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..."
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.
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.
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
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'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?).
*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
One serious danger in consoles is that if the product doesn't match up well against rivals then the manufacturer is stuck with it until the next generation. This isn't the case in the software world where Microsoft lives. Software is often rushed to market and then patched and upgraded "in place" while the consumer is using it. The early adopters suffer but that hasn't cooled the purchase of fresh new products, thus the practice continues. Microsoft could emulate this approach in the game console space by building a system that can be upgraded via software. 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. They become more like software and a much more familiar competitive environment for Microsoft.
Because, with the XBox, the Microsoft has been screaming "JUMP!" at the games industry for over a year. The industry has remained unconcerned. Looks like Microsoft's treating an industry it's trying to dominate with one it's already dominated.
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.
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.
Patching the software doesn't expand hardware capabilities though, unless hardware sits unused until it is later enabled through a patch.
Actually I think the piracy was not a consideration at first. It was the final nail but the real problem was the PS2.
The PS2 had two major things going for it at the time. It was backwards compatible with the very large PS1 game catalog. It was backward compatible with the PS1 controllers. And it could play DVD movies. When it came out, the PS2 cost as much as many low end DVD players.
So I could either buy a Dreamcast. It will only play games. Or I could wait and buy a PS2 and have it do double duty as a DVD player.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
One point repeated in the editorial is the idea that the game publishers will have to invest too much to develop games for the Xbox 2. So what if Microsoft gave away development hardware and software to all those existing PS2 publishers?
Certainly that could help. But, honestly, I think one of Microsoft's major problems is simply cultural. The status quo looks like this:
1. The majority of titles worth playing are made in Japan.
2. Japan's business climate is still exclusionary and very difficult for foreigners to navigate.
You'll notice that the XBox has no trouble snatching up titles from companies like Rockstar Games, a subsidiary of Take 2 games, which is HQ'ed in New York.
But, you know, I'm a big fan of Koei games, like Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Nobunaga's Ambition. As far as I know, Koei games have been on every single Nintendo, Sega and Sony platform. Suddenly, RTK9 comes out, and as an XBox owner, I'm out of luck.
I do not think that breaking Sony's hold on many Japanese game developers is going to be an easy task for Microsoft. Companies that look like eight-hundred-pound gorillas in America often simply can't leverage their massive finances to their advantage overseas - e.g., read up on Coke and Pepsi's frustration in trying to take the middle eastern markets.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
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.
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.
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...)
If a console has no compelling exclusive games, people will not buy it. In terms of the TurboGrafx, it wasn't just compelling software, but also a question of mascots... and Bonk (the caveman) vs. Mario, Link, etc. (on the Nintendo side) vs. Sonic (on the Sega side of things) meant bad things for NEC.
MS is in the same boat as NEC was. No, they don't need a mascot for the console - the PlayStation and PlayStation2 proved that wrong. Nowadays you need compelling franchises, and the Xbox only can build off of Halo and KOTOR right now... and both of those are available in other ways. Whereas you'll have to completely undress to count on your fingers, toes and nether regions to add up all of the compelling franchises the PS2 has on its platform.
SO, using that as the argument's basis: an upgradable platform is nice, it's cool, all of us at /, would humbly approach it and fawn over it and its capability. But if it doesn't have the games that people buy, only the guys interesting in modding it are going to buy it.
The majority of titles worth playing are made in Japan.
Maybe the majority of titles worth playing for people with Japanese game fetishes =P.
Here's what I've played in the last year:
- Legacy of Kain: Defiance
- Beyond Good and Evil
- Morrowind
- P.N. 03
- Homeworld 2
- Ico
- F-Zero GX
Here's what I have lined up for the next few months:
- Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay
- Dungeon Siege + Expansion
I could three games out of that lot that were made in Japan. The Japanese certainly can make an awesome game, but there are plenty of excellent titles coming out of the West too.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman