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.
Uh, hello? What other motivation does a for-profit business ultimately have?
Stupidest. Comment. Ever.
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...
Microsoft blow? That's nothing new.
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
The PS3, according to official statements, will have as much PPC cores as the XBox2.. But will also have 32 SIMD cores.
Come on Steve who are you kidding. Even a monkey can see that you will be pwned.
Halo 2 released
Doom 3 released
Red Sox win World Series
Hurd reaches milestone
Now, Xbox2 releasing in November
Has global warming started to cool down hell already?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Derivatives of the PowerPC 970 are being used in the Xbox Next and Project Revolution, Nintendo's successor to the GameCube. A sister processor will also be in Sony's PlayStation 3 system. IBM is currently developing the 970MP, which is due out in the 3rd quarter of 2005, and is code-named "Antares". The PowerPC 970MP is said to be a dual-core processor that can scale up to 3.5GHz. This chip should start at 90nm and then graduate to the 65nm process.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
YBox
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
Well... The PS2 is starting to show its age, but its still not dead yet, with companies still putting titles on the market for it.
Gamecube hasn't even hit a ripe age yet.
Let's all remember that the reason M$ is really putting a new console out is to sweep under the rug the original Xbox's poor performance in the areana.
In all honesty, Sony can wait a while to get the PS3 out. Which it looks like they're planning on doing.
Nintendo hasn't said anything, but I'm going to guess they'll wait a little longer as well.
Anyone care to remind Redmond of the Tortoise vs. the Hare story?
Insert Sig Here
Why do people buy one game console over another? As we say around here, 'Duh, it's the games.' ... Partly they're great games because they have great graphics, they have great processing, they have great this, they've got great that, but it's about getting great games. [...] What is 'Halo 2?' It's the greatest video game ever written.
I'm sorry, no.
Graphics are nice, but gameplay is what counts. And Halo 2 is just another multiplayer FPS.
I still replay Super Metroid and Castlevania: Symphoy of the Night about once a year, and every few months I get an urge to replay Rez intensly for a couple of weeks.
The graphics were an important part of the initial experience, but they are just eye candy, and they get old fast. Why would I still play old games when the new ones have the better graphics? Gameplay? That's right.
You can't take the sky from me...
When the original Xbox came out, I rushed out to buy it. Unfortunatley, my console had a lot of quality control problems including scratching my games and then refusing to play them. I had heard a number of reports of similar problems but when I called tech support, they would not admit that there were design defects or manufacturing defects. They did fix it but it was an annoying ordeal that I should not have gone through (I was without the console for quite some time). Hopefully this time, they have all the bugs worked out.
Who here cares if the last thing can still be used? We yearn for the next graphics card when we know damn well the last one we had will probably be just fine... because we love the cutting edge stuff. Thats part of being a tech geek.
So now someone wants to put out something better, and we're all supposed to say no! Too early.... let me play with this one longer?
Bah, those who want to play with PS2 and XBox can do so, but I'm going to take a bet that if this is that much better, people will buy it...if not, it will die.
But retraining new tech for the sake of keeping old tech around? Thats counter-slashdot... and the same argument applies if it was Sony or Microsoft, although I'd also sneak a side bet in that if it was Sony, it would be a good thing... but its Microsoft, and people love to hate them.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
The thing that bothers me is that Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior in the PC world directly affects their ability to be so competitive in the console world. Microsoft makes use of monopoly rents to subsidize the losses they accrue with the XBox.
It's a lot easier to spread into new markets when you can siphon profits from a monopoly you hold in another market.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Missing the point; Nintendo is saying that MS may be doing something detrimental to short term profit (selling next-gen hardware early, thus reducing returns on current-gen investments) in order to take market share from competitors, thereby (hopefully) improving long term profit potential. Nintendo is notorious for eeking out every last bit of return from products before moving to the next generation (think gameboy), so it's understandable why this may irk them.
- Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.
Dude, this is Slashdot. If there was an article about Bill Gates wiping his nose, he'd be criticised here.
Trying to rationally discuss anything relating to Microsoft on Slashdot is an excercise in futility.
-Turkey
The x-box is not innovative as far as gaming consoles. It's basically a small form factor PC (large when compared to things like Mac Mini), that only plays video games. I think that the gamecube is much more innovating as they were able to produce a very good gaming console without making it too big, as well as giving it fast load times. X-Box didn't really bring anything new to the console market. They may have the most advanced system out there, but then again, they were the last to market.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Ok - the Xbox2 is out in November - Does that mean modchips and hacks in time for Christmas?!?!
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
They are being HIGHLY competitive by: Buying up the game companies and sucking them dry. Releasing hardware and taking a loss for years to gain market share (and take share from others). Releasing platforms early to beat others to market. Some would "bash" them for being "HIGHLY" competitive so that they may later achieve their legendary status as "anti competitive" in this market segment later. I own an XBox. I also own Windows versions, and I sometimes do wonder what price I am paying for doing so.
Eh, no taking a processor which they didn't make at all - and making it their own, and stating the "the system is innovative" is crap. They aren't innovative, and the slashdot audience isn't slamming them for being innovative. What they are slamming them for is being rude about business practices - which is the "American Way". There are going to be three versions of the XBox. The first one will be out this year, the second in 2006 in order to compete with PS3, and the last in 2007 to compete with Sony's power play to take over the living room. Before this is over, your PC, game playing device, and DVD/Movie Player will be at the center of the betting pool for both companies. And another thing...Halo isn't awe inspiring, and or original. It happens to be a FPS that was configured properly on a console - plain and simple. No company did it before b/c no company incorporated the "internet" into their core business model FROM THE START. FPS games exist b/c of the web - period. Sony dropped the ball, and let the internet slip. So, to repeat: it wasn't innovation - it was a shot in the dark, and they hit the big time. If one DECENT FPS had been ported to a system with a stable internet crowd, M$ would be looking at discontinuing the system.
Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
When the PS3 arrives 1 year later, the Xbox 2 will be (much?) cheaper, have a nice line of games, a larger base of players etc. Sure, the PS3 will have slightly better specs, but what will you pick when you're presented with the choice between a 699 machine and a 349 machine? Where everything else (eventually) points to the 349-machine..
Replace "PS3" with "PS2" and "Xbox2" with "Dreamcast", and we're 5 years all over again.
The DC was cheaper, had a bigger base of games, and yet, here we are, a few years later, and Sega's hardware division is history. Not that MS would ever stop, but their strategy has been tried before, and I don't think the result will be any different.
You can't take the sky from me...
I think it was the head of Nintendo that pointed this out, but when it comes to consoles, it's really about the games. If the next incarnation of GTA runs on a PS3, then a PS3 is what I will own. I don't particularly like Halo, because I find shooters work much better on PC's. So what's to draw me to their system?
Think of it this way: what can the XBox 2 possibly offer me that's new? Sure they can up the graphics performance, hard drive space, etc, but it's really just making it an evolutionary step better than the current system. Furthermore, if raw performance was a big deal, they'd already dominate the market because the XBox outperforms and has more features than the PS2. Hell, even for existing XBox owners the decision will require some thought seeing as old games won't play on the new system (as far as I know).
On the other hand, the PS3 will be backward compatible, add significant processing power, and quite likely add some new features like having a hard drive and output for HD. Those features, of course, already exist on an XBox, but this means people fixated on hardware performance should be turning to PS3 as the better system. So barring some major manufacturing glitches, delays, etc, I see no reason to think the PS3 will be losing market share to the XBox 2.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The one H&E quarterly profit is a phantom, resulting completely and entirely from the release of Halo 2. It will not be repeated. Microsoft got a large spike in revenue since they are the publisher of Halo 2, and it was a fantastically quickly-selling game. This spike was large enough to cancel out their losses from the quarter in which the game was released, hence the profit. Unfortunately this doesn't really mean much of anything. The "profit" from that quarter was absolutely measly in comparison to their general losses, and wasn't enough to cancel out the loss from the quarter before-- if you look over the last six months instead of just the last quarter they lost money in that period. And there seems no reason to believe anything but that the next three months will devour that profit just as nicely.
Bungie seems to have been the one good investment H&E has made since the beginning of the XBox. But there is no chance they are going to be able to make the segment float on its own. Meanwhile if you can produce an event which causes a quarterly profit once, this isn't terribly impressive. H&E might as well have put $50 million in a savings account every quarter for a few years, then withdrawn it all at once and said "look! we made a profit this quarter!"
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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 totally thought "Sega" when I read this article. They are going to market real early with their console and a lot of people will be like "Let's wait for PS3." If Sony can bring the PS3 onto the market on schedule, it could be real bad for Microsoft. The way I see it, Sony doesn't even have to beat MS to market, they just can't afford to not meet their announced schedule.
Oh, and if MS is late with the XBox 2, that could hurt them I think. I think a lot of the console market has to do with number of titles you run and also whether you are meeting people's expectations or not.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
If there was an article about Bill Gates wiping his nose, he'd be criticised here.
With good reason! Have you seen the brand of tissues he's using? That stuff is made directly from trees!
Responsible people use tissues made from recycled paper. He's clearly mad with power!
You can't take the sky from me...
Are you responding to me or someone else?
I suspect my post above was unclear, I am sorry. What I was trying to point out is that gamesindustry.biz has no evidence in their article more solid than "according to sources". I was not trying to say Microsoft couldn't or wouldn't or shouldn't release their console in that timeframe, just trying to observe that maybe readers should be aware that this news is not from official sources and should not be taken simply at the Slashdot headline's word. We don't know anything for certain yet.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Am I the only one rolling eyes over this? I just can't get excited about new consoles. I currently own all the current consoles, and feel guilty as I hardly use them now.
About the only things that could seem like a major upgrade to me would be improved resolution by requiring an HDTV (not likely to happen), and cheap but effective VR gear like in Sci-Fi (really not likely to happen anytime soon.)
I mean, come on, all the current game systems have many of the same games on them now with little to distinguish them visually and aurally.
Same goes for PC games, really. All FPSers follow the exact same formula, and dispite all the graphical glory possible with Geforce 6800 Ultras and Athlon64 FXs and their ilk, they all boil down to trying to imagine yourself in a virtual world when all you see and experience is coming from the monitor in front of you and the speakers nearby.
Why isn't there true VR yet? A FPSer that utilized immersive, full-body experience would be amazing!
Instead, we just get new super-marketed hype machines that push more polygons than the last models so the eye-candy is sweeter, but otherwise they're the same old thing all over.
I will admit I enjoy many of the games available for the current systems and they weren't possible before them, but I think the real next generation should be a VR gaming system.
(Yes I know the Virtual-Boy was a flop, but that was Nintendo's mistake in releasing "VR" too early on too inadaquate hardware)
You ain't seen nothing yet...
Insert Sig Here
The problem with the 'early mover advantage' is that it really only applies to games, not consoles. The real motivation for being an early adopter to a next-gen console is to play the sickest game 3v4R.
But the comments from EA, that "next generation Xbox titles would ship alongside current generation offerings later this year" implies that whatever games are available for XB2 are going to be available on current consoles as well. People don't pay early adopter prices just to play what everyone else has. (And don't think that EA is going to be releasing any XB2-only games. Their strategy has always been to leverage the expense of producing a game across as many platforms as possible).
The other possibility is that games are going to be rushed to market... Never a good idea. Or they'll have to rely on their first-party titles. It would take a heroic effort to get Halo3 to market before PS3.
The point is that Sony is not under as much pressure as you think. They want to make sure that when they release something, it's perceived to be the highest quality offering (whether it's true or not). Notice that Sony never pressured DP into making Gran Turismo a launch title for any of their consoles. Sony knows that when DP launches a title, everyone in Japan will buy it and the console it was written for, and nothing is worth tarnishing a reputation (again, whether or not the reputation is accurate). Microsoft has never been constrained by such scruples.
This may be true in a Macintosh fan's wettest dreams. Superior hardware has almost nothing to do with viability as a gaming platform. It's all about market share. Go back to 1986, when the Amiga was the big thing. It had graphic and sound capability beyond any other home PC for it's time. It was not, however, the premier gaming platform becuase there simply wasn't enough market share for every game developer to start making Amiga games. 90% of the games on the shelf were for "MS-DOS". It will take far more than the Xbox's use of PPC chips for the Mac to be a viable gaming platform for any but the most successful and widely distributed games (let alone a dominant gaming platform).
Furthermore, the fact that the xbox ran on wintel hardware didn't mean that the xbox games were easily portable. They ran on a special version of DirectX that was incompatible with Windows DirectX. Games like Halo, which were ported to Windows were ported by third parties, and the backend was a ground-up port. It wasn't just a simple recompile.
The marketshare dictates other issues as well. For example, most peripherals are developed with Wintel in mind (not because Wintel is a technically better or worse platform...it has nothing to do with that -- it's all market share). So when nVidia or ATI crank out their latest graphics card, they have Wintel in mind. The Mac is sort of an afterthought and it tends to show in pricing. Apple went the extra mile by using open standards for their hardware, but you're still paying a premium for Macintosh verisons of Wintel hardware. It's not because they require many hardware tweeks to work -- the hardware is essentially identical. It's becuase the company has to expend the same amount on driver development and support, and the returns are limited. They'd rather stay competitive in the larger market (Wintel) than have to make the Wintel users subsidize the Mac development and support -- hence the premium on Mac graphics cards.
If you're buying a PC and honestly intend to use it with gaming in mind -- the Macintosh is probably the wrong PC for you. Forget about your allegiances for a second and just look at the software that's out there. I had to face this same issue when I finally ditched my Amiga in 1996. Maybe in 10 years, things could change, but buying a Mac today with the thought-in-mind that it's going to be a dominant (or even viable) gaming platform within its lifetime does not seem realistic to me. I strongly disagree with your statement that this removes the largest obstacle -- or really had anything to do with why Macintoshes aren't dominant gaming platforms.
-Turkey
I disagree. What's the point of even buying a console if it's going to be replaced with a next-gen every 2 years? Plus think of the overhead in getting game developers to familiarize themselves with the new hardware/API (which means less time for actually making games). It's not a win-win situation by any means. I think the current hardware on the PS2/GameCube/X-Box is more than enough to make great games for the next year or so. I am inclined to agree with the statement that the only reason M$ is doing this is for profit. They simply want to use this strategic move to take a larger chunk of the market because they have "the best" machine (in terms of hardware performance). I doubt that they are interested in anything other than that, but that's just my opinion.
Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
How about NT 4.x for PowerPC?
Also, there is this new thing called a compiler. It lets you write computer code in a "high level language" and then translates it for you into assembly language for whatever chip you are targetting.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
X-Box didn't really bring anything new to the console market
Hmm, what about:
internal hard drive
built-in network capability
graphics that are nearly on par w/ the best PC cards 2.5 years later
XBox Live community
use of the system as a multimedia device (MP3 player, Karaoke, music mixer)
Those seem innovative to me, and many are only doable on the PS2 with hardware add-ons after the fact. Granted, these all existed on the PC, but I own all 3 current systems and a high-end PC, and the X-Box is clearly the most technologically advanced, considering it requires virtually no configuration or added hardware to use any of these features.
Those who think that the X-box is the least advanced of the 3 current consoles are likely twitchy MS-haters.
X-Box didn't really bring anything new to the console market.
Now, I'm no huge fan of the XBox, nor Microsoft. But I will give credit where it is due. The XBox (a year after launch) brought the best online connectivity solution out, passing what Sega was starting to do on the Dreamcast. The XBox live service blows away gaming online on any other console. GameCube has what, one true online game? Playstation has a few, but they don't link in any way, so I can't see if my friends are playing game A or B. Lastly on the online area, the XBox shipped standard with ethernet for online play. Dreamcast shipped standard with a modem. Gamecube ships with no connectivity option, and only recently were PS2s being sold with the networking built in (the mini PS2), or with an adaptor in the box.
The XBox also excels in putting out more HD games then any other console. Gamecube only does 480p, and the PS2 claims to do 480p as well on some games. Neither outdo almost every Dreamcast game supporting 480p, except the XBox going on to also support 720p and in some cases 1080i.
Then there is audio. Way better support from the developers for full 5.1 sound out of the XBox compared to any of the others.
I didn't even touch on the hard drive yet and already have 3 major points. The drive allows expansions to games, like the added game types and maps to MechAssault. Though that I feel was more due to MechAssalult being rushed for release, but hey, at least it could be added later.
The first next gen console I got was the Dreamcast and loved it. Next I got a Gamecube, just because Nintendo does indeed do well in making fun to play games. I picked up my XBox when Steel Battalion came out (I'm a mech junkie), and finally only recently got a mini PS2 and several of the now $20 games. I still have more GameCube games over any other console, but that may change now that I own an HDTV and want to see more games on it take advantage of the higher resolution. I don't like the idea of supporting Microsoft a ton here, but they are doing a decent job in the console space. I saw both the Gamecube and PS2 as a downgrade to the Dreamcast in several areas, only the XBox was an upgrade to me.
I assmaned - er, assistant managed - at a major EB during the launch of the Dreamcast, the PS2, the Xbox, and the Gamecube. That means that, at least in the geographical area of our store, I knew more about the people buying these systems than Ballmer, the EB President, or any of Sony's focus groups.
It's not all about the games. The Playstation2 launched with zero great games and I do mean zero. You have no idea how many times gamers would walk in our store during the first 3-5 months after the PS2 launch and just stare at the PS2 wall blankly, as if a great game would suddenly materialize on the shelf before their very eyes. SSX did ok, and so did Madden. But otherwise, the launch was dismal. It was such a game wasteland for the PS2 that people thought Onimusha was the best game since Super Mario. To make it worse, there was not only a shortage of systems, there was a shortage of memory cards. Logistically, the PS2 launch was a failure.
Yet, even before the good stuff starting showing up, it was clear that the PS2 was a better system seller than the Xbox. Was it the backwards compatibility? Nope. Most people who bought the PS2 would buy one or two PS1 games, come in two weeks later, and bitch about the crappiness of PS1 games on the PS2 and never buy another. DVD playback probably had something to do with it. GTA3? No - by then (Christmas) it was already clear that the PS2 was doing far better than the Xbox and GC combined.
It was merely that it was named the Playstation. In the end, it was brand, not games. I wish - I really wish - that it were the games that mattered. But in the end, it's not. What's sad is that with the beginning of the XBox, I saw this "it's all about the games stupid" philosophy in the Xbox coporate guard. The good news is that I think XBox2 will do better (and therefore provider better competition for Sony - always good). The bad news? I think the new guys in charge of Xbox know/learned that it's all about the brand stupid.
Further proof? Cf. Sega, who's last 5-7 years, from Dreamcast to 2K sports, has been a battle against brand.
Good games making a system, and bad games breaking it, is a myth. In the end, brand is almost all that matters (And maybe DVD playback).
Hehum...
X - the quintessential variable
by 32_Footsteps,
in Games
, Jun 30, 2000
Pros: Potentially powerful, has serious marketing muscle behind it
Cons: Serious questions about games and support, can the X-Box survive a DOJ breakup?
Yes, that was almost 5 years ago... Why are you talking of every 2 years ? I don't like Microsoft, and I dislikes console even more. But what I hate most, that's those "like fact" sentences.
When you guys first threw your weight into the console game arena, I have to admit I was worried. I was afraid you would do the same thing to it that you've done to the web browser, the personal computer, and well...everything else you've touched. That is, bury anything interesting or innovative under a huge pile of blood money. It really has ruined those things, and made you guys even bigger and wealthier. But it also pissed some people off. Some smart and innovative people, like the folks at Apple, the screaming millions of Linux contributers, the phoenix that was Netscape and is now Mozilla/FF/Thunderbird. You've inspired huge communities of people to do some great things.
And they're starting to nip at your heels, aren't they?
Back to video games. Well, Sony is Sony. Think the installed base of Atari without the complacency. They are fully aware that you'll devour them if they slip up, so they are trying like hell not to. I would say they've done a good job so far. Nintendo has taken a different tack (though they are still beating you everywhere but here). While people denigrate them for being a "kiddy" platform, they forget that we have such a huge market for games now partly because of the success of the NES with us when we were kids.
Your foray into gaming has ensured we have a top dog (maybe an alpha Aibo?) that stays quick on its feet, and guaranteed Big N will be around for at least another 20 years. I couldn't be happier with that. Please, feel free to remain the limburger cheese of the console business. Continue to turn people like me off with your one hit wonder lineup of games. Fight hard for you status as the console people buy after they already have one of the others. And don't hesitate to milk your installed base for whatever (subscriptions, DRM, feature creep) you can.
Thanks,
Dwarfgoanna
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
Because...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It uses an entirely different processor line and video subsystem. I have doubts.
-mkb
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.
Here they claim it's been out since 1994.
Which puts it between at least 10, possibly 11 years now.
Not sure if that's authoratative, but it's at least a date I found via a quick google search.
It's been obsoleted by the PS2 for what a little over 4 years? (It came out during the Christmas shopping season of 2000 if I remember correctly).
However, it's not like a lot of titles are being released. It's not like the blockbuster games are being dual ported.
I'd see fewer problems with this, if the X-Box 2 was going to be backwards compatible with the X-Box. However, from everything I've read, it's nearly a technical impossibility to do that if what has been publically guessed about the X-Box is true (I'm not sure if Microsoft has officially said anything besides that ATI will be making the video cards). I'm not paying that much attention. I believe it's supposedly going to have a PPC chip of some time (possibly a Cell, which is PPC + an array of vector processing chips if I understand it correctly).
If they released backwards compat consoles ever 2-3 years, I wouldn't care. However, releasing non-compatible ones every 2-4 years is just insane from a consumers perspective. However, as Microsoft is just gettings it's feet wet, I could see why they are doing this (fix thier previous mistakes, and get a head of the game on the hardware cycle is probably a good idea from a business perspective, especially if they can finance the losses).
Kirby
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
I think the current hardware on the PS2/GameCube/X-Box is more than enough to make great games for the next year or so.
That works out well then, considering "XBox 2" won't be coming out until late this year (at the earliest) and both PS3 and Revolution aren't coming out until sometime in 2006.
And even with new consoles being released, there will probably be games released for current-gen consoles for at least the next 2-3 years. There won't be as many, but it's not like your PS2 or XBox immediately becomes worthless the minute a new console comes out.
I am inclined to agree with the statement that the only reason M$ is doing this is for profit.
You really think Sony and Nintendo do what they do for anything other than profit? Sure they'll talk about the artistry involved in creating games and how they're inspired to push the limits of technology, but that's mostly PR. All three companies want to own the video game market and make as much money as possible.
Sinch
Kids are another obvious example of Nintendo's existing niche. I'm a single parent of two 11-year-olds. Nintendo has a huge advantage with pre-teen kids and their parents. You talk about "killer games," and Nintendo has several killer franchises -- Zelda for one -- that work for a family audience. XBox has exactly zero such games or franchises, unless you want to count sports titles which the PS2 is very comparable in anyway. For my money, the limited range of GC sports titles are more than enough to keep Nintendo on the list of choices, for us. PS2 would be second. XBox's selling points actually make me recoil. (Don't get me wrong, I thought Bungie was the best game company out there period before the MS buyout -- but Halo bores me asleep. One more of those? XBox, from my point of view, is pitching itself to a far nastier audience than I ever want to become part of.)
Their Xbox niche is 25+ year old people, which is a growth market. But even if they win that, and even if it gives them an overall win in the console market, that doesn't mean they've taken Nintendo's audience.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Live in girlfriends / wives don't like lots of boxes cluttering up "their" living room. That's wasted space where you could put another coffee table or something.
One thing these guys know how to do is LEARN and implement what they learn.
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
Someone who bought a 3GHz P4 more than two years ago is still fairly close to top-of-the-line by today's Intel roadmaps.
Of course, platforms and video chips are a different story.
Thankfully, multicore, multithreading and 64bit-ness going mainstream this year should help shake up the x86 CPU world a bit after more than two years of stagnation.
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.
XBox seems pretty damned successful over here in Australia, it definitely hasn't outsold the PS2, or probably come close, but it doesn't look like its flopped.
If anything's flopped, it's the Gamecube....
You just need to take a look in an EB to see - a long wall dedicated to PS2 games, a short wall dedicated to XBox games, and a tiny little dark corner somewhere with cobwebs growing on it dedicated to the cube...
Advanced users are users too!
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Nah - you've got some key issues missing - my guess is that Microsoft [will/has] port[ed] DirectX to PPC, but they would NEVER release it on mac, and they also probably ported Windows CE to it, so you'd have an entirely different set of APIs and graphics calls. They may have taking advantage of the PPC's ability to work in either little or big endian modes (though only in some models - the 970 doesn't, but Sony's Cell, which is supposed to be similar to the one MS uses, does). Since all the APIs are still Windows proprietary, it will still be much easier to port to Windows.
.02%. And while I felt vector units were very important just a couple of years ago, more and more of the functionality that they were used for is being moved into the GPU. Stuff like Clipping, particle systems, volumetric fog, skinning, and render to texture can all be done on the GPU now. Vectors are still useful for path finding, physics, and sometimes collision detection but their value just isn't what it was.
The main problem I've seen is programmers that don't separate I/O from the core code - that's really all you need to port for C and C++, so the better the abstraction, the easier the port (especially now that added raw assembly optimizations are much rarer). Optimization, for the most part is a dark art - I've gotten 10x better performance just by using a profiler for a couple of hours, and other times tried for days and squeaked out maybe
Even using a cross platform API like OpenGL doesn't always solve I/O problems - take this chunk of code I pulled from a working cross-platform (but not cross-endian) 3D engine:
glTexImage2D(GL_TEXTURE_2D, 0, GL_RGBA, width, height, 0, GL_BGRA_EXT, GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, data);
the fix is to use a variant of the function that tells the card the order of the bytes and passes it each of the "inverted" 32 bit blocks of RGBA data.
glTexImage2D(GL_TEXTURE_2D, 0, GL_RGBA, width, height, 0, GL_BGRA_EXT, GL_UNSIGNED_INT_8_8_8_8_REV, data);
not only do you get a free endian fix, you also get a free performance boost since passing data to the card by int is much faster than by byte (nVidia actually recommends the above function).
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.
Can you name one game nintendo released that was on the top 10 games world wide?
It's a bit retarded to ask such questions in an environment where there might be people who actually know the answer.
Pikmin 2 was on the top slot for several weeks in a row, and there were at least two other titles through the course of the year which were at the top slot, and far, far more in the rest of the top ten. If you want I can get a complete list. :-)
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
It's not like EA created the best selling game of all time, The Sims
Actually, it's nothing like that at all. Maxis was the developer of The Sims, EA was just the publisher. In fact, few of the original titles in the series you named were actually developed in-house at EA, as you might know if you had even rudimentary knowledge about how the game biz works nowadays. Here's a quick listing of some quality games and their original developers:
The Sims - Maxis (Purchased by EA during Sims development, project almost cancelled)
Goldeneye - Rare (Now owned by Microsoft)
Need For Speed - Black Box (Purchased by EA, 2002)
Burnout - Criterion (Purchased by EA, 2004)
EA doesn't create. EA buys, strip-mines, and casts aside. They're significantly worse than Microsoft on almost any scale-- demonize Microsoft's monopolistic tactics if you will, but at least M$ still creates innovative products and don't treat their employees like shit. Compare that to EA-- worst working conditions in the gaming biz, and they do things like acquire exclusive rights to produce games from the NFL.
If you like good games, you should hate EA. They're the worst of the worst, a solely short-term-profit motivated corporation with no vision, integrity or class. EA is dedicated to mediocrity, and that's all there is to it.
That's the reason why I'm still a fan of Valve's Steam Content Distribution idea, despite all of the short-sighted bitching about minor issues that I see right here on Slashdot. The best way to ensure good games is to cut out out the middlemen and nuke the overhead, because the biggest obstacle to the release of quality games right now is the publisher. Reliable pay-to-play online distribution does just that.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Ninetendo is dieing
Ask these questions: How much money did nintendo make? How much money did MS xbox division make? How well are the total numbers for the GC vs total numbers for the xbox.
This will tell who dying... no one. Nintendo has it's niche. Like Apple. You can't kill them. They will always be profitable if not mainstream.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
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.