Slashdot Mirror
Xbox Sees Earnings Lag, Stronger Sales
Thanks to GameSpot for its article discussing the Xbox-related financial results from Microsoft's Q4/annual 2004 earnings, released yesterday. The article notes: "The Home and Entertainment Group, which includes the Xbox division, had a $339 million operating loss for the quarter on revenue of $499 million and anemic revenue growth of 3 percent - the lowest growth rate of any of Microsoft's seven business segments. Though Microsoft doesn't break out separate results for the Xbox, it's pretty clear that the console business is still a strategic investment, not a profit center." However, it's not all bad news, since "Xbox shipments increased 27 percent over the same period a year ago. Microsoft reports 15.5 million units sold worldwide through the end of June: 1.5 million in Asia Pacific, 3.9 million in Europe, and 10.1 million in North America. The company also quoted industry research group NPD's claim that Xbox has a 33 percent market share in the US, with 50 percent growth in software sales over Q4 last year." Does this bode well for the apparent 2005 launch of Xbox 2?
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.
"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.
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
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
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.
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.