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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
Red herring. MS could've sold each console for $50 and taken control of the market. But that would not set them up for long-term success. They are essentially playing within the same boundaries as everyone else, although they do pump in an extra infusion of cash as needed. But their monetary advantage paled against Sony's mindshare advantage.
Besides, are the only successful products in the world the ones with >50% of the market share? How does the rest of every industry operate?
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.
BZZT! Wrong. Honestly, if you don't know what you're talking about - why post?
MS could have easily sold the XBox for $50 as long as it was $50 [or the local currency equivalent] in all markets. Selling a product below cost is not dumping, idiot.
Here, read this and find out that you're completely wrong.
This is why I hate Slashdot. People are so interested in both gaming the system to gain karma and to try to sound smart that nonsense like the above gets posted. Please, don't post here anymore. You're obviously not trying to add anything to the actual discussion. If your self esteem is this poor, go see a shrink.
I wouldn't say Microsoft really came out of nowhere and almost tied Nintendo is representative of Microsoft's strength in the console biz. It's more along the lines of how weak Nintendo was earlier this year. Nintendo *really* stumbled recently, and Sony took a huge lead because of it. MS basically had a free ride because of that, as well.
There's a few things stopping MS from winning the console wars.
1. Japan is EXTREMELY Xenophobic. They aren't going to sell out their extremely LARGE (highest pre-selling American game: Zelda at 700k units. Highest pre-selling Japanese game: Dragon Warrior 7 at 3,000k units.) console market to a "Gaijin" company without VERY good reason. The XBox is NOT good enough to make them give up their stranglehold on the market.
If you don't get why Japan is where the console wars will be won or lost, let me point it out to you. 99% of all successful console games in the past 20 years have been from Japan. The only exception I can think of is Halo -- and that was a PC game which had it's XBox port released a year before the PC version. Unless Microsoft can invade and make progress in Japan, they will NEVER make any headway in the console market. Period.
2. Sony might drop the ball but the chances of them truely screwing up the PS3 is *very* slim. Yes, the cell processor is a gimmick and a scam, and will fall flat. The PS3 will almost definately be a success, however, because of sheer inertia.
The only thing that could really kill them is if their arrogance makes them do the same kind of stupid errors that Nintendo did in the late 80s that put Big N in the spot they are now (basically being arrogant asses, pissing on 3rd parties and trying to push people around). Granted, the PSP and their repeated micromanagement with stuff like Final Fantasy 11 in the US kinda hints at that same kinda arrogance... However. Nintendo would be far more likely to capitulate on this than Microsoft.
3. Nintendo is *not* going to be idle during all this. Nintendo blew *everyone* out of the water this E3. Sony had a mock up of a unfinished portable with a 2 hour battery life. Microsoft had games they announced a year ago. Nintendo had a playable version of their new portable and about 9 bombshell announcements, one after another. The "Reggielution" as it were got so many people fired up that it really breathed some very much needed fresh air into Nintendo's sails.
Nintendo is calling their next console the Nintendo Revolution. This represents Big N's new thinking -- that horsepower isn't going to be enough to win the next generation of console wars. They're right. The DS completely blew everyone away who saw it, not because it was so graphically potent -- although it was quite nice -- but rather, because it brought so many NEW THINGS to the table. Touch pad, Wireless Link, WIFI Internet on a portable, 2 screens, etc. These are going to bring new games, and new WAYS to play games, and that is going to push sales.
In other words -- Japan has 2 huge titans gearing up for a *huge* battle for #1. There's no room for some silly spoiled foreigner brat of a company to try and push their way in. Especially when all they can muster up for information at the largest console convention in the world is some new screenshots of a game that was announced at last year's E3. Unless Microsoft gets serious, they're not going to be getting anywhere.
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.
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"?
Umm...Apple hardly ripped off any of these features from Microsoft and certainly not from XP. I remember full on video conferencing in the early '90s with "budget" UNIX workstations like the SGI Indy. (We are talking pre Win95 here - back in the Microsoft stone age.)
The encrypted file system introduced in OS X is actually based upon some NeXT technology. (And NeXT is even older than those SGI Indy systems...or did you also miss the part of history when Steve Jobs brought over all the engineers from NeXT and took over Apple?) Anyway, NeXT had an encryption API (for use by applications) for fast elliptic encryption. Go read a little about the encrypted file system in OS X and you will find, well, how about that - fast elliptic encryption!
Also, OS X is UNIX based and UNIX systems are inherently multi-user. The "fast user switching" (and remote desktop stuff) just exposed the multi-user guts of the OS in a user friendly way. (Yes, NeXT also had stuff like remote desktop - login to any machine on the LAN and see your files and apps as if you were sitting at your own box.)
Its just taking time for the OS guys at Apple to take all the good ideas from what came before and fit them together in a logical way in OS X.
In many ways, the "modern" Windows UI (95, 98, NT4, 2000) actually borrow from the NeXT UI. In my opinion, XP tried to do something new with the UI and it turned out pretty bad where as OS X also tried to do something new with the UI and (while somewhat rough at first) is actually getting pretty damn good!
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?
"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