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."
Sadly, I'm guessing that Ballmer's crass remark may end up being true if Sony take too long to release the PS3. At the very least Microsoft will make big inroads in western markets, and stand to do well in Asia if (a) the console is much sexier than the current version, and (b) they managed to sign some big Asian games studios. Admittedly neither of these is very likely.
I have no problem if Microsoft become a bigger player in the console market. The original XBox definitely raised the standards of what we could expect from console performance, and without XBox there would be no one to keep Sony honest*. What I don't want to see is Microsoft pulling a Windows on the console market. That would be very bad for all involved, and would just give Ballmer the meathead more to crow about.
*Yes yes yes. Gamecube, Dreamcast, Phantom, blah blah. Anyone honestly think they could keep Sony honest?
gadgetophile.com
thanks steve... is that "significant" as in "we are about 17million+ console sales behind Sony" or the other sort of "significant"?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sony can take over the world ... in Japan
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
should be:
"I am betting we will take it in the ass from Sony in the next generation."
Really, that is far more plausable.
Microsoft hasn't successfully entered a market since the browser wars. When the histories are written in fifty years, Microsoft's peak will be said to have been in 2000. They are starting to lose share in browsers. They are not dominating the PDA market like they wanted to. They are not the king of set top boxes. They are slowly but surely losing the server market. Despite reams of hype and much marketting muscle on Microsoft's part, Sony still sells ten Playstations for every Xbox.
Microsoft is where IBM was in 1980. They are on top, but headed for a fall. The reason? Because despite the rhetoric, Microsoft can't innovate. They can only copy.
The cake is a pie
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
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.
The XBox two will rule all because it will have such hits as Halo:Revisited and Halo2, and Halo3, and X-Halo, and World of Halo, and Halo all stars. We will get to play throught intense action games without being bored to death by those awful RPG's.
Oh wait, didn't Nintendo say the same thing?
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
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
It's called Dumping. If they did that Nintendo or Sony could file a complain in each area of the world and have it stopped. MS would be fined and a duty to make up the difference would be imposed.
MS is probably skating close to the edge as it is with their current pricing.
Help fight continental drift.
The sad thing is that Balmer may be right:
1) The current Xbox is losing money, but the Xbox 2 will be built with cheaper materials (esp. Flash memory, instead of a hard drive)
2) The current Xbox has much better graphics than the PS2, and there is no reason to believe that this will change with the Xbox2/PS3 3) Microsoft is hell-bent on dominating the console market (watch the discovery channel special "Inside the Xbox").
4) They believe that if you control a family's entertainment, you essentially control the family (again, from "Inside the Xbox")
This is one market MS cannot afford to lose. They will throw everything they have at it.
AC comments get piped to
He said it CAN take Sony. He didn't say anything about WILL take Sony.
The next version of Windows CAN be bugless. It won't, but until it comes out, they can say it CAN be a lot of things.
so I can finally afford a PS2 console and games. /rockin' the PSone
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
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...
What does "take" means?
Xbox Next will take PS3 to the next generation as a flower girl, then go away somewhere obscure...
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.
AEWSOME!
"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?
CONSOLES! CONSOLES! CONSOLES! CONSOLES! CONSOLES!
English is easier said than done.
They always seem to get so ahead of themselves. They need to learn that using computer hardware may give the system a bit more power, but it also makes it ten times easier for people to rip apart and mod, and in the end it costs microsoft more money. Xbox2 may be a good system but they just dont have the backing like Sony does when it comes to game companies, Sony has Square-Enix, Capcom and other major ones putting their biggest games out on the PS1/PS2 and now PSP.
MICROSOFT: All your gamers are belong to US! Make your time!
SONY: What you say! Somebody set up us the antitrust legislation! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
My Favourite Meme
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.
Sony is using a different CPU (Cell), and probably a different GPU, why doesn't the same argument apply to them?
and then there is Live I would say there will have to re-write most of that as well.
Why would they have to do that? Nothing that runs on the servers needs to change very much.
MS has never writen software for RISC in the past and I think that the time frame they have set themself is very unrealistic.
They wrote Windows NT for the DEC Alpha (a 64 bit RISC processor) and supported it until NT 4, and they have Windows CE which runs on ARM's RISC processors.
they have partnered up with some good people to bring the PS 3 to life
Microsoft has "partnered up" with IBM and ATI. Are they not "good people"?
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.
Okay cocksucker, I am going to try to use as small words as possible so that I don't lose you. You're really making yourself look stupid here. Let's run with your definition of dumping [the link you provided]
"It provides a legal remedy to counteract low-priced competition in the
U.S. market from foreign producers who are allegedly "dumping" -- that
is, selling goods at prices below those in their own home market (price
discrimination) or below their fully allocated cost of production (sales
below cost) -- so as to cause injury to a U.S. industry."
So, when you said that selling below cost is dumping and put that "period" nonsense on the end to signify that you were quite sure, you were wrong. Selling below cost is dumping if it causes injury to a U.S. industry. Last time I checked, Sony and Nintendo were both Japanese companies and MS was a U.S. company. You cite a case that you supposedly worked on [an obvious lie] where Korean manufacturers were prosecuted. Tell me, you originally stated that the government would go after MS - does that make any sense at all? If MS sells their consoles at a huge loss, a U.S. industry is not harmed and, in fact, the high sell through that the original poster was assuming, is helping a U.S. industry because MS is an American company. I mean, for fuck's sake, everything the link you provided is dealing with foreign producers. You're a fucking moron. Can you not see that you're incredibly stupid here? MS selling at $50 is perfectly acceptable because the dumping link you provide is not talking about sales on the
home market!! You worked on a dumping case? Didn't get much out of it, did you? MS can sell in the United States at whatever price they want and U.S. dumping laws are not going to apply at all because the U.S. is Microsoft's home market, you fucking toolshed! Jesus Christ, you are the dumbest motherfucker ever.
Please, don't ever post on Slashdot ever again. You are too stupid. I wish there was an exam to get access to the Internet. YOU WOULD FAIL, MORON!!!
'We have gone from nowhere to a significant player,' he said
Welcome to Bizarro World, where the Xbox is a significant player, rather than being challenged in sales by the PS1 and WonderSwan!
(Disclaimer: I live in Japan, where the Xbox's popularity level is somewhere around "the whowhat?". Is the Xbox doing any better in the West?)
Seriously, anywhere else a moneypit like the XBox would have been put down for the greater good.
...but it bled money, it was always sold at a loss. That doesn't strike me as a stellar business model.
I am not saying it is a crap piece of hardware, on the contrary I enjoy it, there are some sweet titles for XBox and the extras you get even on an unmodded XBox vs. the PS2 are great...
The real story is: how is MS going to make it profitable? There is money to be made in the console market... what's their angle?
dont know if anyone has mentioned this, but it usually takes MS three tries to get something functional and somewhat compelling.
we've seen this in categories like
desktop OS
Server OS
Databases
Browser
IDE
PDA OS
Smartphone OS
i'd really be shocked if they got it right on the second try, already it seems like the replacement of the hard drive with RAM seems like a step in the wrong direction.
this rule is particularly true in enterprise software- and typically factored in when planning long term strategy. with five years of breathing space, you can innovate quite a bit to stay ahead of the curve.
about 7 years ago, MS bought an Israeli based analytics company, and people predicted the end of ISV's like Cognos, Business Objects, Crystal and others. now, about 7 years later, they're kinda releasing a 1.5 product that people are chuckling at.
remember SQL server 6.5- no row level locking? version 7, heh, not bad...pretty good bang for the buck...
as a long time gadget freak, im actually pretty excited about the next generation MS smartphone, the motorola mpx220, which fixes all of the crappiness of the second generation.
remember great plains software? the basis of the MS CRM strategy? SAP's not exactly quaking in their boots, but you can bet their thinking about that third release in about five years...
if you believe Eillison's testimony, they're poised to take over the world, and he wakes up nights in a cold sweat.
of course, when that happens, there are countless nubile young asian women to dab his forehead with hundred dollar bills.
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
It's not "we are about 17million+ console sales behind Sony", it's "we're only 18 million away from passing them". Think positive man!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
'I am betting we can take Sony'
'Yes, you are. But inside this PlayStation is the most powerful games processor known to man. And you're asking yourself - how many processors are in the box? Is it three? Is it five? I don't even know - we just keep shovelling 'em in. So the question you have to ask yourself is: do you feel lucky today - punk?!'
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
This will become very difficult with the next gen XBox with the absense of a HDD, so no more storage of pirated games.
Not only that but there is speculations that the next XBox may feature a new shiny IBM PowerPC processor, (same source architechure as the Nintendo Gamecube) so that reduces the posibility of x86 software and linux development.
Unfortunately the interview was cut short, as Ballmer spontaneously decided to hop up onto to the desk, and started shouting loudly "Console market, Console market,Console market,Console markettttt!!!!" while simultaneously "dancing" wildly, much to the chagrin of his handlers.
Well it was DEC that wrote NT for the Alpha mostly and when MS stopped building it for DEC then most of the guy moved back to DEC and I am pretty sure you will find that the the guys that ported CE to RISC worked for the chip makers(I could be wrong in this case)
"Sony is using a different CPU (Cell), and probably a different GPU, why doesn't the same argument apply to them?"
That is easy, Sony never had a problem with people running Linux on the PS 2, that is not the case with MS they went to great pains to try a stop it. The fact that i know quite a few people that have turned there XBox into media center. I think the reson MS has gone for the RISC with there own microcode is to stop people doing what they have been doing to the XBox.
"The most dangerous creation of any society is that man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin, American author
I never had a game machine growing up however my friends had Atari's and intellivisions.... Since I have a good job I thought I'd treat myself and buy the consoles that I wanted. Bought the PS2 first and got a bunch of games, wasn't happy w/ the load times on some. Next, bought the GC for my son where the load times are better but graphics not as crisp. I finally bought the Xbox on the advice of someone who doesn't care Microsoft vs Linux and have been happy w/ the graphics (HD!), sound, load times and of course Halo. I perfer the xbox now and buy only xbox games.
Do I like Microsoft? Not really but I think limiting myself to just one console/technology isn't a wise attitude. How else can you speak with any authority on a subject?
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
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).
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.
PS3 does not play PS1 games, only PS2. So if you want to play PS1 games you'll have to keep your PS2.
Sony is using a different CPU (Cell), and probably a different GPU, why doesn't the same argument apply to them?
Because they apparently will have "PS2-on-a-chip" to run PS2 games. You know, including backward compatibility without sacrificing current generation features.
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