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.
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'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?).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
This space for rent, inquire within.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...)