Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer - Xbox 'Can Take Sony' In Next Generation
An anonymous reader writes "According to GameSpot, a Q&A with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has him saying that, although the company's Xbox game console isn't making money (or bleeding them dry), the pain has been worth it. 'We have gone from nowhere to a significant player,' he said, adding: 'I am betting we can take Sony in the next generation.' Guess things are set to get even more interesting with the forthcoming next-gen console launches."
Funny how Microsoft's essentially unlimited resources are not enough to penetrate a market (based on the relative lack of success of the XBox to date).
Not until MS finds a way to tie XBox 2 to Windows will they be able to "take" Sony. Maybe if they can force users to activate Windows via the XBox? ;-)
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I hear that sometimes many people thing MS being a monopoly is a bad thing but one large monopoly against another like MS against Sony is the essence of competition. This is the sort of thing consumers dream of, witness such cheap hardware as XBOX and PS2 now, where only one thing has driven the price down
COMPETION!
The net's biggest adult anime collection
Parent sounds kinda flamebait-ish, but actually pretty perceptive.
Sony have a huge following in Japan, and there are a squillion totally insane and unfathomably games for the PS2 that never see the light of day outside of Asia.
I doubt MS would be able to understand Sony's Japasia market, let alone penetrate it.
gadgetophile.com
No, but being nearly tied with Nintendo, the oldest console player, for second place is. They basically came out of nowhere.
If you haven't already realized, the Xbox is a *good* console. If Sony just sits on their haunches with the PS3, Microsoft could very well take the lead from them in the next generation, especially now that the new Xbox and Playstation seem likely to launch very close together.
The Xbox brought lots of innovative new features to the table, if Microsoft can continue to come up with interesting stuff they will likely have the most compelling system.
Word of mouth may have kept many away from the Dreamcast, but I doubt it'll stop Xbox Next (or whatever they are calling it)
The only thing that Microsoft could do to 'take' Sony is to sign a lot of exclusive deals with pretty much every top developer. This round of consoles has shown that it doesn't matter how much more powerful the hardware is if you don't have enough games to please the market.
I don't think MS can ever hope to do in gaming what they've done with Windows and Office. They could get on top for a generation of machines. They could even figure out how to do some things better and make money even if they aren't the best selling console. But every four or five years, there will be a competitor or two with credible competition. Any dominance they win will be under continual threat. Nintendo found out the hard way and Sega REALLY found out the hard way.
Many gamers don't even commit to one console. And gaming platforms aren't like business platforms. They go stale after a few years. Gamers always want to be the first kid on the block with the hot toy. Technical superiority isn't enough either. "Intellivision basketball is much more like real basketball." only worked once when console gaming was getting off the ground. As long as the graphics are the next obvious step up from the last console it will come down to the controllers and the GAMES. The graphics being a little bit better won't mean jack.
I only point this out because MS seems to be badly addicted to having monopolies. Having one in gaming is a completely different kettle of fish. The closest thing to a monopoly in gaming was Atari back in the day. They weren't invincible and neither was Nintendo. The real danger is that an also-ran console is a deep money pit. MS currently has the second place console and I'd guess they're just breaking even. It's a big risk and lot of money just for the chance be number one for a generation.
I think old Steve is getting far to high off his own hype. As it stands Sony is number 1 and I do not see that been any different with the next version of the game console. The reason I think this is becasue of the big change in the XBox 2. They are using a different CPU(IBM RISC), a new GPU(ATI) adding there own microcode to the CPU to stop people doing what they have been doing to the current XBox.
It also means(and this is what I think)that you will not be able to play XBox games on the XBox 2, they will have to re-write DirectX, build a RISC OS for it and then there is Live I would say there will have to re-write most of that as well. MS has never writen software for RISC in the past and I think that the time frame they have set themself is very unrealistic.
Now if you look at how Sony they have had far more years under there belt in the console market, they have partnered up with some good people to bring the PS 3 to life and have build a technology that they are plaining on putting in there other product(Cell).
Saying all that I am looking forward the XBox 2 and think it is a good step for MS in there battle for the console market. Do I think they will catch up with Sony, no but I think they will make money off the XBox 2 and that is a good out look for the future of the XBox console. May be the XBox 3 will be the one that turns the tide.
"The most dangerous creation of any society is that man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin, American author
Now pass this along to 10 other people within the next 30 minutes and your wish will come true.
Ballmer:-
For us--I don't know about the industry--but for us management is going to grow, security is going to grow, the server platform itself ought to grow, collaboration, business intelligence. I can look at almost anything and tell you I see absolute growth possibilities.
Translation:- We can't innovate for crap, so I'll just make some blanket statement about how IT is going to somehow grow bigger - without giving any concrete or useful examples.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
jesus christ, who cares?
unless the next model comes with wires in my scoobieroos wonderwear, there is nothing to be improved upon- all it means is recycling the same shitty bullshit boring games into a uber-designed new plastic housing and sucking up your dough for the "most realest everrrr!!!!" virtua-skateboarding.
who fucking cares? i'll let you know when breakthrough videogame entertainment comes along- right now we have a significant commercial movement towards original donkey knog, for god's sake.
admit it, you are still playing halflife and rainbow 6...and i, i with an XtrUberConsoBoxen, i still play hack. and larn.
carl
Speaking as an over of both an Xbox and a PS2, I have to say that the Xbox is a far better system. Network connectivity out of the box, incorporated hard drive. It would seem that the Xbox was one of the few things Microsoft did right (at least from a system standpoint. The finances are a different matter entirely.)
If Microsoft can continue to take the loss on the ahrdware and continue to offer a superior system, Sony may be in for a rough ride...
Who didn't expect Microsoft to be a significant player? For Microsoft to have entered this market and remain insignificant in it would have been evidence of a colossal blunder. Microsoft has the funding it takes to bring in top talent / expertise and develop. Microsoft has one of the most formidable marketing machines in Technology. These alone almost guarantee Microsoft got attention when it entered a market that isn't exactly awash with players.
However, an important piece that might not be immediately apparent is that Microsoft's day 1 for competing with console makers didn't start with the Xbox. Microsoft has competed for decades; every time a consumer or game developer makes a choice on whether they pick a "PC" or console.
Granted, this hasn't been direct competition per se. People tend to look at PC gaming and consoles as exclusive markets. However, there IS a certain degree of indirect competition between the two markets. And more importantly - whether Microsoft has been competing with consoles all along or competing with other OSes for personal computing gaming... Microsoft has been developing expertise in gaming technology.
Microsoft is not going from "nowhere to significant" with the Xbox. It's nowhere as drastic as Ballmer makes it sound. Microsoft has simply decided to shift their existing business strategy to compete directly with console makers.
Granted, the console industry is made up of considerable competition. Microsoft's task isn't trivial. But combine their existing expertise, funding, and talent for marketing... it's no surprise the Xbox has had at least mediocre success.
"We may still be losing money, but we have gone from nowhere to a significant player with a whole different approach. We've generated something brand-new."
Excuse me, is he joking?
Or for that matter, "fast user switching". I guess that's only an innovation for a single user OS, eh?
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I know that it's unpopular to actually say good things about Microsoft, but the Xbox is a really good console. It's easy to program, full-featured, and especially lately seems to be getting a lot of the top releases.
The fact that a company could enter an industry with no prior experience and do better than the likes of Nintendo is really impressive, huge bankroll or no. They had a good strategy, good hardware, innovated in relevant areas, and managed to do pretty well. The simple fact that they stand a good chance of unseating Sony in the next round of consoles (which many analysts believe) is just evidence of their success.
Sony would be foolish to discount Microsoft's resolve to be successful in Japan. Read up on the failure of Word 6.0 in Japan, followed by the success of Word 95.
Coming out of nowhere to be tied for last place is impressive?
Creating a very technically impressive console by losing a billion dollars a year is impressive?
More to the point, losing a billion dollars a year to be tied for last place is impressive? Hell, give me that much of a budget to piss away, and [i]I'll[/i] tie for last place in the console industry.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
not exactly... Dumping does not apply to all industries... cause if it does free software and opensource would be in lots of trouble...
"Because despite the rhetoric, Microsoft can't innovate. They can only copy."
You really have no clue do you?
Sony has deep pockets also. Both companies are playing a game of chicken. It will be interesting to see who flinches first. Although MS is wealthier, they are also behind in the race, so it is fairly even. So get the popcorn out, and enjoy the money race. See ya' at the finish line.
Table-ized A.I.
This reminds me of the scene in Ace Ventura, where Jim Carrey talks out of his ass.
Zelda was a Japanese game. Or have you forgotten that Nintendo is a Japanese company?
Have you ever heard of Metal Gear Solid? How about Metroid Prime? Or Grand Theft Auto and its sequels? All American games, huge successes in the American market.
By "standard", you mean Microsoft's standards. Which is fortunate since this is a Microsoft product. An obvious advantage to this is being able to develop a tittle for both the Windows and Xbox (or "pc" and "console" if you prefer the misnomer) markets. But in the end, this "standard" is not any more special as any other existing standard. When you code for Sony, you use their tools. And when you code for Microsoft, you use their tools.
Those stats are just Japan. XBox owns a considerably larger portion of the market in the States and Europe.
Several posts have suggested that if XBox can't win Japan, they can't really compete in the console market. That's crap: Nokia phones are nearly unknown in Japan, but they sell more wireless phones than anyone else in the world. Japan is just a market, like anywhere else.
Actually I think Japan is rated more important than it really is. Its main market is slightly bigger than germany alone. There is only one fact why it is important. Japan has many game studios and is looked up upon for historical reasons. The big markets currently are probably US, the EU as a whole (face it economically the EU is a single country) and China, with India probably as an emerging market.
Japan from a non producer perspective is small compared to those markets. The fact why there are so many successful japanes game companies has two sides. Face it US corporations usually produce lots of rather lousy non intuive sequels, whereas japanes companies used to go for the riskier sides and didnt rely entirely on sequels and shooters. But the situation changes currently with more and more sequels to sequel being released by them also.
The other thing is, from the middle of the 80s til Microsofts attempt, there has not been a single successful console which was not japanese. So we have japanese manufacturers holding a tight grip on what games are released and we have game producers who want to enter the market. Guess who has an advantage?
I know I'll be playing the old codger here, but do you think I care about graphics? I still have my NES from the mid 80's, and play it regularly. (Hell, I have an Atari 2600 in the closet that might just still work). Gameplay (and to an extent, nostalgia) are what really count for me. Fancy Schmancy graphics be damned. :-)
(Of course, my personal opinion does not speak for the masses. Some gamers actually prefer games to have detailed or realistic graphics and special effects above such trifling things as gameplay or (where applicable) story. I hope it is sufficiently clear from my sarcastic tone that I view this group in the same way Yoda thought of a young Luke Skywalker. ;-P)
Even if Microsoft manages to "dominate" Sony, I'll still have my other consoles. There's no way I'll ever give up my PS2, PS1, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, Gameboy (both original and Advance), and various Sega systems. Hell, even the ill-fated Virtual Boy has a place in my collection. I still have the Power Pad and ROB (Robotic Operating Buddy) for the NES. But even people less psychopathically obsessive than I will probably still buy the next-gen Sony and Nintendo systems, even if Microsoft woos them with the XBox 2. Gaming is hardly exclusive; I know very few console gamers who own only one brand of console.
My experience tells me that this is due in large part to the varieties of software available for each system. Many titles (almost all of the good ones, IMHO) are exclusive to one console; I used to be very loyal to Nintendo, but when Square started producing exclusively for Sony, I was simply forced buy the Playstation. As far as XBox goes, I've played Halo right through (which seems to be the flagship XBox title, as far as I can tell), and I'll tell you right now I didn't like it much. The gameplay was okay, but simplistic; and I found the story (in single-player mode) positively uninspired. It's an okay multiplayer game, but I would eschew it in preference of others. Obviously, my biased judgement does not mean Halo is a bad or mediocre game; for every person like me, there's at least one more who absolutely adores Halo. I just don't really like FPS games as much as I do RPGs, adventures, or puzzle games. Gamers come in all flavors, and I don't think one company can possibly have complete control of the diverse spectrum that is Gamerdom. In short, I don't think any company, least of all Microsoft, is capable of bringing to the market a sufficient variety of games to satisfy every single gamer.
This is one market MS cannot afford to lose. They will throw everything they have at it.
If that's the case, I'm not too worried. Microsoft may have a lot to throw, but they have terrible aim. :-)
Except that Microsoft's tools are easily accessed and digested. All you need to know is on msdn.microsoft.com. The IDE is widely available (cheap for academic versions, free for upcoming Express versions), and the SDK is free. A person can learn DirectX on his/her own, rather easily, and that knowledge is directly applicable to the production of an XBox game.
No other gaming platform (except the PC) has anything at all like that. I googled for "sony playstation 2 sdk" and the only SDK-like tool I found was this link. You must become licensed as a PlayStation developer to even purchase the product. Metroworks didn't list any prices, but I'd be surprised if it was less than $5000.
"I know that it's unpopular to actually say good things about Microsoft, "
And yet you get modded up to 4. Actually it's the best way to get karma on slashdot.
For the newbies take this hint. Always post a couple of "I don't like MS but they make a great (X)". In other words take a light swipe at them while praising one of their products highly. It's the best way to get karma.
evil is as evil does
>Since the launch of Pocket PC, Windows CE devices have
>been growing in marketshare consistantly. In fact, the #1
>PDA manufacturer isn't PalmOne anymore, it's HP.
Great. Microsoft will be king of a **DEAD MARKET**. Congratulations, Bill Gates! Now maybe you can realize your lifelong ambition and become the world's #1 buggy whip manufacturer, too!
PDA's are so 9/10, dude. The market for them is contracting. Cell phones are where the action is now, and Palm has the hottest - and most profitable - cell phone by far with their Treo line.
That's the downside to Microsoft having a business model that's based upon leveraging their monopoly OS position and ripping off the innovations of others. That model only works when dealing with devices that truly need to run software written for their OS. Few people need to run Word or Excel on a dinky cell phone or PDA display, which leaves Microsoft incapable of leveraging their OS monopoly in the cell / PDA space to gain total market control. They have to compete on useful features and the functionality users crave (or didn't know they needed), and Microsoft is incapable of developing either. The day Microsloth comes up with something on their own as useful as Palm did with the Treo is the day hell freezes over. MS is way too busy trying to lock customers into their OS jail to spend a nanosecond worrying about what the customer truly wants or needs.
I wonder how many folks that refuse to give money to Microsoft based on moral reasons evenly apply their morality to other purchases. Do they make sure they buy fair-trade coffee? Refuse Nike shoes? Purchase food that wasn't grown by a factory-farming corporation? Buy 'dolphin-safe' tuna?
Microsoft is fiercely competitive, but I'd hesitate to call it _evil_. Microsoft doesn't have an army of children it's exploiting, and doesn't destroy the environment to make it's millions.
Pick and choose your battles I guess. Personally, Microsoft can have my $100 or whatever for Windows, because the convenience and price is better than the competition. They're gonna use that money to make a better version of Windows and hawk it--big deal. My peronal beef is with big media companies such as Disney and Clear Channel. I could rant a long time about the injustices of big media, but it's off topic.
My point is that maybe you'd (not you, the general 'you') want to investigate if your antiestablishment energy would be more productive elsewhere. Fretting about Microsoft can be good, but maybe it's better to help out here, here, or here?
Just recently I decided to go out and get a current generation console. Now, I haven't owned a console system since the SNES, but I've kept abreast of the market and played plenty of games with friends. In that time I've largely moved over to the PC for most of my gaming and, quite frankly, I haven't really looked back. I don't really want to turn this into some sort of PC vs. Console flame war, mind you, just setting the picture.
When I bought a console system I was thinking about all the stuff I wasn't getting on the PC: being able to play a game with my friends in the same room on the same screen, making gaming a bit more of a group activity. Having a fun system to play around with some stuff that consoles actually do pretty well, and playing exclusive titles that I'm not going to get a chance to play on the PC. Given all this and considering that I already have a solid PC for gaming the XBox isn't really that great. My final decision was actually a Gamecube.
Why? Well, the 'cube has a strong library of very good games that simply won't ever be ported to another system because they're Nintendo properties. If I want to play Legend of Zelda, Metroid Prime, Super Smash Bros., Eternal Darkness, Mario Kart, etc. there's only one system that's going to fill that need. As for multi-platform, but console only games (e.g. Starcraft: Ghost) almost all of them are made available for the Gamecube and with graphics that are often better than the PS2. The PS2 drew me with its large library of games, but nothing really stood out. Many of the best PS2 games (e.g. GTA3) are eventually ported to the PC or to the Gamecube. Online play is nice, but again, most of the games that involve online play are often ports of PC games or sports games that I have no interest in. The XBox, in its favor, often has the best graphics and sound of any of the consoles. It has the very nice feature of an integrated hard drive. Ultimately though any of the games I'd really want to play on it are really just PC games. KOTOR, Thief 3, Splinter Cell... I can't imagine wanting to play these on a console system when I could play them on an upgradable, typically more powerful computer with the added bonus of free online play, easy patching and all the other things that computer gaming means.
Ultimately this is where I see the XBox. Microsoft wanted to make a console that was more or less a computer and that's pretty much what they've done. The problem with this is that if you already have a computer you probably don't have much need for the XBox.
In the console market, I'm not convinced that it's worth very much at all. Selling into a market dominated by kids, with a product cycle of about 5 years, a large portion of console buyers are going to grow out of the market, and a large portion are first time buyers.
Actually, I can't think of any other industry where 'significant players' crash and burn on as regular a basis as the console market - Being a 'significant player' didn't help Atari or Sega, both of whom had at one time or other bigger shares of the market than the xbox does, and it didn't do them any good.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Personnally, I don't know/don't care much whether Microsoft dominates the handheld or set-top market. They're both overly-heavy niche markets that won't ever pay back on the investment because a more simple and more effective product already competes. I say, good for Microsoft if they want to throw money down that toilet; somebody will make good come of it.
I don't know or care about handhelds or set-top boxes, but I do know enough to tell you that you're full of it when you start talking about Microsoft "innovation."
With a order of magnitude more money and more people to spend on R&D, Microsoft managed to implement a good idea (fast user switching), and Apple turned it around and made work better.
Go figure.
File encryption? Um, sorry that's been around for a lot longer than Microsoft has used it -- no matter what name you want to put on it. Ditto video "chat." And a list of file folders... true "innovation" there
Obviously you haven't had the opportunity to encounter real innovation like Expose or Rendezvous. Obviously you haven't had the opportunity to see what creative thought and Cocoa can create, like Launchbar or the editor formerly known as Hydra, SubEthaEdit. That's what innovation is, and that's what well thought out tools can provide.
I guess you don't remember, or you choose to forget that before IBM changed the way it runs business that they were a few months from dead. Trying to bleed customers is a dead-end business model, and that's exactly what Microsoft continues to do, and exactly what IBM went away from.
So Microsoft crippled a PC, put some optimizations in and sold it as a console.
Are our standards really that low that this counts as "innovation"?
XBox doesn't contain anything new. Harddrives are hardly new. The x86 architecture isn't new.
The PS2 architecture however was completely different to anything existing. The new "cell" architecture also is completely new.
That's a whole other level than just putting some off-the-shelf hardware parts into a console.
Oh jesus, have you not been watching? WTF do you think the whole PS2 linux scene has been about? They sure as shit weren't planning on making any money from it. They were only vaguely hoping that it would produce some brilliant new games company for them to buy ... a Polyphony or Psygnosis.
... They seem pretty determined to fix it.
No. This has been so they can learn about developers. What developers like. What works in development environments. And, to be honest, if they get their shit together they'll end up with something almost identical to Visual C++. I would put even money on it being a modified eclipse based platform, actually.
Point is that Sony know they messed up from a developers point of view on at least the first two playstations. They appear to have held developer relations together in a much more solid fashion for the PSP project
I'll be interested to see how this whole PS3/Xbox2 think pans out actually. I won't be buying an XBox2, but I won't be convinced I'm backing the winning horse either.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Folks will wait for the PS3. Sony Playstation is a name people trust. Its a brand name like Coca Cola, and its gotten sweeter each version.
Xbox may be a performer, but it lacks everything that makes the PS2 a work of a art. Quality games from the japanese developers, original titles etc.
The PS2 hardware is a work of art, that falls short of xbox's power. Fortunately for SONY, the PS2 makes it all up where it counts. GAMES.
And that is why people trust SONY. That is why people trusted Nintendo. That is why people no longer trust nintendo. GAMES.
People will love the xbox2, but wait to see the Ps3 because SONY is the champion of consoles.
Sony could very well pull a Nintendo and see all of their developers flock to another console such as Xbox2.
Marketing will play a big part in this. We are really in a new generation of games. The next gen games are going to be full of normal mapping, high geometry, post processing fx, and all kinds of ram eating graphics power. This is perhaps a very big step, and who takes the biggest can certainly cause a shift. Sony was successful because the Saturn looked terrible, and Sony suddenly had this amazing 3d game system called the Playstation. The gayest name on the planet, grew into the coolest name in the industry.
Microsoft is trying to pull a Sony. And they could win if they take the biggest step and have atleast 2 KILLER APPS. I'm talking insane games, like the upcoming Unreal versions, where they're normal mapped to hell, self shadowing, HDTV resolutions, networking, etc etc...
If MS does it right... they could shake Sony. Its possible. Its going to be difficult without a killer game or 2 on Xbox2 at launch. No its not half life2, or Doom3. It would have to original and mind blowing just as MGS2 was when it was originally used to hype PS2 (not that it was original, but it was a work of art that had everyone drooling for sony.
But hey if Sony keeps making games like ICO and Gran Turismo 4, Xbox aint got a chance. ICO is perhaps the finest experience in gaming one could have, and Gran Turismo 4 is the benchmark by which all others are judged.
Sony's got a lot of good titles in its pocket... speaking of which... PSP looks incredible.
Sony's a strong giant, and Microsoft better have one hell of a big stick if they want to beat Sony.
What a nonsense!
a) From printer companies to gaming console makers, they all "dump" their products and yet does anyone complain? Does Sony complain how Microsoft loses x dollars on every Xbox sold? Do customers complain? So what's the fucking problem?
b) As far as dumping goes there is no established way to estimate "cost" of software products because it is immaterial.
You can't say one anti-virus application should cost 50 bucks and the other one shouldn't sell for 48 because 49 is "the cost"!
By your logic democratic governments worldwide should have sued Red Hat and others for providing (until recently) free downloads of their products (otherwise you claim Linux is worthless).
I find it funny how Nintendo is never mentionned in the console war, it's always about PS2 and Xbox (or PS3 and Xbox2).
A very big part of the gaming market is located in Asia, and that market it fought for by Nintendo and Sony. Xbox doesn't succeed very well over there, and I doubt Xbox2 will do any better.
As far as exclusivity goes, about 95% of games that are on either PS2 or Xbox are also on the GameCube, and now that SquareEnix is back on the Nintendo platform (both GameCube and GameBoy), Sony lost one of its best exclusivity there.
Meanwhile, Nintendo keeps on creating and maintaining very popular brands that are exclusive to them. EVERYBODY (under 30) has played a Mario game at least once in its life, and Mario is still very popular. Add Donkey Kong and Zelda to that, and you got a pretty good range of exclusive games. And if Nintendo pulls another Pokémon-like mania...
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
On the other hand, try this: Count the number of American cars you see in Europe versus the number of Japanese cars you see in Europe. Your car anecdote is more of an indication that people simply prefer Japanese cars. Certainly in Europe, many American cars are (or have been, historically) too large to drive or park comfortably on narrow roads (although, from what I understand, the Ford Focus is earning a following).
If anything, I suspect that in some cases, lack of international penetration by American products is simply a result of the American companies not understanding the foreign consumers. (Of course, there are many American products which have had huge international success, perhaps because the foreign markets responded to them the same way as at home, or maybe because they found out what the foreign markets wanted ahead of launch.)
How about you don't buy an xbox, that way, when the units don't sell, they get cut to disgusting prices, or even better, get sold into an overstock channel?
Why give them *ANY* money if you want to prevent them from increasing market share?
Such a silly argument. It's like advocating buying CD's but then breaking them into tiny bits and mailing them back to Sony to get back at the RIAA?
Bzzt, your totally wrong, dickface. Here is a quote from your link....
There are many different ways of calculating whether a particular product is being dumped heavily or only lightly. The agreement narrows down the range of possible options. It provides three methods to calculate a product's "normal value". The main one is based on the price in the exporter's domestic market. When this cannot be used, two alternatives are available -- the price charged by the exporter in another country, or a calculation based on the combination of the exporter's production costs, other expenses and normal profit margins. And the agreement also specifies how a fair comparison can be made between the export price and what would be a normal price.
Now take a look at option #3. Oh, what is that, the parent poster was right?
This is why I hate slashdot, totaly ignorant assholes like you post a link Without even reading what they linked to, and take a position of authority, with zero knowledge of said position.
So, go back to your parents basement, and read the link you provided, and then say sorry to the parent poster, who was 100% correct in his/her position.
Kind of ironic, isn't it, that you turn out to be the one who added nothing to the conversation.
There have been a lot of words coming out of Redmond lately but almost nothing of a tangible nature.
Just shut up and do what you're going to do, Microsoft. I'm buying Nintendo's console anyway. (I don't see why these kids keep saucing their pants over HALO. It's not THAT good of a game.)
"Supressing technology is more evil than lousy working conditions in some third world country."
someone please tell me that this is not the general Slashdot opinion.
lysergically yours
I don't see why many people think most people think the console market is dominated by kids etc. The kids demographic may play a part, but everyone needs to know the average gamer is around 30. Do you think kids buy all these games, no.
Another thing that should be noted, gamers don't "grow" out of any market, if anything there always looking for the next best thing. If a large portion of console buyers WAS infact first time buyers there would only be a marginal increase in console growth, and if you compare it what the console market was from what it is now... it's grown tremoundasly. This closely ties in to the fact that gamers that bought there first nintendo have not grown out of anywhere, and are still buying even more consoles now.
Atari and Sega made mistakes, huge ones. The console market is a very sensitive one, one blunder and it could cost you everything. Who would of ever thought of playing a sega game on the gamecube.
The console market is becoming more and more like the film industry. Like it or not, there is money to made there, and HUGE audience... and it only keeps growing.
- No hard drive
- No backwards compatibility
- No more underpriced hardware
The xbox 2 won't be able to store mp3s or play xbox games because it won't have a hard drive. It doesn't have a hard drive because Microsoft needs to make money on the xbox 2 to prop up the stock value. So therefore they can't underprice the hardware anymore. This means you won't be able to "tinker" with alternative dashboards, launchers or applications.Honestly, the more I hear about it, the more it looks like the xbox 2 is going to be a huge bomb. The only thing it can hope to salvage it is Halo 3, which probably won't be released until the PS3 hits the market (it might be even later). I'm guessing it will be a deliberate attempt to steal the PS3 launch thunder.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
In all fairness, I actually agree with most of your argument. It's solid, fair and (for the most part) the exact reason I bought an Xbox.
/.'ing a great afternoon away. =)
;)
Last year, three things happened (concerning PC's and games). I turned 32, I built a PC that would meet my required needs for (at least) several years and I bought an Xbox. I realized that while I still enjoy gaming, I do not enjoy the yearly costs incurred by continuing to upgrade my PC for those games.
For me it simply came down to want I wanted more:
I've got $150 to blow this week... do I want a mid range graphics card that'll disappoint me by the end of the year or do I want a new set of EMG's that will sound great in my guitar for the next 30 years?
I've got $300 to blow this month... do I want to replace my CPU and add more memory or do I want to take the wife for a quiet weekend in the mountains?
I've got a $2000 to blow this year... do I want to build a new kick ass PC or do I want to put a down payment on that Harley... add a deck... buy that nice leather sofa? This year I opted for the sofa and had enough left over to scale the deck down to a mixed stone patio, a new grill and some outdoor speakers. Now, I get to hang out on the patio having drinks, cooking chicken and
In every single one of those scenarios, I chose the non-PC route -- and I would have to say that I'm happier for it.
My point is this... I still get to play current "PC" games... only, I play them on my xbox while sitting on my comfy leather sofa staring at the 8' screen that my projector allows for. When friends come over, we can play "group activity games" like Links 2k4, D&D Heroes, Soul Calibur 2 or Trivial Pursuit. In the meantime, since I'm not relying on my PC as my main game machine, I'm not in the constant -- upgrade countdown mode.
And as I've posted before concerning Xbox modding -- I've also got my entire emulation (MAME, NES, SNES, Genesis, Apple, C64, etc...) collection in the living room -- where it belongs. Not to mention, the modded Xbox makes a nice media player -- especially in combination with a wireless device and browser allowing for playlist selection while out on the patio. =)
In the meantime, my "still feeling new and powerful" (Shuttle MN31N, AMD XP 2800+, 768 MB Ram, GeForce 5600 FX Ultra) dual headed Gentoo Box doesn't give me any moments of remose or grief -- and if Doom 3 doesn't run that well... I know I'll be playing it on the xbox.
Sorry for being so long winded and sounding like a fanboy... I just wanted to point out that it always comes down to preference. I'm a gamer at heart (Hell, I grew up playing original Wolfenstein, Ultima ][-VI, Karateka and the like), and I really dig my computers. But it finally dawned on me that MS made a product that actually works for me. Afterall, if I plan on running my old dual MP 200 MHz PII file/web server into the ground... why should I feel any different about my desktop? Even my studio is based around an old G4 400 MHz Mac. I had to face up... my days of bleeding edge tech awe have come to an end (at least for now). If I want to play anything resembling the current PC releases... it's gonna be on my current console of choice, the Xbox which sits right by my last console of choice, the Dreamcast.
#SickNotWeak
Count the number of American cars that come in a version with the steering wheel on the right (remember Japan drives on the left just like England).
Jeep started making Cherokees and Grand Cherokees with the steering on the right and you see a boatload of them on the streets here in Tokyo. Not much else in the way of American cars usually but there are lots (and I means lots) of Mercedes, BMW's and Audi's as well.
Japan has a protectionist economy, that's very true, but Detroit has done it's damndest not to compete in this market as well.
the xbox clock is reset after 4 hours whereas the dreamcast could go a number of weeks.
do you see the difference?
Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
From your link:
It provides three methods to calculate a product's "normal value". The main one is based on the price in the exporter's domestic market. When this cannot be used, two alternatives are available -- the price charged by the exporter in another country, or a calculation based on the combination of the exporter's production costs, other expenses and normal profit margins. And the agreement also specifies how a fair comparison can be made between the export price and what would be a normal price.
So essentially the original poster is correct. Next time do us all a favor and go see a shrink.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.