Xbox Sees Earnings Lag, Stronger Sales

MS Office for the Mac by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2004-07-23 04:21 · Score: 1

Isn't Office for the Mac in that division as well?

It'd be interesting to know how the Xbox numbers compare to the Office:Mac numbers if so--I suspect one is carrying the other.

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar

Re:MS Office for the Mac by OmniVector · 2004-07-23 04:28 · Score: 1

you're thinking of the MacBU. and yes, the mac bu is profitable. i believe they produce office, msn messenger, (used to do ie), and now virtualpc. not sure what else they do really. office is the big money maker.

--
- tristan

How does one by foidulus · 2004-07-23 04:25 · Score: 1

manage to spend almost 2x what the total revenues were?
If I did this I would be MBNA's bitch for the rest of my life. Ah to have the life of a corporation....

Re:How does one by gl4ss · 2004-07-23 04:42 · Score: 1

by fighting a price war against a cheaper to made devices?

or by using zillions on marketing, buying game companies or whatever. gaining market share by using money in the hopes of being able to pocket in some income from it later.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:How does one by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-23 04:42 · Score: 0

Uhh, because this is one of seven units in the company, not the whole thing?
Re:How does one by AvantLegion · 2004-07-23 09:28 · Score: 1

manage to spend almost 2x what the total revenues were? If I did this I would be MBNA's bitch for the rest of my life. Ah to have the life of a corporation....

Not if you made billions of dollars beforehand.

Hmmmm..... by rchorse2000 · 2004-07-23 04:25 · Score: 1

Losses almost as big as revenues = sound business strategy. I'm sure their shareholders are loving that. I mean, they obviously need to do something with all their cash, but flushing it down the toilet usually isn't the best strategy. Of course, if they leverage these losses to eventually become profitable in the console market, that's another story. But that's a big "if" right now.

Re:Hmmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-23 04:50 · Score: 0

Unless I'm mistaken, it actually reads losses > revenues. But only for that division of MS.
Re:Hmmmm..... by Quill_28 · 2004-07-23 05:14 · Score: 1

No offense, but any time you start a business there is always a big 'if'
Re:Hmmmm..... by rchorse2000 · 2004-07-23 06:00 · Score: 1

"No offense, but any time you start a business there is always a big 'if'"

You're right that there's always a big "if". My point was that, given the state of the industry and the competition they are facing, this "if" is bigger than most.
Re:Hmmmm..... by servognome · 2004-07-23 07:46 · Score: 1

Most large corporations accept huge losses to break into a new market segment. Shareholders don't mind as long as the stock goes up, and revenue growth makes the stock go up, not necessarily profits. Investors prefer a company losing millions of dollars to grow their business than just see it stagnating on huge cash reserves (MS has been criticized for not using its reserves on strategic investments)
Microsoft knows it can't grow in its traditional space, so one logical step is to try its hand at getting into the living room. They have paid the price and now have an established presence including name recognition. I think the next gen they will start looking at moving to profitability, look at the cost cutting design decisions they are making on their next console.

--
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Re:Hmmmm..... by Rallion · 2004-07-23 16:42 · Score: 1

Not all ifs are equal. Most businesses face ifs that are like, say, betting in poker. There's a risk, but you might profit.

With the XBox, it's a little different. It's more like...say...if you hang out at a freshly-post-meltdown nuclear reactor site, it's not exactly safe, but what if the radiation mutates your DNA and gives you the ability to shoot mind bullets!?!?

My take on how Xbox2 will do by Lovedumplingx · 2004-07-23 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think it really all depends on what specs the Xbox2 has. If the Xbox2 won't play first gen games then I think this buying trend (which appears to be people have waited a while to buy) will not be good for the Xbox2 release because all the games bought in December of 2004 and January 2005 (like Jade Empire and Halo 2) will then be useless. And even though Penny-Arcade and the like will own every console known to man normal people like myself (who just purchased an Xbox a few months ago) will wait a few years to purchase a new system. I think this will lead to poor sales for the Xbox2 unless the Xbox1 games will work with the Xbox2 and then maybe I could pay ~$150 (after selling the Xbox for $50) for a new console and I wouldn't have to buy any games right away.

Re:My take on how Xbox2 will do by Lowtekium · 2004-07-23 04:46 · Score: 1

Apparently according to this, it will be backwards compatible (At least according to Microsoft)

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?se ct ion_name=dev&aid=3669
Re:My take on how Xbox2 will do by volteface · 2004-07-23 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe I missed something important in that article, but it looks to me like it says it is not likely to include backwards compatability.
Given the disparaging remarks made by senior members of the Xbox team about the importance of backwards compatibility in consoles, it seems highly unlikely, then, that the next-generation system will include this feature - even regardless of the comments made to our source, which effectively rule out backwards compatibility entirely.
and
At present, the technology to emulate Xbox hardware on the proposed Xbox 2 hardware simply does not exist - a fact which is acknowledged by a document released today which purports to be a leak of a white paper on the Xbox 2 ("Xenon") specification for developers.
From the look of it, Microsoft never said anything about whether it will have backwards compatability, they just said that they can't comment on the issue.
Re:My take on how Xbox2 will do by real_smiff · 2004-07-23 08:08 · Score: 1

unless the Xbox1 games will work with the Xbox2 and then maybe I could pay ~$150 (after selling the Xbox for $50) for a new console and I wouldn't have to buy any games right away.
No offense, but: what's the point of buying the new console then? if you aren't going to buy any new games for it straight away? So you can say you have an Xbox2? I don't get it.
I agree with your main point though that it's too soon, the Xbox has only just caught on in the mainstream, and most people only have one console (or none).

--
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

The trick isn't so much what Microsoft does... by Moryath · 2004-07-23 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

it's what Sony does, or doesn't, do to counter.

Nintendo has already said they're trying to sidestep the next generation of consoles; the focus is going to be on "Revolution" (whatever the heck it is). So they're out, and will probably be content with 20% market share. Look at Nintendo as trying to transition to the Apple business model, with the Gameboy Advance their bread and butter.

Xbox being 33% in the USA market is a good thing; they've got strong sales and they're getting better as the PS2's hardware just can't keep up with new games. Compare PS2 Spider-Man 2 to the Xbox version, the PS2 version looks like ass.

The trick for Microsoft now is to leverage themselves so that they're the next-buy instead of the PS3. They're 33% in the console market right now because the majority of Xbox owners also own a PS2. When crossover titles come out, this hurts them - people pick one console or the other as their primary, and only get the "must have" titles on the second.

It will help immensely for early adoption sales, however, for Microsoft to have the Xbox2 compatible with Xbox games; The Playstation did the same, and people saw it as an "upgrade" rather than a whole new platform. This enabled them to keep a lot of customers, as opposed to Nintendo's N64 being abandoned by many players for the Playstation - you can bet they'd have had better luck if the N64 had been backwards compatible with the SNES.

Of course, Microsoft could REALLY kick ass if someone (them or a third party; preferably them, and in the box) came out with an emulation layer that let the Xbox2 play Playstation/Playstation2 titles as well... they're moving to a RISC processor, so it shouldn't be all THAT hard, especially since they're emulating something that ran at an order of magnitude less clock speed.

Re:The trick isn't so much what Microsoft does... by rash · 2004-07-23 04:53 · Score: 1

revolution is the project name for the next nintendo console.

like doplhin was the codce name for the gamecube

ultra64 for the nintendo64

nitro for the nintendo ds.

its a console just like the next one from sony and microsoft.

so please back up the "they are out" comment.

you might be interested to know that camecube is #2 in the world AND in the us.
Re:The trick isn't so much what Microsoft does... by kryptoknight · 2004-07-23 05:28 · Score: 1

"The trick for Microsoft now is to leverage themselves so that they're the next-buy instead of the PS3. They're 33% in the console market right now because the majority of Xbox owners also own a PS2. When crossover titles come out, this hurts them - people pick one console or the other as their primary, and only get the "must have" titles on the second."

Hmm... you've stated it yourself, cross-over titles look better on the Xbox. Wouldn't I get the crossover title on the Xbox then and just get the exclusives for the PS2.
Re:The trick isn't so much what Microsoft does... by prockcore · 2004-07-23 05:36 · Score: 1

Look at Nintendo as trying to transition to the Apple business model, with the Gameboy Advance their bread and butter.

As long as they don't use Apple as a role model too much. Nintendo has a higher market price than Apple.
Re:The trick isn't so much what Microsoft does... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-23 06:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Of course, Microsoft could REALLY kick ass if someone (them or a third party; preferably them, and in the box) came out with an emulation layer that let the Xbox2 play Playstation/Playstation2 titles as well... they're moving to a RISC processor, so it shouldn't be all THAT hard, especially since they're emulating something that ran at an order of magnitude less clock speed."

I don't think pissing off Sony would be a good move - they could be a lot more aggressive about playstation 3 exclusive titles and do some serious damage to the xbox 2.
However, Sega are out of the console business - dreamcast compatibility would be doable (though they'd probably improve the copy protection from the original...), add that to xbox 1 compatibility and you have a library that comes close to rivalling the PS2.

Still, that's a pipe dream... I don't think the DC was popular enough to justify the $10 it would add to the console, plus all the DC servers are dead so the online titles are less appealing, and I don't think MS would want the hassle of resurrecting them.

Another interesting speculation is that xbox 2 and revolution could be the same console - after all nintendo sells in Japan and xbox in the US. However, I think both companies are too proud to take this step.
Re:The trick isn't so much what Microsoft does... by hoferbr · 2004-07-23 07:16 · Score: 1

However, Sega are out of the console business - dreamcast compatibility would be doable (though they'd probably improve the copy protection from the original...), add that to xbox 1 compatibility and you have a library that comes close to rivalling the PS2.
I don't think so. You're forgeting the PS2 backwards compatibility with PSone.
But even without PSone games, I think that the PS2 has more games than Xbox + dreamcast. See here.

"Another interesting speculation is that xbox 2 and revolution could be the same console - after all nintendo sells in Japan and xbox in the US. However, I think both companies are too proud to take this step."
Now *that* would be interesting.
Re:The trick isn't so much what Microsoft does... by scot4875 · 2004-07-23 07:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

emulation layer ... play Playstation/Playstation2 titles as well... they're moving to a RISC processor, so it shouldn't be all THAT hard

Obviously stated by someone who has no clue what either RISC means, or how emulation works.

Here's a hint: pretty much every processor made in the last 10-15 years has had a RISC core. Yes, that includes Intel and AMD's offerings that just provide a translation stage between the CISC instruction sets and the RISC core.

can bet they'd have had better luck if the N64 had been backwards compatible with the SNES.

Yeah, as opposed to the PlayStation, which was backwards compatible with what again? I love when people cite historical evidence that backward compatibility is so important, but then leave out systems that weren't backwards compatible -- which, incidentally, make up the vast majority of successful consoles. (PS1, NES, SNES, Genesis, Atari 2600, N64, original Gameboy, Gamecube, XBox)

The Atari 7800 was backwards compatible, how'd it do? The PS2 was backwards compatible, how'd it do? I'd say that backwards compatible consoles have a roughly 50% chance of success, based on historical evidence. (yes -- I'm ignoring the Gameboy. Up it to 75% if you insist on equating it to a home console.)

--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:The trick isn't so much what Microsoft does... by wbm6k · 2004-07-23 08:03 · Score: 1

Of course, Microsoft could REALLY kick ass if someone (them or a third party; preferably them, and in the box) came out with an emulation layer that let the Xbox2 play Playstation/Playstation2 titles as well... they're moving to a RISC processor, so it shouldn't be all THAT hard, especially since they're emulating something that ran at an order of magnitude less clock speed.

Regardless of the difficulty of emulating a playstation on the new hardware, they would still run smack into the illegality of doing that.

Remember Connectix and Bleem, the companies that got in trouble for making playstation emulation software for macintosh a few years back?

Since then, the DMCA come into prominence, and given things like the recent UK decision against mod chips, I would be surprised to see emulation make the cut at this time. As a Register article states in their announcement of Bleem closing shop:

With PlayStation and XBox code protected against emulation efforts, both legally, and through hardware- and software-based techniques, Bleem's scope for future expansion looked limited.
Re:The trick isn't so much what Microsoft does... by unclethursday · 2004-07-23 08:15 · Score: 1

I don't think pissing off Sony would be a good move - they could be a lot more aggressive about playstation 3 exclusive titles and do some serious damage to the xbox 2.
Or, you know, sue Microsoft out of the console market by stating that emulation of PSOne and PS2 titles is a violation of the DMCA, since it breaks the region encryption, etc. of the disks
Microsoft isn't stupid. Evil, but not stupid. They get a lot of good things from the DMCA, and if they were caught in violation of the DMCA by making the Xbox Next emulate PSOne/PS2 games, they'd stand to lose a lot... and more than just money. Sony could effectively wipe out the threat of Microsoft's competition by having the Xbox Next be banned in North America while it has the emulation abilities.
So instead of just thinking of how Sony could get agressive in the games area, think how they could use the legal system to not only get MS out of the console market, but give them a huge PR black eye in both the public and buisness sectors; and a DMCA black eye is enough to drive a company under at this point in time, even one like Microsoft..
Re:The trick isn't so much what Microsoft does... by Colazar · 2004-07-23 12:20 · Score: 1

I think that there is nothing to be gained by Microsoft emulating the PS1/PS2 on the XBox 2.
But as far as feasibility goes, Microsoft does own Connectix, which developed the Virtual Play Station for the Macintosh. So I think that if they wanted to, they should be able to put something together pretty easily (at least for the PS1), given that they already know how to do it.

--
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson

Question for the IANALs out there by Kevin+Burtch · 2004-07-23 04:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Back during one of MS's $1B loss (on Xbox) statements, someone posted the relevant portion of the law against abusing a monopoly... could someone who knows where to find this info either post a link to a site with the laws available, or post a reply with the relevant info, please?

The basic jist of it (from memory, it was a year or 2 ago), was "using one's position and finances within one market to attempt to dominate another, unrelated market" or something like that. I'm almost positive it specifically mentioned losses for an extended period of time (proving the company won't be able to profit in the new market until its competition is dominated).

--
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -

Re:Question for the IANALs out there by Xentax · 2004-07-23 07:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think you need to be a monopoly in the Console market to be profitable - neither Sony, Nintendo, (or Sega or Atari for that matter) ever had what I'd consider a 'monopoly marketshare' and yet all have been (or still are) profitable.

XBox will be profitable eventually, though it may not be until the next-gen box has been out awhile.

I sorta hope it's backwards compatible, too - even if they have new versions of many key games available at launch, I wouldn't want to buy a new console AND a bunch of new games all at once. But, given that it's a new chip, and a new GPU, and who knows what other major changes, it'd have to be one heck of a good emulation system - either the new hardware will have to be an order of magnitude faster, or a very slick emulation layer, or both (probably both).

Xentax

--
You shouldn't verb words.
Re:Question for the IANALs out there by Kevin+Burtch · 2004-07-23 08:41 · Score: 1

I don't think you need to be a monopoly in the Console market to be profitable - neither Sony, Nintendo, (or Sega or Atari for that matter) ever had what I'd consider a 'monopoly marketshare' and yet all have been (or still are) profitable.

No, not at all (I agree with you).
To add to that, the competition is healthy and very good for the consumers.

My point (in my previous posting) is, they're using their position as a monopoly in *another* market to fund their (failing) attempt to dominate this market... this is specifically forbidden by the antitrust law I'm looking for (still).

--
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
Re:Question for the IANALs out there by Xentax · 2004-07-26 04:18 · Score: 1

Ahh. I thought that had more to do with using the nature of Monopoly A to create a Monopoly B, not merely the funds from it, but I could be mistaken.

If my thinking were accurate, then the XBox wouldn't qualify unless you had to buy a retail copy of Windows to run any console except the XBox, or something like that.

Xentax

--
You shouldn't verb words.

No it does not bode well by SmallFurryCreature · 2004-07-23 05:14 · Score: 0

I am a PC gamer but sorta follow the consoles a bit to see if they ever going to supply the kinda games I like (not so far but the gba is a lot of fun).

Anyway, how often has a company done better with their second console? The only recent "new" player is sony and they had a hit straight off.

So people don't like the x-box and are not buying it. So you are in a store, you are ignoring the x=box stand and looking for playstation/pc/gba games/hardware. Why should you then look at the x-box2 stand? Sequels are rarely bigger hits.

MS never had the advantage of the new-comer, people not having bad experience with you, as the numerious bsod jokes about the x-box showed. Now they have an even worse reputation. They are still the bsod company (many many people still run 98 according to ms itself) and have now a failed console to drag them down.

So MS only really stand a chance if they got some killer games out on launch. Games that are so "must play" that people are willing to overcome the reasons they didn't buy the x-box and not be willing to wait for the PS3.

The only real killer game for the x-box is halo, halo2 is also x-box1 I believe so what exactly have they lined up for the x-box2?

But perhaps far worse for MS is the PSP and the Nintendo DS. The economy is down and people already have consoles. What they may not have is a handheld. You can only spend your money once so what do you buy, another console for the living room despite the fact that it has very few games out for it? OR do you buy a new toy you don't have yet, the PSP? You get a cool new thingy to play with and can then wait for the PS3 to come out and then compare wich is the better buy. The PS3 probably has that backward compatibilty thing so you throw out the current console (PS2 of course, nobody has an x-box) and replace it with the newer version and still play all the old games.

No MS doesn't have it easy.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:No it does not bode well by Have+Blue · 2004-07-23 05:50 · Score: 1

The Xbox has not failed; if it had it would be dead by now (3 years after launch?) and a second generation would not be planned. Microsoft successfully turned a 2-player market into a 3-player market. This whole article is stating that "people don't like the x-box and are not buying it" and "of course, nobody has an x-box" are simply not true.
Re:No it does not bode well by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-23 06:06 · Score: 0

You are a total idiot. Playstation was not a hit straight off. Most people now do not run a Windows machine that crashes, at least half are on the NT platform now. The console didn't fail, 33% of the market is pretty good, especially for MS which usually fails the first time completely and they didn't get to leverage their monopoly much. Getting killer games at launch is difficult, obviously they want to do this. Since they make Halo, I'm sure they will make Halo for XBOX2. The economy is not down, and people already had consoles before they bought ps2 and xbox. Not that MS doesn't have problems though :/
Re:No it does not bode well by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2004-07-23 06:13 · Score: 1

"Microsoft successfully turned a 2-player market into a 3-player market."
Pre MS console makers: Nintendo, Sony, Sega
Post MS console makers: Nintendo, Sony, MS
2 to 3, huh?

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Re:No it does not bode well by Xian97 · 2004-07-23 06:33 · Score: 1

I wouldn't count them out yet. When has Microsoft ever did anything right the first time, or even the second? Windows 1.0 and 2.0 were terrible and barely usable, Word for Windows 1.0 and 1.1 were not very good, IE was up to version 3.0 before it really started overtaking Netscape, and it even took MS DOS until version 5.0 to really be any good.

I don't own an Xbox, I have a PS2 and Game Cube, but I have seen how Microsoft operates in the past. They take the best ideas of their competitors and incorporate them into their own designs. I would guess that the Xbox 3 will be the real contender.
Re:No it does not bode well by hoferbr · 2004-07-23 06:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait

"The Xbox has not failed".
No? So what does the /. news affirm? That the Xbox is a success?

The last week, the Xbox has sold 272 units in Japan. That is even below PSOne, with 276. If that is not a failure, then i don't know what it is. Someone may say that the Japan market is not important, but majors softhouses are there.
Re:No it does not bode well by Jesterboy · 2004-07-23 07:28 · Score: 1

The only real killer game for the x-box is halo, halo2 is also x-box1 I believe so what exactly have they lined up for the x-box2?

Umm...Halo 3?
Re:No it does not bode well by {8_8} · 2004-07-23 08:43 · Score: 1

I don't think that the Xbox has failed just yet. AFAIK, popular games (Halo 2, sports games, etc.) are still being released for the system three or so years after its release, although that might just be MS being able to expend huge amounts of money on ensuring development and multiple-platform launches. I do agree that the Xbox doesn't have a compelling list of games, but I've always chalked that up to the PS2 being released first.

Personally, I try to buy games for the Xbox. I'm not a PS2/GC/Xbox-only fanatic, so I own a PS2, a GC and an Xbox. I think that the graphics look "better" on the Xbox. If I thought the graphics were better on the PS2 or GC, I would buy games for the PS2 or GC. On the other hand, there are some games that I can't get on the Xbox that I can get on the PS2 or the GC, so I purchase them for the required platform.

Two things: by Moryath · 2004-07-23 05:36 · Score: 1

#1 - in the US, Playstation2's #1, Xbox is #2, Gamecube is #3. If you can find a recent article you can quote differently, please provide the link.

#2 - Nintendo's PR and designers have made statements that the console currently named "Revolution" will be a "different" sort of Console.

To wit: THIS.

Re:Two things: by KDR_11k · 2004-07-23 06:06 · Score: 1

It's a different kind of console just like the DS is a different kind of handheld. I don't think it'll be as different as they make it out to be, maybe two or thee new concepts but the rest still the same. Nintendo has a talent to make anything sound like more than it really is. Though that might be fans hyping it up, too.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Two things: by Weirdofreak · 2004-07-23 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's still a console, and it's still going to be competing against Xbox 2 and PS3. In the same way that the DS, while a different sort of handheld, is still a handheld, and will compete against the PSP.

To quote the most commonly used line in the X-Men comics, "People fear and hate what they do not understand." Sending out novel hardware will not help Nintendo attain the mainstream crowd.
Maybe, maybe not. There are people who will resist the change, certainly, but others, the ones who Nintendo is referring to when they say people are getting bored of just having better hardware specs, will buy it -because- of the change. It may alienate some gamers, but it may also invite others.

Most people understand better graphics, which is one reason why mainstream gamers like the Xbox. Most people understand cool-looking hardware, which is one reason I think PSP will be more successful than DS.
Bah, DS looks so much cooler than PSP.
See above. There will be some people who won't like it because it's less powerful (I have a friend who'll probably fall into that category - he also thinks that the Phantom will be good, and that the PS3 will make the Gamecube's graphics look like crap - and he's a bit of an opinion-Nazi, so I can't point out what he's failing to grasp), but others will buy it for other reasons. That's the crowd Nintendo is catering to, not those who think that Wind Waker sucks purely because of the graphics.

Most people need a book to understand the intricacies of connectivity, what GCN/GBA accessories they need to fully enjoy a Nintendo game, and what Revolution will have to offer (Yes, I'm projecting).
I don't have an Xbox, and wouldn't have Live if I did, but I can't see it being less complicated than "The shiny part plugs in the hole at the top". And besides, it's hardly going to be any more complicated than the average game, and most people don't complain about reading manuals.

Nintendo will have a difficult time marketing a "different" console unless the concept around it is so brilliantly simple that it's universally appealing. Somehow, I doubt that's what it'll come up with.
They've done it several times before, I have faith that they can do it again.

As different as PlayStation 3 and Xbox 2 will be, they are essentially systems that are trying to do the same things. For next-gen systems, publishers will have to worry about releasing games for two consoles that are better, bigger, and faster, as well as one console (being released by a company whose last two consoles weren't breakaway hits) that's trying to be different. Guess which one will be dropped?
So they won't get so many games that are on the PS2 and Xbox. What they will get is games that won't be on the PS2 or Xbox - it might well end up with more exclusives than the others. And we don't even know how different it's going to be, there's nothing to say that it's going to be completely different and impossible to port to.

While funky hardware will allow for some funky creations, it also limits them since the hardware will be too dissimilar from anything out there.
It's the un-funky hardware that poses limitations on funky software. It may work vice versa as well, or it may not.

Console manufacturers always say that it's all about the content. If this is true then it's puzzling to see Nintendo making hardware that's so different from its competitors.
Because it allows for better content. Quality over quantity.
I think the true innovation will be in software.
There hasn't been much of it going around lately, mostly all we're getting is constant rehashes of the same sorts of games. People just can't seem to think up anything new - it's certainly not impossible to have a two-screen single player game on the regular consoles (although the screens are too square, really), but until the DS was announced, nobody seemed to think about it.

And Nintendo seems determined to limit creators, rather t

Mod parent down by MMaestro · 2004-07-23 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anyway, how often has a company done better with their second console? The only recent "new" player is sony and they had a hit straight off.

What the hell are you talking about? The PS2 was a total crash thanks to god awful launch games (PS1 games don't count) and the shortage of units at launch day. The only reason why it survived was because it played DVDs (now a moot advantage) and because it played PS1 games (once again, moot).

The only real killer game for the x-box is halo,

Go back to playing KOTOR, Splinter Cell : Pandora Tomorrow, and Halo on your PC and try getting a smooth framerate. I've been playing them smoothly with no hassels on my X-Box long before they were ported the PC. Wanna play some Mechassault with me? Oh wait, you can't.

Re:Mod parent down by Babbster · 2004-07-23 09:14 · Score: 1

I love KOTOR (and, in fact, played it through again last week) and my Xbox but, man, I've never played KOTOR without hassles on Xbox. Bioware left enough bugs and glitches in there to choke a horse. I actually managed to run up against another bug on my sixth time through that I could have avoided if I spent a lot of time on gaming forums (I don't anymore). Very annoying but, of course, not really Microsoft's fault. :)
Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-23 09:32 · Score: 0

"Go back to playing KOTOR... on your PC and try getting a smooth framerate."
Funny thing. I tried to play KOTOR on Xbox and i couldn't get smooth framerate. I wonder if that is ironic.

"The PS2 was a total crash thanks to god awful launch games"
Tell me one good Xbox launch game. Just one.

The only reason why it survived was because it played DVDs.
Blablabla... all I hear is Xbox fanboy talk. Blablabal...
Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-23 15:13 · Score: 0

Tell me one good Xbox launch game. Just one.
Halo. Now tell me one good PS2 launch game.
Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-25 06:58 · Score: 0

KOTOR runs very well on my computer, and it makes the XBOX version look as if it were a PSX game. Halo for the PC was a horrible porting of the game, and even on the best PC Hardware (which is extremely superb to the XBOX'x hardware) the game hardly runs well.

No, we don't wanna play Mechassault with you. If I wanted to play a mech game, I have plenty to choose from on PC.

All your own points are moot.

Faulty analogies. by Moryath · 2004-07-23 08:11 · Score: 1

PlayStation was the first generation for Sony, and a completely new disc format. There was nothing to be compatible with.

The Atari 7800 was backwards compatible, but didn't beat the NES to launch, and wasn't advertised properly. See any history of Atari if you want more details on the matter.

The PS2 was backwards compatible... and hey, it WORKED! All things being equal, a backwards compatible console from the same company will do better than a non-compatible console, because you'll speed early adoption as players go for the "upgrade".

Your knowledge of history is lacking. by Moryath · 2004-07-23 08:15 · Score: 1

Connectix WON their court fight. They were completely legal to sell their emulator.

The only reason that VGS died was that Sony paid them boatloads of cash to stop selling it.

Bleem would have won, too, but they ran out of the financial resources needed to challenge Sony. Microsoft wouldn't have that liability, it'd be big company vs big company.

I think Microsoft's not going to go with Sony compatibility, but that's nothing to do with their lawyers - they know they could win the court fight, or at least drag it out long enough that the console was entrenched as-is.

The real reason I think they won't is that if they sell well, they're essentially handing Sony sold-market share; if people buy Sony games to play on an Xbox2, Microsoft doesn't see the licensing profit from that.

In the end, it could be an entirely winning tactic - kill your opponent because nobody's buying his console, even if people are still buying the games. But Microsoft would have to eat the fact that they're feeding Sony's bottom line a bit by keeping their software sales propped up.

Re:Your knowledge of history is lacking. by dabraun · 2004-07-23 09:02 · Score: 1

I have to agree - compatability with a competitor's software in a business where most or all of the money is made selling the software is a pretty bad idea.

Their best bet is to have compatability with XBox1 ... a few XBox1 games that get 'a little extra' when played on XBox2 would probably help encourage sales of the new console - but the extras need to be way less than you can get from 'native' XBox2 games or else developers won't be very motivated to make XBox2-only titles.

David

nah by real_smiff · 2004-07-23 08:20 · Score: 1

most people don't know or care that Xbox is from Microsoft. and it's doing quite well. btw i'm a Nintendo fan so i'm biased the other way. the sad truth is MS probably can "win" by having the Xbox2 out early enough with enough pretty but not too special games at launch. I hope i'm wrong, i'd like a Nintendo comeback and for people to recognise Nintendo and Sega for the great games hardware/software design companies they are. As for Sony.. it's such a vast company you can't sum it up easily, but i'll be surprised if their PSP is a threat to Xbox2.

--

This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

Re:nah by hoferbr · 2004-07-23 09:25 · Score: 1

If a console comes out early it doesn't mean it will be succesful. Just think about Genesis (vs. SNES).

"i'd like a Nintendo comeback and for people to recognise Nintendo and Sega for the great games hardware/software design companies they are"
why come back? Nintendo is still alive and kicking. It may not have the greatest 3rd party support or its SNES aura, but its franchises are stronger than ever.

If MS was a game company like nintendo or sega by SmallFurryCreature · 2004-07-24 03:24 · Score: 1

If MS was a game company like nintendo or sega they would be dead. Just like all the others who tried it. MS own figures show that the x-box has only cost money. The only reason there is an x-box-2 coming up is because to MS even the gigantic losses of the x-box are small change. Their dream of owning the console market is to big a dream to give up and they got to much money anyway.

As for my statement that people don't like the x-box. Your right it is a 3 player market and MS finished last. Since GBA games sell at full price (at least over here) you could even argue that the gap between nintendo and sony is narrower, after all the money is made in game sales not in console sales so exactly why should nintendo care if it sells gamecube or gba games? But MS is last while they had cleared aimed to be number one. If this is not failure I don't know what is.

Judging from non-geek co-workers I meet I also get the idea that people have a PS2 or a PS2 and a x-box. Very few people seem to have just an x-box. Ofcourse just my experience is not worth much but I wonder how true this could be around the world.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

I did play KOTOR by SmallFurryCreature · 2004-07-24 03:34 · Score: 1

and it was very smooth indeed, maybe you just can't afford proper PC hardware. Also the console kotor was a bug ridden mess whose bugs were fixed on PC launch and further bugs fixed with patches. Add some extra content, the capabilty of replay to edit the game to your own delight and I am 100% convinced you are an x-box fanboy.

PS2 a total crash? Riiiiiight. Where exactly do you get your sales figures from? Bill Gates wetdreams? Not being able to ship units fast enough is a good thing, it shows demand. You will note that MS had no problems with empty stores or people hitting each other over the head to get the last unit. Nope, the x-box stood there in the store totally undisturbed by crazed shoppers.

That you don't even have the intelligence of a deranged MS fanslave comes with the backward compatabilty of the PS2, a recent /. poll showed that many players found that a plus.

But you totally loose it with the dvd. Hello the x-box did the same.

Oh well. MS fanboys on /. God you must have an awfull time here.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Game catalog == released first? by SmallFurryCreature · 2004-07-24 03:45 · Score: 1

How exactly? Anyway dreamcast was first of the current generation. So it had the best catalog and won?

x-box was supposed to take over the console market. Instead it has the lowest sales of the current generation and is a total failure in japan wich is the current home of gaming. MS has so far only lost money on the project. Exactly how this all add up to anything else but failure?

I really don't get x-box fans. Dreamcast fans have no trouble admitting the financial failure of their console. Neither do all the fans of the non-gb handhelds. They freely admit nintendo beat them in sales. What makes X-box fans so unwilling to admit the truth?

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Game catalog == released first? by {8_8} · 2004-07-24 08:03 · Score: 1

I don't consider myself an Xbox fan, but I do have a very simplistic definition of failure. When I imagine "failure", I think of a console that has been out for X amount of time and has no good games currently being released (or planned for release). Xbox currently has games that I would consider "good" being released for it. Thus, by my definition, Xbox has not failed just yet, although I wouldn't consider it the smashing success that MS envisioned. I freely admit that this is a subjective viewpoint and does not reflect what the majority of people consider "failure."

Your definition, on the other hand, appears to be based on either console or game sales. By your definition, I would agree with you that Xbox has failed in that it has low sales in just about every market. On the other hand, MS hasn't seriously distanced themselves (AFAIK) from the Xbox project ("No more funding", etc.), which is why I'm hesitant to say that the Xbox project (I include the Xbox sequel here) has failed.

If I were a DC fan, I would freely admit that the console has failed at this point in time (July 24, 2004). However, when "good" games were still being released for the DC, I wouldn't have considered it a complete failure.

On another note, when I said that the Xbox game list wasn't compelling and chalked it up to earlier PS2 release, I was referring to the fact that the PS2 was released ~a year before to the Xbox. The earlier release gave Sony a year's head start in which to get consumers to buy their product and developers to commit to games for their console. Maybe I'm wrong about the year making a difference. Maybe the intervening three years should have resulted in the Xbox gaining better licenses. I don't know why the DC failed, nor do I know why there aren't more games for the Xbox.

To be perfectly honest, I could care less if the Xbox fails or not. As I indicated in my earlier post, I'm a gamer for the games, not the console. If the Xbox failed, I'd purchase the games for whichever console looked "good" and allowed me to play the games I wanted. If a console didn't look "good", but it was the only console that let me play a game, I'd buy that console so I could play the game. I'd buy games for a Black and Decker toaster if I thought a toaster game would be fun. Mmmmm, toast.

Slashdot Mirror

Xbox Sees Earnings Lag, Stronger Sales

58 comments