Slashdot Mirror
Xbox 2 to Release in Fall of This Year
GamesIndustry.biz has the news that the Xbox 2 will be launched sometime in late fall of this year. With EA games already working on Xbox 2 titles and rumors of a name for the console in circulation, it looks like the first of the next-gen consoles will be here soon. From the article: "Many have expressed concern that Microsoft is forcing the next generation of console hardware too early, and that the current generation still has much to achieve. The most famous example of this came from then Nintendo of Europe MD David Gosen speaking at an ELSPA summit in London last October, where he lambasted Microsoft for pushing a next generation machine to market in 2005, and even went so far as to question Microsoft's motivation as profit." Additionally, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has Balmer saying that they will "blow by Sony" with their next console.
Remeber when Sega thought it would be a good idea to get a head start on the next-gen console race?
Wanna bet that Sony will once again win with their incredible "wait until we have a good machine" plan?
You can't take the sky from me...
Anyone know what the specs are on the upcoming XBox 2? Any truth to the rumor that it will employ G5 processors?
The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
If there is one place where Microsoft has actually achivieved "Innovation" it *IS* on the xbox and services surrounding it.
I for one am excited to see the potential, excited for the competition and look forward to the "big 3" duking it out.
I also think its funny how people bash Microsoft for being anti competitive in the PC world and then bash them for being HIGHLY competitive in the Console world.
If the rumors are true and we've reached the point of diminishing returns as far as better graphics are concerned then maybe MS is making a smart move here. Xbox 2 graphics are going to be fast enough to support High-def resolutions (1920x1080 & 1280X720) so it should be fairly future proof.
At this point, if the PS3 is late and/or the Cell chip is hard to write fast code for then the MS early mover advantage could be really bad news for Sony. Of course I think Open Source games will be the killer app(s) that spark the beginnig of a PC gaming reniassance and legal nightmare but that's going to take a couple more years.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
xbox is going to solve both of those. Of course they will still need grpahics card optimization and that will be different on Xbox and Macintosh. But clearly the largest obstacles to mac dominance of the gaming world are being removed. Price of course is not an issue here since a top gaming machine will cost more than an equivalent macintoshes--macs are good values at the high end of the market.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I still to this day find Dreamcast's hardware to be superior to the PS2.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Actually, this has been the commonly known rumor for a while now. PS3 is expected early next year.
Meanwhile, Nintendo was waiting on the release schedules of these guys to decide when to release the Revolution. They wanted to avoid what happened with the Gamecube by coming out too late. It's expected that the Revolution will be coming out early next year.
All three will be unveiled at this year's E3. If there was ever an E3 to be at, this would be the one (I want to see the new Zelda game).
I agree pretty much. I don't think Microsoft really gets it (when have they ever?), but they've got a lot of money to pour into their failure, too.
My main point is that first-out-the-door hasn't meant a sure-fire winner. In fact, I don't think it has in a long time. Nintendo wasn't first out the door with NES or SNES. Sony wasn't first out the door with the PS1 or PS2 (or PS3).
In the end, it comes down to one thing: having all the game houses making all the games for your console.
Microsoft doesn't have that.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Don't forget, unlike with Windows OS, every new generation requires the customer buy a completely new set of hardware,
Technically true, and there's a certain % of the market who will get a new OS and slap it on old hardware, but for the most part, people buy the OS w/ their machine and never upgrade.
and unless they deliver backwards compatibility there's not that much reason for a customer to stick with the XBox unless the customer actually likes the product. MS won't have the lock-in they have in the OS market.
There are generally only a few types of differentiators between consoles these days:
1. Console-unique Titles
2. Controllers
3. Form factor of the box itself
4. Bells and whistles like progressive scan and dolby
Fundamentally, a console is different than an OS, in that generations of OS have some consistency to them...it's easier to go from Win98 to WinXP then it is to go from WinXP to OSX, so you're right that there's stickiness there that game consoles don't have.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
These two are non-sequitur. I don't disagree with your first point; Microsoft won't give up that easy. They're too prideful.
But money doesn't buy a successful console. Sony already has the hype engine going strong: multiple super multi-core ultra-fast CPUs in the PS3! Whether this lives up to claims or not, hype is hype. Sony has a lot of things going for them; 2 successful consoles, lots of game houses, features (backward compatibility etc.), and this time they're trying to add hardware superiority to the batch.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
By that reasoning, you should never buy a car either. Every car is replaced with a next-gen version within a year.
The reason for buying a console is to PLAY GAMES. Buy games you like, with high replayability, and keep it for 5-10 years. The Atari 2600 was still fun for me in the 1990s.
Have you ever programmed for a stream processor? I haven't. I suspect neither have most game developers (although the few who have written shaders have a leg up). Writing for a stream processor is very different from writing for a general purpose CPU. I suspect few games will use it at first.
There are quit a few limitations to VR which make it unsuitable in most cases for games. I worked for a long time in the simulation industry and let me tell you head mount based VR is hardly ever used. The reason is that it is very hard to fool the mind into an immerse environment. When the body is not in motion and you eyes are seeing things in 3D and your ears are telling you that you are still standing still, it causes a few problems. The most sever is motion sickness as well as headaches. Even individuals that do not get motion sickness will eventfully succumb when fully immersed for extended periods of time. Now if you look at flight simulators (what I mainly designed) you will see that this does not happen the reason being is that you eyes and your body are experience the same thing. In reality headset based VR is more of a gimmick than anything practical in saying that though I have seen some pretty cool equipment that does not do total immersion in which it can augment reality by displaying things onto your retinal that help in certain situations. Such as I once saw a headset that projected all of the vital organs onto a person so that a surgeon could see a person internals without making an incision. It worked in conjunction with MRI technologies, and was about the most freaking cool thing I think I have ever seen.
Well said. I have an X-Box, but probably will not get the X-Box 2. Not because I think there's anything wrong with the X-Box 2, it's just that I don't have a burning desire to collect whatever new titles might be coming out for it.
Unless some game comes along which I consider worth the price of the console + the price of the game, I intend to skip a version generation of PS or X-Box after this next one. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see MS pushing the envelope and keeping the market competitive and interesting.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Did you know that when television was still gaining a foothold in the population, that people would say they still preferred to listen to the radio instead? That it had "something extra", the tv lacked?
Nostalgia is a powerful influence on our lives - just don't kid yourself into thinking something is there when it isn't.
having all the game houses making all the games for your console.
Microsoft seems to realize this, their strategy seems simple; BUY ALL THE GAME HOUSES!
So far this doesn't seem to have worked to well for them with the exception of Bungie, although I personally think Halo stinks. Rareware hasn't released a decent game for the Xbox yet, and Microsoft had to shut down/sell their entire Sports division now that EA and Take-Two have shut them out of Football and Baseball. Most of the games I've enjoyed on the Xbox have been put out by Ubisoft, which is still owned by the Guillemot Family and releases most of their games for all consoles(Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil).
I'd tend to suspect-- and if this news is true suspect even more-- Microsoft's goal with the XBox2 very much isn't profit. I mean, the "maybe it's profit" bit in the article is still a stupid comment, you're right. But I think the comment's wrong.
The thing is Microsoft seems very willing to do things for motivations other than profit. All of Microsoft's divisions except Server, OS and Office are consistent and heavy money losers. The XBox has been no exception. Microsoft doesn't really seem to ever show signs of minding this. If it's for purposes of expansion, no amount of money wasted seems to be too great.
Now, mind you, Microsoft insists they do very much intend to make a profit on the XBox 2. They claim this has been the goal all along, lose money on the XBox, make it back on the XBox2. But as I said, I'd question this. Here's why.
The chief reason the XBox has been such a money loser seems to be the cost of the console. Microsoft went out and bought a bunch of relatively expensive commodity PC components from off-the-shelf companies to build the XBox from, and the result seems to have been a console so expensive to manufacture that no realistic amount of game license sales that a single consumer might generate could recoup the loss from selling them that XBox. All signs are Microsoft has learned at least some lesson from the XBox that they will be applying on the XBox 2. Leaked information so far indicates that Microsoft has dropped the hard drive and will be contracting to more traditional video game console contractors-- like IBM-- rather than trying to buy PC components (important because IBM, since they're geared for contracting, will be able to lower their prices over time, whereas PC vendors, since they're geared for bulk, if anything raise prices over time-- because who, for example, makes 8GB hard drives anymore?). This by itself would indicate Microsoft is finally in a position to start making money-- though they'd have to make an awful lot to recoup the billions in losses from the XBox 1-- since they seem to be taking steps to manufacture a console that isn't sold at a large loss.
But I think Microsoft has given indication they aren't going to be taking advantage of that position. The problem is the release date. Microsoft has been very explicit that they intend to beat the PS3 and N5 to market-- and if this article is right, they'll be beating it to market by a LOT. But they probably realize at some level that whether they do that or not, they're going to have to retain the technical lead. Microsoft's entire strategy this generation has been based almost entirely on having the best hardware and attracting developers and users through that. They can't change strategies that quickly; surrendering the technical lead to Sony means potentially surrendering a huge chunk of their fanbase from this generation at the same time, if Sony shows even a hint of competence in marketing. This presents a problem. With the XBox, Microsoft had the advantage of two years to tinker with their hardware and let technology improve after the PS2 was released. With the XBox 2, Microsoft will be giving (or expect to be giving) Sony as much of an extra year to prepare their console, plus they'll have to overcome Sony's crazy vector processing ways (which were enough the PS2 was able to almost keep pace with the XBox and Gamecube when programmed by experts, despite being two years older). This would mean that they would have to design the box to be [i]so[/i] powerful that PPC or no, Hard drive or no, it's going to be sold at a loss.
If I'm right about this, and Microsoft does continue selling the XBox 2 at a loss anywhere near the scale of the XBox-- this seems to mean Microsoft simply doesn't, and never has, cared about profit with the XBox, their "it'll make money eventually" profits aside. Microsoft can sell at some loss and still make a profit, of course, technically, maybe, but the chances of this are so shaky it shows profit isn't actually a goal-- just a nice
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
And try to imagine Castlevania: SOTN without the wonderful flowing sprite artwork of Alucard. Imagine if he was just a colored square. Would the game really be as enjoyable?
This is not to bash Rez and SOTN; they are very fine games that achieve what they're trying to do. What I'm saying is that a game is an organic experience, and you can't isolate out one element like "gameplay" and say that's all that matters. You're right that graphics for the sake of bland "realism" (like in too many FPSes) are usually not worthwhile; but visuals that are fresh, original and inspiring (like those of Rez) and that work together with the gameplay to create an atmosphere (like SOTN) can be what makes a game worth playing.
The PS3 has been repeatedly confirmed as being backward-compatible with the PS2, but not the PS1. The PS1 isn't that big of a loss at this point; a good reason for keeping a PSTwo around, or getting a PSOne if you're desperate for some reason. We're talking about a gaming system that will be over a decade old here. It's not that it's dead; it's just that continuing backward compatibility would cost more than it's worth.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
MS claimed Halo 2 was programmed with the XBox 2 in mind, and that the true Halo 2 experience will be on the XBox 2. So there you have it, assuming you want to buy and play that game all over again and you want to buy the XBox 2 to do it.
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
And remember what I said before? Nintendo was the major brand, yet the N64 was quite a big flop. Why did the two major brands fall so quickly, if the brand is all that matters?
Good point, but I contend it's still the brand. I'm not talking "Brand Loyalty," which is what you're referring to. I'm talking brand. What Nintendo failed to do was develop a brand that grew with their audience. The PSX had. Nintendo marketed the N64 to kids. Look at the design of the system; round edges, colorful buttons. Compare that to the PSX. Straight edges. Looks like a CD player that would have fit into with 5 other audio devices on an AV shelf. Which has to do directly with brand.
Even the games have something to do with brand, so I'm not discounting them entirely. But the games on both the N64 and the PSX built into the brands they had established. Mario 64 and Pilotwings catered to the kid image Nintendo was fostering, and Tomb Raider and Ridge Racer to the all growed up PSX image. Brand.
What might have hurt Xbox in round one is that it just was not an established brand. Those who knew about it kept saying (wrongly) that it was just a PC, or that it would bluescreen every five minutes (again: BRAND). Five years later, and it's clear they've mastered image/brand as well as Sony ever did. What do you always see in the tour bus of bands on MTV? Halo and Xbox. What am I always seeing in tuned cars? Nintendos? PS2s? Nope: xboxen.
Which is why round two of Xbox v. Playstation will be more interesting than one. I love Nintendo will all my gaming heart, but I swear to god this lame ass talk of revolution and changing things is the wrong way to go. Well, right as in creating good games - but in terms of winning the war? They're hopeless. And that makes me sad.
Actually, if I recall correctly FFX wasn't even announced when the PS2 launched. MGS2, yes, although that was a long ways off. Honestly, if there were titles that were pre-emptively driving system sales, it was the Bouncer (sadly) and GT3. For that period of after Christmas to the spring following, there was very little game expectation. I should know, because EB employees are partially evaluated on how many preorders a store gets, and it was hell to get anyone to preorder a damn thing for the first year or so after launch.
Besides, even the expectation - if it had an impact at all, which I say it didn't - was part of the branding. You said yourself that "everyone knew that Sony had the developers lined up," yet in the beginning Microsoft had nearly as many developers lined up as Sony did save perhaps Square (this is in a pre-GTA3 world where Rockstar mattered). People believed that Sony would bring them good games. Moreover, if game expectation had anything to do with it, gamers expectations for Xbox Live from Microsoft may have countered it slightly.
Listen, I want to say that it's about the games, but that's just not true. Even the expectation of good games for a system is part of branding, image, and identity.
The XBox has made a profit for one quarter. This was solely due to the success of Halo. No other quarter has ever seen profit for XBox.
What's more, Microsoft has publicly admitted that this is a one-off financial blip, the Home and Entertainments division will not maintain this performance - by their own admission.
This sig has been deprecated.
Who controls Japan isn't even in question at this point. Nintendo has a better chance of toppling Sony over there than Microsoft does. Hardly anyone owns an X-Box and even Japan-exclusive games for the system sell poorly.
I somehow doubt MS was talking about the Japanese market when they mentioned "blowing by Sony", though. I really expect to see MS drop entirely out of the Asian market in the next console generation and just focus on Europe and North America. If they don't, then they really deserve whatever ill fortune comes their way; the Asian market has made it very clear that they don't like the X-Box and don't want MS in their console marketplace.