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..."

Comments

doesn't matter

[edrugtrader]

i'll be playing NES games on my modded xbox for the rest of my life.

Re:doesn't matter

[Archfeld]

A console, be it xbox3.11 or nesMEGA-ULTRA, with conectivity to my pc is the ONLY way I'd ever consider buying one. I realize I am in the minority on this issue, but the current closed game systems remove the best features around a good game, player mods and maps. The lack of control in a console game and environment really bug me. It's like the old quarter arcade, only I have to buy the machine AND PAY a quarter. #1 the console save game standards, I want to save when I want, easily and quickly, not when the developer thinks it is a good time, real life happens and I don't want to sacrifice my present advances because I am not at 'PROPER' save spot.I want to be able to access the game control console and play around, UT servers with no gravity or the accuracy set to wall-eyed drunkard :) Provide that kind of program flexibilty, some control mechanism beyond a game pad (YUCH) and a STANDARD nic interface and I would consider, heck I would have bought an xbox just for HALO. The other big issue I have is related to online play, a company that requires me to verify to play/host a private LAN based based game or requires I play thru their authorized online interface only gets only my scorn and disgust. Farcry is a good example, web access and route to their authentication server is required to host, it would be one thing if they provided dedicated hardware, but this is to even host a private LAN game :(
Convergence has been touted but the corporations can seem to give up one iota of potential profit, control or total ownership of everything involved, they starve everyone rather than have a thanksgiving meal and move onward. Profit is good and right, and it drives the market as it should but KARMA is more powerful, subtle and NOT SUBJECT TO FCC regulations.

No, no, no

[Mz6]

"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..."

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:

"The belief within Microsoft's top Xbox executives, according to company insiders, is that the main reason that Xbox has failed to seriously challenge the PlayStation 2 is because Sony had first mover advantage - a gap of a year in which to build up its installed base and convince consumers and industry alike that it was the key platform of the next generation. Hence the urgency around launching Xbox 2 well ahead of its competitors; if, as seems increasingly likely, PlayStation 3 doesn't arrive until late 2006 or even early 2007, Microsoft believes that it will have won a huge competitive advantage by being to market as much as two years earlier. This, the conventional wisdom says, is how Microsoft will crush Sony."

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.

Re:No, no, no

[7Ghent]

Gaming platforms != movies

A gaming platform is an investment that you'll spend several hundred on, games, controllers, etc.. A movie is just a movie. Because I see a movie this weekend doesnt mean I won't see one next weekend, even if it's similar. However, if I buy a console this weekend, I'm definitely not buying one next weekend.

Your analogy sucks.

Re:No, no, no

[Anonymous Coward]

The XBox outsold the PS2 in April of this year due to the $150 pricing, that was rapidly reversed in May with the matching PS2 price cut.

Re:No, no, no

[Chiasmus_]

The belief within Microsoft's top Xbox executives, according to company insiders, is that the main reason that Xbox has failed to seriously challenge the PlayStation 2 is because Sony had first mover advantage

Isn't this obvious to everyone??! What the hell is wrong with these Xbox executives?

The reason that the Xbox hasn't challenged the PlayStation 2 is that when you walk into a GameStop, there's an entire wall of PS2 games - plenty of good titles, at that - and three little rows of stuff that's either terrible (Outlaw Golf, anyone?) or available on PS2.

The reason XBox hasn't challenged PlayStation 2 is the same reason the Sega Master System couldn't challenge the NES: Despite the fact that the former are superior pieces of hardware, the latter has the best, and most, contracts with game designers.

I think the XBox is a fantastic machine. I've played GTA3 on both XBox and PS2, and it's simply more enjoyable for XBox.

But, as an XBox owner, every time I think "You know, I'd like to play a strategy game.. or maybe an RPG..." all I can do is lament the fact that all the good titles are on the other wall.

Re:No, no, no

[Octagon Most]

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.

Re:No, no, no

[Rick the Red]

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? Remember, they have the money to do this; whether they have the brains to do it is another question.

Re:No, no, no

[Fjord]

Think back in 1999, The release of Armageddon was very hyped at this time, Hell, McDonalds had a friggin contest for it.

Why not use a more parallel example of Dreamcast and PS2. Dreamcast had PS2 beat in time, but the PS2 whomped it.

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

Yes, just recently when Xbox dropped its price to 149. The PS2 retook the lead following its own price cut.

Re:No, no, no

[vitaflo]

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.

There are no dev kits yet for PS3, nobody is writing anything for it, unless you mean writing design docs.

MS has already given XNA to devs, and they very much are already developing games for Xbox2/Xenon.

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?

Xbox outsold PS2 by over 100,000 units in April when it dropped its price to $150.

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.

Xbox2/Xenon has been in devlopement for just as long, so has Nintendo's next console (Revolution). Who has the "better" product remains to be seen.

Re:No, no, no

[Crispin Cowan]

You compare Deep Impact to Armagedon, and claim that Armagedon "destroyed" Deep Impact in box office and rentals. Some data:

• Deep Impact business
• • Box office: $140M
  • Rentals: $67M
  • Total revenue: $207M
  • Budget: $75M
  • Profit margin: (140+67)/75 = 176%
• Armagedon business
• • Box office: $201M
  • Rentals: $104M
  • Budget: $140M
  • Total revenue: $305M
  • Profit margin: (201+104)/140 = 118%

Deep Impact did 2/3 of the business, which is hardly "destroyed". It did it on 1/2 the money, which is arguably a better investment.

And IMHO, Deep Impact was a much better movie; the plot was much more believable. IMDB somewhat concurs, in that the viewer rating for Deep Impact is 5.9 and Armagedon is 5.7. I cannot confirm or refute the claim of which film was rushed to market, but the Deep Impact people clearly did a better job.

Back to video games: anyone have data on how much Sony spent developing PS/2 vs. what MS spent developing XBox?

Crispin

Re:No, no, no

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Patching the software doesn't expand hardware capabilities though, unless hardware sits unused until it is later enabled through a patch.

Re:No, no, no

[kfg]

And 7Ghent is pointing out the PREMISE that consumer capital investment affects your premise.

CDs eventually supplanted the vinyl records in the marketplace, but it took a considerable time to do so because of the capital investment consumers had in both the playback equipment and the records themselves.

The majority of people only bought CD players when there were a sufficient quantity of new titles to play on them to make it seem worthwhile.

If Microsoft cannot produce a large quatity of new and superior titles being first to market with the platform will be meaningless.

So you're both right.

KFG

Re:No, no, no

[Chiasmus_]

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.

Re:No, no, no

[seafortn]

Totally OT, but FWIW, Deep Impact was a much better movie than Armageddon - the science wasn't nearly so stretched - Armageddon's competitive advantage was probably Liv Tyler...

Re:No, no, no

[gamgee5273]

Remember: NEC tried this sort of thing with the TurboGrafx (add the CD drive to the TurboGrafx CD), Sega tried it with the SegaCD and the things bombed. Are upgrades for an upgradable console something people go after (think the PS2 HDD and the Network Adaptor)? Is it better business just to create a new console?

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.

Re:No, no, no

[ThosLives]

That's not entirely correct:

There actually is an OS on all the "disc based" systems. Xbox actually has a specialized version of Windows NT and runs DirectX. Sony's PSn boxes also have a kind of OS. What do you think manages disc reads, writing to/from hard disks/memory cards, and handles all the I/O scheduling and the like? The fact that you can change an XBox to run [Linux] means that you're changing the OS on the thing.

Just because hardware doesn't change doesn't mean it doesn't have an operating system. You'd be surprised at how many things have an "operating system" - like cell phones for example. Even your automobile engine controller probably has an operating system...

Re:No, no, no

[king-manic]

Just a note: Tech companies keep cash reserves. They may have a large amount of stock but they also have a large ass cash reserve. Apple has 6 bil. I'd figure MS has at least 3 times that in cash. It has to do with confidence. In order for investors to feel safe investing in "tech" they want to see you have enough cash reserve to fund your own R&D shoudl your sales go to shit.

Re:No, no, no

[blincoln]

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.

Re:No, no, no

[The Lynxpro]

"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."

That's a poor example. GTA Vice City took well over a year to hit the Xbox after the initial PS2 release. Sony has GTA San Andreas locked up on the PS2 next. That's not a success. I won't even go into details about Manhunt, yet another title from American company Rockstar that debuted on the PS2 first (before the Xbox). If Microsoft wants to beat fellow monopolist Sony, then it needs to start on a buying binge of American and European software companies. Of course, it would be best to spin off their Xbox division (and mix the PC gamers division with it too) and give it a chunk of that $60 billion in the bank thereby they wouldn't trigger anti-trust issues in the US and the EU. But too much hubris in Redmond will prevent that from happening.

Re:No, no, no

[boosman]

You do not realize that this $60 Billion is paper-money only, there is hardly any cash. All this money is stuck in other people's projects. It will probably take them 10 - 20 years to be able to cash all their assets if they can at all.

Please check your figures before you post. According to Microsoft's 8-K filed 23 April 2004, as of 31 March 2004, they had $9.348 billion in cash and cash equivalents, and an additional $47.059 billion in short-term investments. (See FreeEdgar for the 8-K and other reports.)

Re:No, no, no

[The Lynxpro]

"Deep Impact did 2/3 of the business, which is hardly "destroyed". It did it on 1/2 the money, which is arguably a better investment."

Your stats are flawed. You didn't count pay-per-view (PPV) revenues nor broadcast network and cable deals. How many times do you see "Deep Impact" on broadcast or cable compared to Amageddon? You don't. You listed rentals, but not actual DVD/VHS sales. And with DVD sales, you'd have to include Buena Vista stats as well as Criterian Collection Edition stats too. There is no question which one made more money.

Re:No, no, no

[Crispin Cowan]

I don't dispute your claims, but you did not provide any sources. I quoted all the data IMDB had. If you think I'm wrong, then do better.

Crispin

Re:No, no, no

[Schmucky The Cat]

If an Xbox 2 can be converted to an Xbox 2.1 with a CD that flash-upgrades the OS

Already true. The majority of the OS is on the game disc. Any updated - or replaced - library that the game developer needs or wants they simply put on their disc. That gives console developers what they want - complete, unchanging and exact control over the environment their game runs in. It gaurantees that the experience of running their game is the same on every single platform. If the XBOX SDK upgrades some library, they take what they want for their disc. Console gamers don't know, and don't care, and don't care to know, about DLL version tracking.

This means Microsoft can continue to churn their code. Xbox game developers snapshot their environment at any specific point, and their game always runs in that version.

Re:No, no, no

[jonwil]

if they actually had a snowballs chance in hell of pulling it off, I would suggest that Microsoft buys Electronic Arts.

Just look at all the EA games and series that are currently on PS2 (some of which are also in some cases xbox/gc/PC) and think about how bad it would be for SONY if those were xbox only.

The other advantage is that hopefully EA would start making better games (say what you like about MS, they make/publish some fun games, zoo tycoon for example) instead of "yet another WW2 first person game".

Oh and further to that, if it was possible, they should also buy Square Enix (now that would REALLY hurt SONY)

Re:No, no, no

[pilkul]

That may be your view, but Japanese people generally hate all American games. Halo is obscure, and even GTA3 sold pretty poorly over there. If MS can't get Japanese developers on board, they are doomed in the Japanese market.

Re:No, no, no

[The Lynxpro]

"In fact, many times rumors have speculated about EA not really liking any of the console holders, and have patiently been sitting back and waiting for their chance to pull a Sony (enter the market and take it over)."

That rumor is long dead. That was pre-3D0, meaning, pre 1993. Trip Hawkins, the founder of EA, left the company and took programmers with him. They set about to create the 3D0 game system. Hawkins promised to dazzle everyone, and the $700 machine got shown up by the cartridge based $250 Atari Jaguar. The only thing the machine ushered in was the Naughty Dog company which later helped Sony (and is owned by them now).

Re:No, no, no

[DeadScreenSky]

That may be your view, but Japanese people generally hate all American games. Halo is obscure, and even GTA3 sold pretty poorly over there. If MS can't get Japanese developers on board, they are doomed in the Japanese market.

At last count GTA3 sold a couple hundred thousand copies in Japan, even being a fairly recent release - not the smash hit it was in the West, but far better than the most optimistic estimates by 'the people who should know that stuff'. And not remotely "pretty poorly".

Many Japanese game industry figures have credited Halo's release with finally opening the doors to FPS games in Japan - witness how well the Medal of Honor games sold. Unprecendented, at least prior to Halo...

Sure, Western games overall don't sell that well in Japan. But the suggestion that Japanese people generally hate all American games is complete and utter bullshit.

I'm confused...

[intuit]

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.

Re:I'm confused...

[SIGALRM]

Microsoft is bad for rushing to release XBOX 2.

That's not the point. The article argues that Microsoft's rush to be "first to market" ignores the next-generation R&D going on in the industry.

...and XNA being a hurdle to studios seeking to offer cross-platform titles.

backfire, well we'll fire back!

[2057]

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.

Re:backfire, well we'll fire back!

[2057]

what happened to Dreamcast was that Sega had huge losses because of previous failed systems, they didn't have enough capital or games to back their project up. Microsoft has had success with Xbox and I assume that Xbox2 will be a backwards compatiable, and that will ensure previous Xbox users have a home in Xbox2. And as for if PS3 comes out and its deemed better than Xbox2, then guess what, in a year or two XBox3 will be out. Its a one up game.

Re:backfire, well we'll fire back!

[swv3752]

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.

Poor sales/titles

[SIGALRM]

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.

Re:Poor sales/titles

[SIGALRM]

See Gamespot some more recent sales figures from April 2004, still supports my original assertion.

So much for cross-console games?

[flashinglights]

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?

It indeed could be a danger

[nebaz]

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?

History says this is bad, mmmk.

[schild]

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.

Re:History says this is bad, mmmk.

[RatBastard]

Completely different hardware architecture. It's a lot harder to emulate a hardware platform that it looks. Even with computers six times faster than the XBox there are no working XBox emulators out there. And look at the horsepower needed to emulate a PSOne on a PC.

The PS2, one of teh few consioles to bother with backwards compatibility, has a PSOne core burried inside of it to do I/O operations for the PS2. It was pretty cheap to flesh out the core and let it run PSOne games thus making the PS2 PSOne compatible.

Re:History says this is bad, mmmk.

[shut_up_man]

I agree... the Xbox is just getting up some speed! They have a solid lineup now (Halo, Knights of the Old Republic, Crimson Skies 2, Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell, Ninja Gaiden), with some good new games just coming out (Full Spectrum Warrior, Chronicles of Riddick) and some big ones coming in at the end of the year (Halo 2, Prince of Persia 2, Doom 3, Jade Empire, KOTOR 2). Xbox Live is kicking ass too, bringing the competition and teamplay seen in PC games to the console arena.

The idea that they want to rush in a new system that throws all this hard-fought good stuff out the window... it's mind-buggeringly stupid. This is exactly the same concept as written about in the recent How Microsoft Lost the API War article. Not having compatibility is suicidal.

Re:History says this is bad, mmmk.

[The Lynxpro]

"The dreamcast got trashed by two things, in my opinion. The first one, which is more or less provable, is Sony's announcement of PS2 specs. They made it look like the PS2 would put the DC down like a dog. Fact is, while the PS2 has greater capabilities than the DC, they are seldom used to their full extent because of the difficulty of developing for the system to that extent. Anyone who can write C can write a PS2 game, but to really use the hardware takes talent. I firmly believe that the second factor was piracy, it was just too easy to copy Dreamcast games. Sega brought out a system with no meaningful copy protection just at the time when it became trivial to download ISOs from the internet, with predictable results."

The Dreamcast failed for a variety of reasons. However, it is chief to remember that the Dreamcast was essentially the Xbox v. 1.0. Many people forget this crucial fact.

The pact with the demon Sega signed up for was the condition that the Dreamcast's operating system would be Microsoft's WindowsCE. Then, behind the scenes, Microsoft manipulated Sega into cancelling its contract with 3dfx to provide the graphics chipset (which became the Voodoo3) in order to use NEC's PowerVR chipset (which was a complete failure in the PC market). NEC had pressured Microsoft into orchestrating the deal considering NEC (at the time) was a major PC vendor and customer of the Windows operating system via Packard Bell. Sega breached their contract with 3dfx (not to mention the fact they were a large shareholder of 3dfx) which cost them a major lawsuit.

Now add to all of that the number of consumers who waited for the PS2 and you can see why the machine failed. But do remember that it was a cheap way for Microsoft to rid itself of a future competitor of console hardware and learn how to work the industry.

xbox2 != Sega Dreamcast.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

XBox2 comes in at sonic speeds...

[standsolid]

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...

Halo 2?

[mj2k]

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?).

Re:Halo 2?

[Apocalypse111]

Halo 2's release date is supposedly set in stone. The guy who announced it had it tatooed on his arm, and was showing it off at E3. After a publicity stunt like that, I don't think they're about to push it back any further - if I had an important event date tatooed on me, I'd make DAMN SURE that event happened on time.

Re:Halo 2?

[selderrr]

Playing a little bit of Devil's advocate here : I think they made a terribly wrong acquisition with Bungie. On mac, Bungie was great. Huge. Simply because there was no-one else. Marathon had a devoted swarm of followers, and also was a great game, but from tech point of view, was way behind the PC competition : Marathon was still Doom-style 3D (i.e : no walking under bridges) when Quake1 (full 3D) was out. Marathon 2 and 3 never had decent hardware 3D support, when Q2 was out (supporting Voodoo cards with at-that-time amazing results)

Microsoft considered Bungie, at that time the mac-gaming comunity family jewels, a goose with golden eggs, hoping for games that would be as ground breaking on consoles as on Mac.

Unfortunately, Halo, while a very good game, is no where revolutionary. And with your crown jewels only pumping out 1 or 2 games every 3 years, you really can't impress the audience.

IMHO, microsofts biggest mistake is NOT bribing the developers enough. They should have thrown TONS of money to the game industry instead of the hardware industry. Make contests "coolest game wins $1.000.000 (ONE MILLION DOLLARS)" and shit like that.

well, i guess they never understood the software market anyway, which is understandable if you've ever only knew one market position (monopoly)

Re:Halo 2?

[Exitthree]

As a Mac user and former Bungie fanboy, I will entirely agree that they were better off before being assimilated (and the irony of their founding principals and what finally happened to the company still disturbs me).

However, to avoid being a "me too" poster, I'll add something about Marathon which you have mistaken. You could walk under a bridge in Marathon, as long as the bridge was closed and the inside of the bridge was described in the map as a different set of enclosing polygons from the set outside. Marathon could handle elevation data, but not different levels of elevation in the same column of space...without tricking the engine. A lot of the more complex level designs used this hack to accomplish pretty impressive feats for the time.

Re:Halo 2?

[Benedick]

For most of the life of XBox, when people have asked "What good games does it have?" the answer has been "Halo" followed by a long silence. If MS had not bought Bungie, they'd be in even worse shape than they are now.

I remember when I first heard about the purchase of Bungie and was terribly disappointed. You see, there was a lot of hype about how cool Halo would be even before the purchase. But before the purchase it was supposed to be a really cool PC game. After the purchase, it would be an XBox title. And it IS revolutionary. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark notwithstanding, Halo is the first wildly successful FPS on a console. Before Halo, FPS fanboys wouldn't even consider a console. With Halo, you practically had to have an XBox if you were an FPS kind of guy.

No, the acquisition of Bungie was brilliant. Now, the purchase of Rare is a whole 'nother thing...

Re:Halo 2?

[mcc]

I think they made a terribly wrong acquisition with Bungie. On mac, Bungie was great. Huge. Simply because there was no-one else.

Of course, you're neglecting that Bungie was a good acquisition, and this is why...

Not because it did good things for the XBox game library, but because it totally destroyed what was left of the Macintosh game library...

Pretty well?

[metamatic]

Xbox has done pretty well so far,

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!

Re:Pretty well?

[W2k]

For a company with next to no prior experience in the console business, no reputation for quality in the console market (or anywhere else according to some people), and with so many people associating their name with Windows 95 crashing in yet another BSOD... Yes, they (Microsoft) have done very well. The fact that the Xbox even made it to the "big three" (PS2 and Gamecube being the other two members) is a testament to its success. Microsoft may have big pockets, but no amount of money can make people buy something (unless you pay them more than they have to pay you, which somewhat defeats the point). Considering where Microsoft started (scratch), making their very first console a relative success considering the competition is a fairly remarkable feat.

Re:Pretty well?

[Kirby-meister]

You apparently underestimate the Nintendo franchises. They are the reason to get a Game Cube. Nintendo does not depend on one "great" game to sell their consoles; a series of "great" games that people enjoy and expect from Nintendo. Sure, I guess its good Microsoft has made a Halo-settop-box, but it doesn't hide the fact that it is seemingly the ONLY game really selling Xboxes.

"Great" is in quotes because that is subjective.

Been here before -- Nvidia?

[Monkelectric]

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.

"First-Mover Advantage" Won't Help...

[GTRacer]

...If PS3 is backwards-compatible. Follow me here - Sure, Xbox 2 (or Ybox, or why bother?) will have prettier graphics and a lot of "new-tech" cachet. But the fracture in the game-space of having two incompatible Xboxen might be the opening PS3 needs to keep Sony on top.

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!

Backwards compatibility

[Dark Paladin]

*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.

Re:Backwards compatibility

[GPLDAN]

*IF* the Xbox2 will be backwards compatible (and considering the architecture of a proposed PPC chip and all, that will be very surprising)

I'm having trouble finding articles suggesting what will happen one way or another. I can't see how they would freeze out current Xbox owners, and expect to sell new expensive consoles. People would go nuts. But, as you say, Intel vs. PPC. Any links on this issue?

Re:Backwards compatibility

[Dark Paladin]

Only conjecture, really. We're "pretty sure" the Xbox2 dev kits are Apple G5 computers (savor the irony), and "pretty sure" that there won't be a hard drive - but nothing is set in stone yet, and MS themselves might not really know.

So it just comes down to what they really decide to do. For all we know, they could hard code a Virtual PC chip into the machine that emulates an Xbox1, so it might be a moot point. Time will tell.

Re:You don't understand the power of the Microsoft

[RickHunter]

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.

It worked for them before ...

[stinkyfingers]

Given that it's only been a couple years, MS hasn't yet made a profit on it's XBOX venture. But it's got about $60B to wait around for that to happen. As soon as XBOX came out, then Sony knew what PS3 was going to have to look like. PS2 didn't have the integrated hard drive or networking or graphic/computing capabilities. It was made to compete with Dreamcast and N64. So, all those PS2 fans took solace in the game library, which is formidable, but on every other front, XBOX makes PS2 look like a hairy ass-pimple.

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.

Something that was missed

[drsmack1]

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.

Xbox has NOT done pretty well so far

[Anita Coney]

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.

The loss estimates so far are in the billions:

Here read this:

http://www.itworld.com/App/4201/030203xboxlosses /

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?se ct ion_name=pub&aid=3489

Here's an article on its big loses in 2003

http://www.1up.com/article2/0,4364,1519194,00.as p

here's an article talking about how they are losing money despite sales increases:

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2 00 3/06/02/story7.html

Re:Xbox has NOT done pretty well so far

[kisrael]

Losing money on every console...but making it up in volume!!!

It's an old line.

Re:Xbox has NOT done pretty well so far

[Have Blue]

What you're ignoring is that a) Microsoft can afford to keep this up pretty much indefinitely unless there's a major change in the computer world and b) Microsoft knew this would happen from the start and planned around it. Whatever else you can accuse MS of, they aren't morons.

Re:Microsoft needs to know their place

[geeber]

Microsoft is so proud, that they're becoming blind to the fact that their brand name is become a joke in pop culture.

Is that really true? I would imagine the brand name of Microsoft is extremely strong in popular culture. It strikes me that Microsoft's brand may have a very poor image here at Slashdot, but Slashdot doesn't exactly equate to popular culture.

Bigger risk is to wait

[cmacb]

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.

Re:Bigger risk is to wait

[MuMart]

since as it was described it might not only be an XBox killer but a PC killer as well.

Remember all the hype about the PS2 being a supercomputer back in 99?

Then they came out with a quaint 32mb antique PC equivalent. How many times will people believe sonys marketing department?

Re: you've got your consoles confused

[mapmaker]

It was the Sega Saturn that got trounced by the PS1 and N64. The Dreamcast got trounced by the PS2 and Xbox.

But your point is right on. Sega proved it not once but twice!

If the Xbox2 is cheaper to produce!!!

[Anita Coney]

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!

Online Console Gaming is the Future

[CodeBuster]

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.

Re:Online Console Gaming is the Future

[ThousandStars]

The next generation console wars will clearly be decided in the online space. If Microsoft concentrates on this then they have a chance.

Despite the +1 interesting mod, I reject your premise. I think the abysmal showing (in terms of sales in the overall game market) of virtually every MMO with the exception of Everquest demonstrates that most people aren't that interested in on-line only play. When they are interested, they want free, like Battle.net or FPS servers. I know about 20 people who own an X-Box. Zero of those people use the X-Box Live service.

Online content in the console market faces two important hurdles, in my view: 1) Most American homes lack broadband internet. While broadband continues to grow, the fact remains that modems will continue to dominate in terms of number for the near future. 2) Most console gamers I know prefer to play literally live, against friends in houses, dorm rooms or apartments.

Then there are other things: parents don't want to pay for or set up online games; service outages; increased costs; etc.

Granted, I'm arguing primarily with anecdote, but I've seen no data that indicates that Microsoft can win the next generation with online games. I think that other factors will play a much larger role. Another poster wrote about his experience in the electronics section of Wal-Mart, at which he sold hundreds of PS-2s because of the DVD playback feature. Things like DVD playback and backwards compatibility will probably play such a larger role that the online market alone gives MS a chance. Certainly, they may win the next generation, but I think it will be for different reasons than those you state.

Re:You don't understand the power of the Microsoft

[Kadagan AU]

You must not have read the whole article. I think that the author made a very good point when he said:

Microsoft, still a relatively small player in the games industry, just doesn't look like a company that has the influence needed to force a shift like this. It may be backed up by the biggest software company in the world, but publishers will still look at the bottom line - in this case, installed base and cost of development - and base their decisions on that alone. 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.

You must have missed that part ;)

I'll bite...

[Mongoose Disciple]

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.

That might further cut into ...

[burgburgburg]

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.

Re:That might further cut into ...

[bahamat]

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.

I say we encourage them in this direction!

Re:This is Microsoft...

[SuiteSisterMary]

You know, I've never seen an Xbox game that looks like crap. I've seen Xbox games that obviously weren't taking advantage of the hardware, like Dead to Rights, Buffy, and so on, but none of them looked like *crap.*

Then, I finally got around to getting a Playstation 2, for the .hack series, the Final Fantasy X series, and so on. And I loaded FF X in, and HOLY SHIT.

The opening animation alone gave me a terrible headache. Hell, the damn models were swimming, like the vertexes were getting rounded to one value this frame, and a different value another frame. Horrible examples of polygons not meshing properly. Argh.

And my personal greatest pet peeve of the moment; clothes as textures. Maybe I've been spoiled by the Dead Or Alive series. But you know what? If somebody's wearing a necklace, model the damn necklace.

And, aye, the DC is still head and shoulders above the PS2.

Console Life

[vasqzr]

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

Re:Console Life

[lukewarmfusion]

I was trying to include the not-so-successful consoles in my estimate.

1995 Sega Saturn
1998 Dreamcast

There are an awful lot that didn't last even three years.

Playstation came out in 94, but by the time 1999 rolled around the popularity was waning; if PS2 didn't come out in 2000 they might have lost a lot of customers.

Makes me shudder...

[WebCowboy]

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.

Re:Makes me shudder...

[Gudlyf]

"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?"

That's definitely accurate for many people, but additionally one huge aspect of the console that I've liked is the even playing field.

With a PC, framerates can make all the difference in an FPS game. If you don't have the latest and greatest video card, you're BFG fodder. With the current implementation of console systems, everyone has the same framerates, and you're not finding yourself trying to save up for the newest $500+ video card.

The same is true for the CPU speed, amount of RAM, etc. Once you start offering bits and pieces like this, it throws the level playing field off kilter.

Exactly.

[Bozdune]

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.

No, it's about content

[payndz]

VHS beat Beta because more films were available on VHS. PS2 beats Xbox (a technically superior system in every way) because it has more games. Simple as that.

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).

SHHHHHHH!

[Marc Desrochers]

Ok people, when Microsoft is about to "shoot themselves in the foot" be quiet about it and LET THEM!

Not waving but trolling

[Tim Browse]

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...)

What do you mean "Danger"?!? What BS

[tstoneman]

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.

Backwards compatibility

[amacedo]

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.

Article completely misses the point.

[Thag]

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

Re:Well...

[The Lynxpro]

"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."

Atari didn't kill the industry. Atari didn't have a licensing program for third party developers since it was the courts that allowed Activision (the world's first video game third-party company) to make Atari 2600 compatible games which ushered in the era of uncontrolled numbers of poorly produced games like "Custer's Revenge." Atari certainly didn't help matters with their version of Pac-Man, E.T., and Raiders of the Lost Ark. The market was also cluttered with too many consoles (Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Intellivision, Intellivision II, ColecoVision, Odyssey II, etc.) to sustain it, plus add the original home computer goldrush with the Commodore 64. Atari couldn't even police the third party developers because it would've triggered antitrust issues since they had roughly a 90% market share, home video game market and arcades.

Once the Atari era was over (when Warner sold Atari to Jack Tramiel to stop their stock slide which launched a hostile takeover attempt by future Fox owner Rupert Murdoch), Nintendo rebuilt the home console market in its own image. Their contract for Atari to own what became the NES worldwide (outside of Japan) wasn't signed (because Atari was sold off and received a change of management, which also allowed Amiga to cancel Atari's acquisition of it) and Nintendo was free. They instituted their restrictive third party program that prevented licensees in America from releasing the same titles on any other console (which is why the Atari 7800, the Sega Master System, and the NEC TurboGrafx16 all failed to get decent third party titles). Once the Tramiels came to their senses in 1986 and released the 7800 (which was ready for an '84 release), they couldn't get any titles on the system. Since they had not had any interest in purchasing the Atari arcade division (which would've been just $10 million more at the time), they didn't even have any of the home rights to any Atari (Games) arcade titles post-1984. Atari Games created the Tengen subsidiary and marketed their titles on the NES. I won't cover the mayhem that ensued after that because that's a totally different story.

However, the point is, you don't know your videogame history. Atari didn't cause the videogame collapse of 1982, no matter what G4's *Icons* show claims.

marathon's strength was Gameplay/Story, not Tech

[Saltation]

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... :)

MS should do this

[jonwil]

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)

Solid lineup...of games you don't need an Xbox for

[analog_line]

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.