That's why a lot of developers don't want to take them on. Making a game is hard enough already. Hence some of the views expressed in the article in question.
However, your point about ease of programming of PS n versus Xbox n is right on the mark. (Presumably due to the same reason that a broken clock is right twice a day...)
Although I sorta agree with the point you're making, I think the article had a second point you didn't address. If the Xbox only accounts for a small part of total revenue for many cross-platform developers, then why start expending the resources on adding next-gen features that are only supported on Xbox 2?
They should save money now, keep milking their Xbox and PS2 software, and when Nintendo and Sony are closer to releasing their next-gen hardware, then start pouring the resources into their next-gen titles. Pouring resources into a game that has next-gen features only on Xbox 2 would be a total waste. By the time PS3 rolls around they'll be working on their next title anyhow.
You also forget that the rumored cell architecture of the PS3 may be radically different to develop for than Xbox 2 so work put into next gen titles on Xbox 2 may not translate into PS3 titles without significant effort. Better to save their energy and wait till cross-platform next generation middleware is available. Even the middleware vendors may have a hard time abstracting the platform differences.
(One of my favorites, but you're a bit off.)
Beware of he who denies you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
~Comissioner Pravin Lal, UN Declaration of Rights.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Well the previous poster insinuated that it was so that's all I have to go on :P
There are mainly two groups of people who bought an Xbox.
There were the ones who got it for Halo, Ninja Gaiden, Crimson Skies, whatever, they got it for games. That's the way it should be.
But then there were the people who got it for the power. They purchase primarily third party games and only have an Xbox for the power, not the name, meaning in the next generation if the Xbox isn't "3 times the graphical power" like they claimed on the Xbox, it's a REAL hazard to their user base.
That second power-hungry party is extremely mobile, just like graphics card or processor supporters. You support the fastest and best, not any particular company.
Heh the previous poster is too easily fooled. The tatoo gets mention in this month's Game Pro.
There is nothing, NOTHING that Bill's billions won't dig them out of, short of a comet the size of texas hitting the planet, and I STILL think that _he_ would have better chances than any of us.
Now, all of a sudden people are so concerned about Microsoft's welfare that they're trying to warn them not to shoot themselves in the foot?
Come on, this is just another case of someone trying to point out how Microsoft is wrong so that this person can show how smart he is.
The simple fact is this: Someone is going to be the first mover. I didn't hear anyone complain when PS2 went into production. The fact is that they were backwards compatible with PS1 which was considered revolutionary at the time. If PS3 were the first movers, do you think these same people would be complaining that it would be too hard to handle both PS2 and PS3 at the same time? No.
They are going to be first movers, and yes, people are going to be taking advantage of this. I will probably buy an X-box 2, if it is better. The games will be there, and if the software shop is good enough, Microsoft will PAY them to develop for X-box2, so don't worry about them.
I haven't heard that X-box 2 won't be compatible, so unless they are really stupid, they won't need to worry about compatibility issues.
I think what they need to do is:
1) keep the hard drive. The main reason why I buy games for X-box when multiple versions are available is because the hard drive makes saving and accessing games so much faster, and when you are playing things over and over again, you don't have to wait for the damn memory card to write.
2) Make the console smaller and lighter. It is a brick, and it's too big and hella ugly. I guess if they want to make it a PVR as well, then it will need to be bigger and heavier, but maybe they should use laptop technology to make it more user friendly.
If you check the specs, BETA was, at best, 5% - 10% better in the picture quality department than VHS. We're talking about 10 lines of picture quality difference. Overscan on your TV takes more. It's a bit like noticing the difference between 640x480 and 640x400 video modes.
Anyways, VHS won because of many other factors, not the least of which were:
- Pornography on VHS from day one
- Holds an ENTIRE movie
- Don't have to beg Sony for permission to distribute your show on VHS (See the pornography note above)
- Made by many different manufacturers from day one
- It wasn't a Sony product (the "Sony factor" only works for walkmans, at least in the US -- look at any of their other Sony products, such as memory sticks, MDs, glasstrons, DATs, etc)
- It's a freer format
- HQ/Hi-Fi "seals of approval" were easier to get for VHS decks than BETA
- VHS was somewhat cheaper, due to competition, whereas BETA was Sony-only (at first) and being a Sony product, already TOTALLY overpriced
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I know this is an editorial and all and very light on research findings but this paragraph right here struck me as odd: [paragraph snipped]
Didja read further? That "conventional wisdom" being wrong is exactly the entire point of the article.
Sure the PS2 hardware IS weaker than the XBOX PC-in-a-console design.
The Catch here is that SONY hardware is much LESS expensive to produce than the XBOX. Any uptick in XBOX sales will meet with a PS2 price drop until MS decides to leave the field.
You think they want to coincide the release of XB2 with the release of Doom 3? It would behove them to ride on such coattails.
Please note that I only own a GBA and think 99% of console games are simplistic crap that only a retard could enjoy.
But at the moment sony owns the console market (with nintendo and MS having tiny shares) and nintendo owns the handheld console market alone. (GC is cheaper here then a GBA SP).
While nintendo has been the king of the handhelds for a long long time dating back to the LCD games of my youth, in the console market the position of leader has shifted a lot. Sony only been in the market for 2 generations. Of the current batch only nintendo is an old hand. Sony has 2 consoles MS only 1. (of course if you count the PC then MS could be counted as almost the same age as nintendo)
This leads me to conclude that any speculation on who will win the next-generation battle is pointless. History has shown that current rulers can easily loose and be out of business in the next round.
So what will make or break the next generation of consoles? Well first off lets examine the current batch. Their graphics are pathetic compared to the pc. this has two simple reasons. First off the console hardware is completly obsolete by PC standards (just check the amount of memory on a decent vid card vs the total amount of memory in a x-box) but the real problem is TV screens. They just never were designed for computer graphics.
Will HDTV happen in time for it to be worthwhile to get a more powerfull console? Or will everyone be using X-box2/PS3 on ancient interlaced NTSC/PAL monitors and be wondering were the pretty pictures are they see in the magazines?
Another problem for the current x-box is that there simply aren't any killer games out for it. Nintendo manages to hang on because it got some unique content, sony got a giganctic library of old and new games but x-box has got ehm Halo. Woopie. Oh and kotor except it is so much better on pc. (and people that like kotor style rpg tend to be PC players anyway)
If the X-box-2 can produce a real graphics boost (without needing HDTV or HDTV suddenly taking off) AND have some real killer lineup (not just 1 game that is so-so like halo) then it has a chance same as sony had a chance when it entered with the PS1.
If MS does another launch like the current x-box then it will fail miserably. (current failures, no games, ugly hardware, controllers that are too big, jokes about MS stability)
Frankly I don't know who is going to win. Sony seems to be the favorite but until a few years ago Nintendo was a clear favorite as well and now they only survive thanks to the GB series.
Oh and the first mover advantage is a load of crap. If that was true then we would all be using apple-compatibles. Not IBM-compatibles.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This is stupid. The Xbox 1 platform is just maturing and being accepted now that it is at a sweet price. I have no plans on jumping onto an XBox 2, especially since Halo 2 will be coming out for XBox 1. I have no reason to switch! Especially considering they are going to want money from me to do it. I already ponied up for the one I have now. Well, OK, actually I won it, but I still paid for all the extra controllers and XBox Live subscription.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
is a modified G5! I wonder how that looks for MS to be shipping Macs to all it's XBox developers. Hmmmm, can you run OSX on it?
Just because you're not up to the task of creating games for such a machine doesn't mean someone else isn't up to it.
To some of us, things evolve way too slowly.
I think it's great that Microsoft is willing to speed up the process.
Those who take on the challenge will probably become rich.
Those who don't should probably just sit in a corner, suck their thumbs, and whine with the rest of the weenies.
Fool me once...
I think Halo taught all PC gamers a valuable lesson about FPSs on consoles.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
the last console i bought was a snes. still undeniably the best system ever. it doesn't even need new games to keep my attention.
System.out.println(syynnapse.getSig());
I think many are forgetting about something that's extremely important. Backwards compatibility.
If Microsoft maintains backwards compatibility with the current XBOX, developers don't have to jump in right away. Instead the hardware potencial will be there and when game technology catches up Microsoft will have a platform already waiting.
Don't forget that that was the major feature for Playstation 2. It might not matter much now, but when developeres are in the process of crossing over, backwards compatibility is all that matters.
www.enterweb.pt
For all realistic purposes, Sony already has the "First to Market" edge due to backward compatability.
Ideally, what does being "First" really get you?
Well, you get a user base before the other guys.
You get enough developer support going to have a larger library of better games.
More free advertising through the press and media outlets.
More word of mouth.
More time to actually advertise a real product.
Time to work out all the v1.0 hardware release bugs. Even the PS2 has gone through a number of hardware and firmware revisions.
More add on gear like controlers and software.
Sony already has most of these advantages thanks to backward compatability. There has been more than one occasion when I've been in a store and overheard a debate on which console to buy. Sometimes it ends with a comment about all the games the PS2 supports. Sometimes I end it by pointing out that you can play the PSOne games on the PS2. Not everyone knows that.
Microsoft of all companies should know the advantages offered by backward compatability.
Contorlers and other gear don't really matter as they aren't big sellers anyhow.
I have to tell you, the decision on buying the next Playsataion will be made far easier by the fact that my existing games will work on it. Now if it also has Tivo like abilities I'm all set.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
IIRC, which I rarely do, an executive said that XBox2 compatibility with XBoX is not a prerequisite.
Because of XBoX 2 hardware change, it might be cost prohibitied to produce XBoX-compatible XBoX2s. Maybe Microsoft will produce a game system where they actually make a profit from the hardware, like almost every company out there.
(Yes, almost every system, besides the Saturn and XBoX are planned to make a slim profit. Compatition might drive them below that line, but they're planned that way.)
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
I find your point #3 offensive. What happened to Atari 2600/Intellivision/Coleco Vision? What about PONG. The original (and still) killer console.
Another advantage that Sony had with the PS2 that helped people justify the higher price ($300 vs $200) is that DVD players where just starting to become THE way to watch movies. People finally felt that it was safe to ditch their VHS and move on to the new format. With the PS2 people could do this and get a nice shiny new game console. With the Xbox there really was no reason for the higher price as far as extra features. Yes, it can play dvd's, but only if you fork out more cash for the needed accessories. The main reason I didn't/haven't bought an Xbox is because the majority of good games are on PC, and I have a good gaming PC. Fortunately (or not) it looks like Microsoft changing to the PowerPC architecture, and their desire to make it less PC like change this. If Microsoft gets quality, NON-PC titles, then it may have a chance, regardless of when it launches.
In addition to being destroyed by Sony's marketing, a good deal of the Dreamcasts failure can be attributed to Sega's earlier and frequent console cockups. They shot themselves in the ass with the Saturn. They made an excellent 2d system when Sony made a cheap 3d system. Saturn could do 3d, but doing so was difficult.
It also did not help that the Saturn sold for a much higher pricepoint and was rushed to market to fend off Sony.
In the end, the publishers had no confidence in Sega to make the Dreamcast viable.
END COMMUNICATION
Even before the Xbox arrived to market, it was obvious that the existence of the platform itself is artificial. I said it many times and I'll say it again: It would've been the greatest generation ever if Nintendo and Sony gave us (the gamers) $100+ just for buying a piece of hardware. By now the Gamecube would be free of charge, the PS2 around $50 and the Xbox still $150 a piece.
Microsoft's business model for this console is possible only because of their deep pockets. It's not that releasing the next-generation hardware early will backfire, it's the fact that _this_ generation's business model has already backfired.
I live in Mexico and you'd be truly amazed on the uses people give to their Xboxes; emulators, media players, ripped games, here the machine is regarded as a pirate's paradise. Obviously, it hurts Microsoft's revenue and it's only natural they need to replace the platform as soon as possible. By the way, this is not really news, it was all the buzz at the last E3, as even Nintendo mentioned it in the pre-show conference.
The problem is, Sony and Nintendo are always thinking on extending the life-cycle of their products, like this and this, while Microsoft is now desperately planning to kill it. Clearly, the future of the console is not written in stone, because Microsoft could continue losing more than $1B per year and still be around by the year 2100. But it's now clear the Xbox is already dead come 2005, and developers are already starting to focus on the next console. This is also hurting the business this very year.
Look at what happened to True Fantasy Live Online, a great MMORPG I was really excited about, and it got cancelled because I'm pretty sure they'll move it to Xbox2/Next. In fact, I'm also willing to bet this is another indication that the next generation console will not be backwards compatible. They need to stop hackers, they need to bring prices down and they need good games for launch.
All that said, I was never happy to see the Xbox's artificial presence in the industry. However, I applaud Microsoft's clean room approach. If it's not heavily subsidized, heck, if it's a product that could live without someone pouring wads of cash on it, then I'll be in line to get mine and regard it as the real console the Xbox never was.
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
...and XNA being a hurdle to studios seeking to offer cross-platform titles.
I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me. Microsoft WANTS to make it difficult to make cross-platform games so that developers will have to choose their platform OR the other, not both. Here is another example of Microsoft perhaps not realizing that it is not the market leader here.
My guess is that they will release an XNA execution environment for Longhorn to ensure that cross-platform games can exist on Microsoft's Terms .
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
To release early but with the video hardware in an easily swapped cartridge. They don't have to make a big deal out of it but 12 or 18 months later they can release the same system with upgraded card as the "XBox 2+" or "XBox 3". It would presumably play all of the Xbox 2 titles since they would be written against DirectX (or equivalent). Early purchasers could upgrade when a "XBox 2+" title appeared that they wanted to be able to play.
They would have to immediately discontinue sales of the classic Xbox 2 at this point to avoid the fates of the Commodore 128, Sega 32X, and other upgrades that were sold alongside their predecessors.
I originally thought that they would combine the "Windows Media Group" with the XBox group and come out with a unit that had all the features of Tivo and a kick-ass console (with MSN added for kicks).
After talking with some XNA guys, this doesn't sound as likely, but I still think it is a good idea.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
And the point is, Microsoft is still losing money on every XBox they sell, and it's not going to get better for them. They are stuck buying PC parts that don't follow the same price curve as console electronics. For instance, hard drives don't get cheaper, they get bigger, and after a couple years, any given model of hard drive is out of production.
Because of this, Microsoft has to get the XBox 2 out as soon as possible to stem their losses.
The other console manufacturers, from all indications, are still making money on their consoles, so they are not under the same pressure to put out the next generation.
As for compatibility, that will most likely be secondary to "not losing money" in the design of the new XBox.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Unlike many people, I'm not convinced at all that a faster timetable for release of new game consoles would mean failure.
As long as consoles are relatively inexpensive (say $200 and under), they're viable as Xmas or even birthday gifts for many people. They're also within reach of any teenager working part-time cutting grass, working at a fast food place, or what-have-you. The older people who play console games will have no problem spending $150-200 for a newer model, as long as it still plays all the existing games in their collection.
(Don't forget, if you're quick enough about upgrading a console, your old one still has a fair bit of resale value - so it helps subsidize your upgrade cost.)
Just because consoles traditionally didn't get updated except every 6 years or so doesn't mean that's some sort of requirement for the future. The bottom line is, if you make a cool gadget at the right price-point, you'll have customers for it.
If you consider a bios an OS, then yes. The term 'operating system' implies that you can input, process, store, and output in a meaningful way. The base firmware of a ps2 or xbox doesnt really come close to that, its all held on the disc that runs on startup.
As someone who's modded both the hardware and the software of both systems, I can tell you that not a lot is gonna happen without a game disc.
Without disclosing any NDA stuff, I can say that developers will likely continue to have much less a learning curve with Xbox 2 than PS3, and this advantage must be factored in.
I'm not sure if sony would make the same mistake twice. But since their the 800 pound gurilla they might. PS3 is still officially 2 years away. A lot of time to get out a api. .
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Microsoft shoots themselves in the foot so many times they have to have wooden feet by now.
One reason people might stay away from the XBox2 is that there will be no backwards compatibility, therefore you must have a lineup of studios and game designers to have titles for your machine immediately. You can't phase in the games over a more gradual period of time because the older games can be played on the new console.
Who would want to buy a console that will only have 4 games for it total?
Note: I don't remember if Sony said the PS3 was going to be backwards compatible to the PS2.
Jesus, you people sound like whiney punks on the playground, counting and listing all your friends.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
schild brings up a very important point...
Oh and backwards compatibility, they NEED backwards compatibility, no matter HOW HARD it is.
This is my biggest issue with moving to any currently proposed Xbox2. Anything I am playing now on the current generation of Xbox better run as well or 50% better on Xbox2. Full backward compatibility is REQUIRED or I will dump Xbox like I dumped Windows. Instead of spending some large amount of money on Xbox2 I would invest in several current generation boxes and be perfectly happy. Retain the HDD....
One other suggestion. If you were to also add the ability to run my old PC games, I would be VERY willing to spend some money on that.
You'r mostly sorrect, but you forget that the xbox still has functions avalible when you boot up without a game disc in. You can change the output characteristics, change Live settings, even rip cds to the unit. Its not much of an OS, but there is something on there past firmware. Cant speak for the PS2, dont have much experiance with it.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
This what they said about the Genesis. Everybody said the industry wasn't ready for 16 bit gaming, 8 bits was still going strong, etc.
Things may be different now due to the cost of game production increasing, but the article cannot be taken seriously without at least addressing this issue.
They'll release Xbox2 soon.. get a ton of publicity, favorable comparisons to other equipment...
.02 rupees. :)
AND THEN when PS3 launches, M$ will pay for rumor mills/gamer mags/etc to talk about the new upcoming Xbox3 and steal away thunder from Sony.
This will break the marketing cycle the industry is currently following.
My
When they rush to release it, that will mean that (hopefully) the XBox version 1 will drop to $49.99, and I can make my own server farm of modded XBoxes. I figure about 20 aught to do it... :)
Yeah, right.
Microsoft has never been one to do smart moves but with their deep pockets the some how make some of them work.
It will really depend if the Xbox2 will be backwards compatible with the Xbox1 games. Since they are moving to a new processor this may be in question. Since it does not have the selection of titles the PS2 has it is very important that the games that are out now work with the new machine.
As far as releasing it before the next generation of other consoles this really does not matter. If MS can make the Xbox the hot machine and lure players and more important, developers they can beat the others to the punch....and maybe make a profit down the road. So far the Xbox has not made any profit for MS and those undercut prices have help get more machines out there. If the Xbox2 fails that will probably be the last box from MS. MS has many projects that are eating cash and showing no profits. The Xbox, MSN, WebTV, Xbox Live are eating into the MS war chest and with no OS due out for at least two years, income will be slim. Losing the support contracts because of no software releases is not helping either.
MS can weather a few clunkers....and they have. At some point they will have to decide when to pull the plug.
I gotta disagree with you a little here.
" and three little rows of stuff that's either terrible (Outlaw Golf, anyone?)"
First of all, I'd like to say that I like Outlaw Golf. It's a fun to play golf game, it's easy enough to be fun and hard enough to be challanging.
While, sure, there's more PS2 games then XBox games, I've found that a great many Xbox games are unique and fun to play. When I look at the wall of PS2 stuff, I see a shit load of sports games, and another shit load of generic RPG games that all have the same theme: Some kid with blue hair and big ass shoes has to slay some monster that's four stories tall.
It's not about the volume of games, it's about the quality of them. And while the PS2 has a fine collection of games that are good, it has at least as many if not more games that are simply wall space. If this fools people into buying PS2's, then I guess the system works for Sony.
Going back a little bit:
"Isn't this obvious to everyone??! What the hell is wrong with these Xbox executives?" (speaking of the comment that since PS2 came out first, it wins)
I can't really agree 100% with this; it's not just that the PS2 came out first, but more that the original Playstation was out there first. People know the name. Developers *already* had contracts with Sony even though the PS2 wasn't even being developed yet.
I think Microsoft will shoot themselves in the foot if they release too fast, and especially if the new system can't play original Xbox games.
The good thing about the console market is that there's some competition. Even though the PS2 is the most popular by some margin, there's still good stuff to be had with the Game Cube and the Xbox. Microsoft always NEEDS to be #1, and because they strive for this goal all the time, they really DO need to be. If they didn't try to take over the markets all the time, they would probably spend a lot less money on the products and they wouldn't have to dominate in order to make any money..
And finally, there's no rule that says you can't have both game systems. They are cheap. Very cheap. Grab an Xbox AND a PS2.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Heck with downloading, I got the new gamepass that blockbuster is offering, and now I get three games a day. With my 250 Gig HDD in the XBox, I'm probably going to get around 100 games on the thing (Seriously, I have 20 games on there now, and I haven't even used 40 Gigs of the space available for game "backups"), plus any that I want to burn to DVD
Also, I use XBox Media Center to have access to all the music (almost every format imaginable), video (ditto), and picture (not quite as extensive, but still amazing) that is on my computers.
So, total investment:
1. XBox - $150
2. Solderless Modchip - $56
3. 250 Gig HDD - $130
4. Blockbuster FlipCard - $50
Total $386
$386 for over 100 games plus a media center pc to boot. Now if I could get PVR functionality, I'd be in complete heaven
I hope XBOX 2 is a 2Ghz Pentium and has at least a gig of memory, 256M of video ram, 100G HD for $199
Go ahead, make my dream game machine.
You should mention that, didn't Microsoft say they were dropping nVidia for ATI in the Xbox2?
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
But when Sony released the PS2, they weren't taking massive losses - they had the largest installed base of systems. Sony were not struggling to pull a profit.
Microsoft, on the other hand, have been relegated to third place in the market, and are losing hideous amounts of money. They're in the difficult position of having to decide whether to plug on with the Xbox and lose even more, or try to push a newer system. Sony can simply release the next PlayStation whenever its most convienient.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
I was still paying close attention to consoles back in '93-'96, and I remember that Sony had Twisted Metal, Battle Arena Toshinden, Tekken, Ridge Racer, and a bunch of other fast pace games. Nintendo had ... Mario 64.
Sony did beat Nintendo to the punch, but Nintendo's attempts to market its system sucked massive ass. They didn't have any rockin' games that I saw, and the games that I had for my Genesis seemed cooler. I was also just starting to get into PC gaming in a new way (Doom, Duke Nukem' 3d, Quake, Shadow Warrior) and if my PC felt better than the console that didn't bode well for my opinions of the console.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
um... no dev kit?
dev kit?
it will be all the easier for those reet hackers out there to make ready for me to play my SNES games on.
Studios which focus on cross-platform titles, as many of the largest publishers in the world do, face a gigantic problem - while developing a title on PS2, Xbox and GameCube is an easy prospect as code, art and audio can be effectively reused on all three platforms, adding a next-generation platform to the mix will require complete re-development.
I'm sorry, but this is a big assumption that doesn't seem supportable. Once the dev tools are released, art and sound should be able to be shared even with a next-generation console in the mix. Right now game boxes have differing operating systems and hardware. Once the art and audio is hammered out, it can be adapted to fit each console. More difficult would be getting the game physics and rendering engines to work on each console, but it's done, too. "Next generation" doesn't mean anything here.
The real costs are developing the in-house expertise to deal with API changes and working through the inevitable bugs in the development tools. Releasing consoles too close together does impact the bottom line here. Employees spend less time writing profitable code and more time training. However, this does not necessarily mean that a next generation port of a cross-platform game will cost more than the sum of all the other ports.
Ship before the end of the year. However XBox 2 games are already in development to meet their end of 2005. Oddly enough this is currently being done through PowerMac G5's running an "XBox2 Emulator" but this does mean that development is going on now, not starting the end of this year. Though I still largely agree with the article that rushing the XBox2 could be a big mistake. Not to mention the rumors persist that it'll lack a Hard Drive and thereby probably drop backwards compatibility, a killer move for themselves.
quake always blitzed marathon from the perspective of 3D & realism & so on. but quake was as boring as hell unless you played other humans marathon sucked you in PHENOMENALLY well-designed as a GAME people playing marathon would get physically nervous as they snuck into new areas, shout out loud when they were surprise-attacked by a critter, flee when they heard the critters gathering for attack. awesome game. i fired it up recently on X, of all things, and despite the now-crappy graphics, got badly sucked into it. had to delete it after an hour for the good of my life... :)
Developers would take full advantage of advanced hardware they provided.
The addition of a hard drive was a great idea but only one game took full advantage of it everyone else used as a really big memory card because it make it easier to port their games to PS2.
If microsoft is smart they will release a PS2 emulator for the Xbox 2 and then promise to release a PS3 emulator when it comes out.
As long as they keep promising or show progress of developing the emulator people will put off buying PS3 and stick with XBox 2.
Of course DOJ may come after them for that, but since they don't have a monopoly in the game market it might be a hard case to prove.
Since they bought connectix (spelling could be off) this would not be to hard for them.
Disclaimer over, Microsoft needs to move first, and as quickly as possible. Right now, there's no doubt they have the more capable machine. (Almost said 'better machine' - which would have gotten me some flames, eh?) Despite the hardware advantage, PS2 is killing them. PS2 outsells the XBos and, from everything we read, makes a slight profit while the XBox loses money on each unit. That means MS has very little to lose. They are in a losing situation now and need to change to rules in order to win.
If you're listening, Bill, here's what you need to do. First, go right ahead and push out that next gen hardware. Just make DARN sure it's backwards compatible. It's going to have a thin library to begin with and having the (admittedly second-rate) library from the XBox will help. Second, give it some extra capabilities beyond gaming. DVR or media hub capabilities would be good. That means keep the hard drive - just make sure it's 80GB or bigger. Now, though, here's the real important part: buy another development house but don't make the same mistake you made with Rare. (BTW, buying Bungie was obviously the best money spent on the XBox.) This time, the developer you buy should have a name like Sega, Namco, SquareEnix, or (best of all) Nintendo.
What do all these developers have in common, beyond the fact they make great games? They're Japanese! Japan is where XBox is getting really creamed and the only way to curtail that is with Japanese games. Many of the best games come from Japan and the XBox2 needs to move beyond FPS and Sports to win over Japanese players. And you've GOT to have Japanese customers to win the next round.
Final observation: I have a Dreamcast and held onto it for as late in this generation as I could. Three weeks ago I finaly bought a new console. Which one did I buy? Hint: I have kids. I bought a Gamecube! I wanted an XBox. It has the best graphics. It's from an American company and I like to support the home team. (Anybody who roots against the XBox because it's from MS isn't really paying attention to Sony's corporate behavior.) It can play DVDs. But it has a horrible selection of kid's games! While there are good games on the XBox, most are rated M and those don't come into the house. (Well, I've got a couple but they stay in my dresser til the kids are in bed.) Most games we buy, and play as a family, are E rated. The family is very important when playing on the TV in the living room.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte
his premise is that developers can make 3 version pretty easily with similar graphics. And that when xbox2 comes out, it will require a different development model. MSFT makes the best dev kits, period. They know how to get poeple to write for their platform, and writing for xbox2 will be SO easy everyone will be doing it. Rem all the complaining about the high price of PS2's kit and how hard it was to use? I wouldn't be surpised if you could put a PS2 CD in an xbox2 dev kit, click one button and have it convert the game to xbox2 format for you.
Stupid premise, stupid article.
JON
The Platforms are stale. They should be launching a next generation console at the end of this year instead of next.
There will definitely be consumer excitement about something fresh, and so developer excitement too.
The argument that developers will be burdened and oppressed to learn new APIs and architectures is extremely pathethic. Why would they bother to learn them 2 years later when the author would like MS to release after Sony.
XBOX is a suckie version of PS1
is if there is no constant flow of software to back it up. If the games keep coming, then there is no issue.
Yeah but the diference here is that Microsoft like always will be bright enough to make the console backware compatible (like the PS2 did), then the Dream Cast scenario will not happen cause it will be a no brainier to buy the Xbox 2 (except probably for the price...); You will be able to buy a machine that can play all the games of the previous generation plus the upcoming games of the next generation plus a multitude of multimedia files.
My guess is that they will take some ideas from the Xbox Media Player of modded" Xbox's. Remember how they were insisting for the first generation that this was a console and not a PC? Well now that they proved their point and that this is not an issue anymore they wont be afraid to put some PC like applications in this new generation.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
not only was your grammer horrible, but so was your spelling gameboy is not sexy
But, I must say to Chiasmus: "Alpha Centauri has been one of the most facinating strategy games I've played in a long time."
I'm afraid the author of this article appears to be missing the point - while converting sony-favouring developers to XBox would be a coup for them, I think they are more targetting PC developers by making it easier for them to cross-platformerize their games to run on the Xbox as well. And there is no shortage of pc developers.
1.Be first to market with a console.
2.Have it so that it has graphics power and hardware better than the PS2/XBOX/GC
3.Implement strong copy protection (for example, have all code encrypted with the decryption being done by circutry thats either in the same plastic package as the CPU, that would probobly thwart most people, even better is if its a public key algorithim so that you need the MS only private key to do anything, remember XBOX private signing key has yet to be leaked/cracked/brute-forced/whatever)
4.Give away the devkits/licences/whatever and simply change the system so that the only thing developers have to pay to MS is a per-unit royalty for every copy that is manufactured
Because they would be first to market and they would have the most powerfull hardware and a lot less up-front costs for developers wanting to produce a game, it would make xbox2 more attractive to developers.
An even better idea would be to offer even further incentives for any developer that will sign on to only produce games for the Microsoft platform (XBOX2) and not for SONY or Nintendo platforms (PS3 or Gamecube 2)
Fact is, if microsoft can get critical mass of developers (particularly if they get exclusitivity), everyone will be forced to buy XBOX if they want the good stuff.
The same thing happened with the origonal PlayStation way back when (SONY offered a better deal than either SEGA or Nintendo were prepeared to offer and got key companies like EA and Square to sign on as a result)
The Dreamcast got trounced primarily by the announcement of the PS2, and was long dead before anyone gave one tenth of one shit about the Xbox.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's really like the stockmarket. The riskier stocks tend to have greater returns. Business is like that. Without risk, how can you have rapid growth? While I don't believe it is a greater risk to wait, I do believe that if they really want to win over PC game players, they've got to aggressively attack Sony-style. Sony will then have to release their game machine ahead of schedule. What risk will that entail? I call that smart.
not only was your grammer horrible, but so was your spelling
That would be "grammar" you would be referring to, I assume.
What would Lemmy do?
And keep in mind that Everquest + FFXI + every other MMORPG still represents a tiny percentage of the overall game market.
Let me get this straight, your company is uncertain about xbox's future, but is legally unable or otherwise unwilling to support other consoles/hardware platforms. You are worried that while Microsoft's billions in the bank might enable it to write off its entire investment in xbox as a tax-deductible failure in R&D, yet you cannot do the same...
You see many of your competitors in the game development industry deal with several hardware and software platforms, and you also read slashdot, where Multi-Platform could fool visiting aliens into believing is our religion, and yet, you can't figure out that depending on Xbox games for survival, no matter how "superior" Xbox is, is a bad idea.
You really think we can help you with this?
If I had any stake in such a company, or any kind of control over the products, I'd already be working on my own time, on our second non-Xbox-platformed game, just to be on the safe side. Why is it taking your company so long?
Although MMORPGs only represent a small percentage of games out there, FFXI has sold near to if not more than 750,000 copies on PC and PS2 combined.... thats no small feat. I'd say interest in Online gaming is still growing and growing fast. EQ was the first wildly successful MMORPG with a monthly fee, but recently many, many titles that have monthly fees attached have been released and have been successful; titles such as: Star Wars Galaxies, Shadowbane, Planetside and the soon to be released (Assuredly a success) Worlds of Warcraft. My opinion is that we will see a lot more "specialty" online games with a monthly fee attached in the near future.
He was a verray parfit gentil knight.
Just so ya know. BMW is a cool guy.
PS2+GameCube+DreamCast=TheJapaneseConsole.
If Microsoft was smart, they would PAY for the equipement, tools, software, necessary for development of XBOX2 games. In a way, they HAVE to. The article is right, what company is going to spend the years (and substantial cash) creating games for a system that has not proven itself.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
at least you can understand what I said
"Don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."
You didn't capitalize "at" and you didn't put a period at the end of your sentence. You exemplify nice grammar.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
In defense of upgrades to consoles, a practice I personally find distasteful, the 4MB N64 Ram Pack and the PS1 Dual Shock were both surprisingly successful additions to their respective consoles. They fulfilled three major prerequisites for console upgrades. 1: They were inescapable. Most games after a certain point used them, the systems started selling with them, etc. 2: They provided a genuinely better experience. 3: They were pretty darned cheap. In the case of the RAM upgrade, it came free with games.
NEC floundered in no small part because the US company responsible for the console made some of the worst decisions possible WRT porting the excellent games available in Japan. This came to a head when NEC USA decided to launch their hybrid system with the everpowerful might of... Camp California, a beach-boys sidescroller. Even their excellent version of Street Fighter never saw these shores, for reasons nobody can fathom. Bonk was a pretty cool mascot for his time, but Bonk alone a system does not sell (especially when it takes 3 years to get the second game across the sea). How long was it before Ys III finally came out?
The ______ Agenda
My friends and I, really a bunch of game playing nerds all kind of have the same feeling that not only are the first consoles in a generation out the worst, they take JUST as long as the next ones to develop games that are good. I.E. The first batch of games suck (take PS2, the only really killer game of the first round was GT3), even the 2nd round isn't great. By the time the 3rd round comes out the studios are designing for multiple platforms already. My best bud has a hacked XBOX with a 120 gig hard drive and all kinds of emulation and extra stuff. While clearly an awesome machine in terms of performance and this kind of modding options, we still play games on the Gamecube with as much frequency - why? Focus on the GAMEPLAY. Nintendo knows how to make good games, not for kids, but for people who like fun. Microsoft is doing a lot of selling on features, not benefits.
Halo - PC version available
KotOR - PC Version available
Prince of Persia - PC, PS2, and GameCube versions available
Splinter Cell - PC, PS2, and GameCube version available
Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow - PC, PS2, and GameCube versions available
Full Spectrum Warrior - Coming out for PC
Halo 2 - Will have a PC version eventually
Prince of Persia 2 - coming out for PC, PS2 and GameCube as well
Doom 3 - If you're playing this on the Xbox...I feel sorry for you.
KotOR 2 - Scheduled to be released on the PC
So that's a grand total of 3 of the 13 games you listed as the "solic" Xbox lineup all scheduled to have or already having a release for a different platform.
Doesn't sound like a super duper reason I need to go get an Xbox, if I can already play 76% of the good Xbox games without needing to buy an Xbox.
Not to mention most of them looking better on the PC, including Doom 3. I hate to be a person who has a PC that can play Doom 3 and buys the Xbox version.
I'm f#$king magic!
Thats not the kind of grammar poster meant you fucktard, poster meant the order of words. I couldn't understand parent's post at all. Lay off.
Just like you've been waiting since the early nineties to buy an Apple computer for cheap when they go out of business, right? Nintendo has a shitload of money in the bank, is continually profitable, kills in the portable gaming market (PSP is definitely a threat, though) and still holds its own with consoles. As a developer, Nintendo is one of few companies that actually innovates anymore. I still can't figure how you're such an expert on how good their games are without owning a gamecube. Their exclusive titles are geniunely fun (Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil, Pilkman, plus the ones already mentioned among others) and most other games worth owning are either cross-platform and available on Gamecube or I can play them on my PC.
BTW, you do realize that the term "Japs" is extremely deragatory, right? Your youth is betrayed by your ignorance.
I changed my mind, please do hold your breath.
Having a PC version doesn't matter as far as console exclusives go. Final Fantasy is available on the PC, but it's still considered a PS2 exclusive.
One word:
Dreamcast.
Released a year ahead of the rest, the Dreamcast was hands down the best console out there. But when the rest of the generation came out, a year or whatever later, they eclipsed it. If Sega had sat on it for a year and made improvements, and released it, say, two weeks before PS2, then it might have been a huge hit. I love mine; it's a powerful, compact system that had some good games.
I hope XB2 meets with a better fate.
...in the case of Xbox2 means G5s with Radeon 9800 Pros, running special software. As much fun as it is to imagine Microsoft giving away large numbers of high-powered Macintoshes, MS doesn't need to go this far.
In order to overcome the problem described in the editorial, the boys from Redmond need to make it easy to produce games which run on the Xbox1, the GameCube, PS2 AND the Xbox2. Giving away Macs doesn't solve the problem. What they need to give away is a development environment which allows the content creator to write games to a specific API, which includes all the basic functionality (like graphics, physics engines, easy UI creation, control functionality, and sound) and have it able to compile executables for all four consoles...preferably with the Xbox2 version looking best.
Which sounds a lot like MS's description of XNA.
When you go to a movie theater, you don't care what brand of projector is being used. Few people coming out of theaters in the '50s said, "Gosh, that Panavision sure is a step up from Cinemascope." Directors cared whether the tools they were being offered made it easier for them to do what they wanted to do.
The problem: XNA is currently vapor.
The question: Will Microsoft develop XNA to the point where it can save Xbox2 from the forces described in the editorial?
MS has an uneven history in this regard. They promised this kind of toolset for PC game developers with Win95. A lot of game companies bought into it, only to discover their games ran way too slowly on the original DirectX API. This resulted in a whole lotta scrambling to port the games back to DOS, which turned out to run faster under Win95 than DirectX-based games. So, many developers didn't believe Redmond when they made the same promise for Win98. Lo and behold, DirectX had matured and a lot of people ended up scrambling to port their DOS code to the Win98 API.
So, history doesn't tell us much, except that Microsoft can go both ways. Sometimes they deliver; sometimes they lie through their teeth.
If we look at their capacities, the potential is there. Redmond's game division has long been the producers of the best software Microsoft codes itself. And the best product MS has outside that division is VisualStudio. The synergy possible here is just what we need to create an XNA that revolutionizes the game industry.
If we look at inclinations, synergy between departments is not what MS does best. They like to have different teams competing against one another. The games division may not want to contribute all their game engines to the XNA project (because that would allow their competitors outside the company to benefit from their work). The VisualStudio people may not want to be distracted by what they see as a niche market.
Ultimately, it may be timing that determines final outcome. The premise of the editorial was all based on the assumption that Xbox2 will come out Christmas 2005, a year ahead of the PS3. That timeframe does not give MS time to get XNA out in the hands of developers in time for those developers to develop games to the XNA API in time for December 2005 release.
If, on the other hand, Xbox2 slips to a Fall 2006 release (as Microsoft products often do), then the XNA team has just enough time to get their product in the hands of developers who want to release as soon as the Xbox2 is released. Assuming MS gives them the resources they need (including cooperation from the games division).
Another thing to consider: Will MS offer XNA as a development platform for ALL game consoles only to shortchange their competitors' consoles when crunch time comes?
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
Sega-cd add-on for the genesis --> failure Sega32x --> failure Sega Saturn --> failure Sega Dremcast --> failure The PS2's main selling points were its exclusive titles like japanese games and especially the RPG's (Square titles are a system sellers) and its backwards compatability with the PS1 in hardware and memory cards (I believe MC's could be used too??). Thes the reason I got my PS1 was for streetfighter and final fantasy not because it was the PS1.
These are the main things that will decide the winner in the next console war: 1) Exclusive games from top tier dev's, especially top tier in ALL genre categories. 2) Backwards compatability is now a must have feature because of the PS2. 3) Significant hardware upgrades that no other console has because everyone is going to be equal graphically (Note: It was the CD storage capacity that put the PS1 on the map and stole all the original SNES developers). 4) Publisher support is critical as evidenced by the need for establishing a decent game library across all genre's. Throughout time the console market share for nintendo has been going in one direction, that is downwards. I don't expect it to change radically unless they get developers psyched to develop for their next-gen system. Nintendo's tired old franchises can only take them so far. Notice how Xbox and GC are barely treading water with regards to RPG's and the lack of other important games and genres (no squaresoft, no jap RPG developers, no Metal gear solid 'exclusives', etc). All the big name developers on the PS1 and PS2 were the ones that developed for the original NES and SNES most of them are NOT new but industry veterans. MS and Nintendo practically have to beg for software support from 3rd parties or buy them out or flash their cash and bribe them to get some games on their systems. As it stands now there is also too much money and politics invested in Sony brand and hardware at big publishers so don't expect developers and publishers to piss off the company that gives them their best sources of revenue. The best bet for MS or Nintendo is to go for the dev's and get them psyched to do something radical like offer CD/DVD medium that offers 2x the storage space of typical DVD's or something. I mean a CD compared to a cartridge was technologically miles ahead in storage capacity for a fraction of the cost of a cartridge so it was a no brainer.
FFX is not available ont he PC. nor is FFX-2. Those are the only PS2 FFX. FFX tends to come out 1-2 years after the ps2 release. Xbox games tend to come out 3-4 months after the Xbox release. Temporal locality is important. People will hold off for months but not years. FF9 isn't out for PC yet either.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I believe you are searching for "syntax," "syntax." I'm sorry, I hope you had fun playing with us, you may go home now.