3 Million in Xbox 2 Sales At Christmas?

Forbes has a look at the upcoming release of the Xbox 2 console, from Goldman-Sachs. Speculation is put forth on the unit's cost as well as how it might do in sales. From the article: "The research firm, which rates Microsoft at 'outperform,' expects Xbox 2 to be available for retail sale in October or November at a retail price of about $249 to $299."

Comments

Yes, but..

[kyle90]

..can it run Doom 3? /obligatory

Re:Yes, but..

[KDR_11k]

Depends on whether it will have backwards compatibility, I'd bet on "no" though. Perhaps we'll see a Quake 4 and a HL2 port (I once heard that Valve was planning to release HL2 for all next gen consoles).

Re:Yes, but..

[ElectricBrain]

Yes but....how many Quake 3 frames?!

Re:Yes, but..

[bigman2003]

Half-Life 2 *IS* coming out for the Xbox.

Here is the story.

3 million?

[the_skywise]

And pigs might fly out my butt.

Okay, seriously. if they have them in STOCK this year and Sony's PS/3 doesn't come out at the same time, then maybe. But it took almost 6 months to reach the million mark for PS/2's.

Re:3 million?

[SoVeryWrong]

Well, considering the XBOX2 is supposed to launch in 2005 (probably near the end), and PS3 isn't launching until 2006 (last I heard Spring/Summer), that discounts that problem. I do agree that they'll never *produce* 3 million units by Christmas.

Re:3 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, PS/2 was a port on the back of most computers. The consoles name is PS2, or Playstation 2, which ever you like

Re:3 million?

[radish]

I'd just like to point out that the most recent US console launch (PSP) sold 600k in 2 days. Doing 5 times that in a few months (at Christmas no less) doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

It depends

[MilenCent]

It depends almost entirely on what lineup the system has at launch. An enhanced version of Halo 2 may help, but it won't be enough. If the system lacks backwards compatibility it'll be tougher going.

Re:It depends

[bigman2003]

One of the latest rumors, was that a dressed up version of Halo 2 (or 2.5, whatever) would be installed on the hard-drive/whatever-memory of the Xbox 2.

Of the 6 million or so people who bought Halo 2 in the opening months...a super-deluxe version in HD with new maps, and an ending would entice at least a million people to buy right away.

Including me.

MX vs. ATV is an HD game...but it looks like ass. Yes, very clear ass, but still ass. I would like to see what the Xbox 2 hardware can do with HD.

Re:It depends

[superpulpsicle]

I am really starting to wonder if the Halo-fan crowd has ever seen a good first person shooters. Halo2 was fun, but it would be just another shooter lost in the mix if it was released on PC.

Why all this unnecessary hype. Is like celebrating the release of tetris on Nokia because it is such a dry platform. Xbox library is riding literally on about 10 top games.

Re:It depends

[bigman2003]

Personally, I played just about every FPS released on the PC from 1999 to 2003. And I ended up liking Xbox Halo and Halo 2 a LOT. Sure, a lot of people don't like it, and that is okay. But then again Halo 2 sold over 6 million copies, while Half-Life 2 is languishing around 2 million.

And just think about the difference in installed base of Xbox vs. PC.

Now there must be SOME reason that 6 million people are willing to buy the game. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that everyone else shares your opinion. As I said, I played just about EVERY FPS released for about 4 years and I still liked it. Was it the BEST? No...but was it a lot of fun? YES!

Also, you say that the Xbox library is 'riding literally on about 10 top games.'

How do you determine this? What are the top games?

Would it be by the way they are rated? Because on Gamerankings.com I could list 100 games, and still be looking at games in the 84th percentile. Games like Ghost Recon, Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, TOCA Race Driver 2 are all sitting in the 80-100 spots. Those are all pretty solid games- with at least 79 games ranked above them.

Or- do you only judge a platform by the exclusives? Because exclusive or not, I can play games like Burnout 3, Crimson Skies, Splinter Cell, etc. etc. on my Xbox. If they are not exclusives, it does not take away my enjoyment at all- it just means that people without Xboxes can play them too.

People that judge a console by exclusive titles usually own Gamecubes. They miss out on things like Brothers in Arms, Burnout 3...and Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath, which was an awesome Xbox exclusive.

Re:It depends

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there are people who are smart, and buy two or more systems.

Those crazy people.

Re:It depends

[MilenCent]

Of the 6 million or so people who bought Halo 2 in the opening months...a super-deluxe version in HD with new maps, and an ending would entice at least a million people to buy right away.

Including me.

I'm not so sure, would one-sixth the people who bought Halo 2 buy the same thing, again, and an entirely new system to play it on, in order to play it with better graphics? I think for most people to take the plunge again, it'll take more than just this, especially since Halo 2 was the big console game *this* past holiday season.

Re:It depends

[superpulpsicle]

I am not saying Halo is not fun or doesn't deserve to be top 10. I am saying all the worshipping from xbox users is becoming annoying.

You just mentioned "Ghost Recon, Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, TOCA Race Driver 2". All of these are available on other platforms.

Also you should compare xbox install base with PC-gamers install base. If you count PC install base in general, that will count corporate users with no intention of gaming. And like it or not, 6 million people buying Halo2 is no surprising coming out of the #1 marketing company in the world, M$.

XBOX 2 Launch Title(s)?

[krinsh]

I am completely speculating here but I wonder if most of Halo 3 was being worked on during Halo 2 in order to be a launch title? That's the only title I would buy the '2' for - I only bought the XBOX for Halo 2 (even though I've bought and played many other games and my wife has logged as much time as me, surprisingly). I guess I should make a journal entry so it is appropriate for folks to reply with what they think the launch titles are going to be...

wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

... don't buy one until they're modchip'd!

First to Market

[Moby Cock]

I think that Microsoft believes that being first to market with a next-gen console will solidify their position in that market, and I further believe that they are wrong. I'm not sure that the current generation of consoles is played-out. When the PS2 launched, it was time, the PS1 had been around for years and the envelope on that tech was pushed to the limit. The PS2 (and Nintendo) launches were timed well. I know PS3 is coming (maybe this year too) but I expect much of that is because of MS pushing to get XBox 2 out early.

My main concern is that developers will not be ready to properly take advantage of the technology at launch. Thus, there will be a laundry list of ho-hum crap on XBox2 and the early launch will begin the decline of XBox. This is all speculation and conjecture but my gut tells me that XBox 2 will be about as big a hit as the PSP. That is, some hardcore gamers will rush out and pick it up, but most will have a wait-and-see-PS3 mentality.

Re:First to Market

[neverkevin]

"I'm not sure that the current generation of consoles is played-out."

I am not sure what you mean by "played-out" but the current gen is not adequate for HD. Microsoft is trying to beat everyone to the market with a system that can truly take advantage of HDTVs, I believe this may be a good strategy for them. The jump from standard def to high def is going to be more noticeable then the jump between the that last gen of consoles to the current one.

Re:First to Market

[KDR_11k]

I know PS3 is coming (maybe this year too) but I expect much of that is because of MS pushing to get XBox 2 out early.

The PS3 is scheduled for a 2006 release.

Despite the fate that hit the consoles trying to launch before Sony (Saturn, Dreamcast) I believe MS is going to take first place with the Xenon. Sony had their two generations on the top now, their policies are starting to piss devs off and the Cell might prove to be a bigger problem for devs than thought to be. MS has the momentum, they are seen as cool by the casual gamer. They are preparing to offer some games that appeal to the japanese customer base.

Historically, noone lasted more than two generations on the top and it was always the newcomer who took the crown. Atari fell after one gen, Nintendo and Sega after two. Analysts are predicting Sony's downfall and the PSP might hurt them.

I, for one, don't welcome our new monopolist console overlords.

Re:First to Market

[Daetrin]

Microsoft is trying to beat everyone to the market with a system that can truly take advantage of HDTVs, I believe this may be a good strategy for them. The jump from standard def to high def is going to be more noticeable then the jump between the that last gen of consoles to the current one.

So they're targeting those with too much money or too little sense? I don't know if the XBox2 is going to do well or not, but if _that's_ their marketing plan i'm going to downgrade their odds a few notches.

The PS2 sold very well, in part, because it could replace the need for a DVD player which at the time could cost almost as much as the PS2 itself, so it was targeting just about everyone with a tv who liked movies at that time except for the leading edge who'd already gotten a good DVD player.

The XBox on the other hand is (if what you said is true) targeting those who already have an expensive HDTV, or those who are willing to shell out the cash to get one in order to experience the increased capabilities of the XBox2. In other words they are specifically targeting the leading edge who have spent or are willing to spend a significant amount of money, rather than the mass market which wants to save a few (hundred) bucks if possible.

Maybe if they get in good with the technophiles then the word of mouth will help them sell well with the mass market, but that failed to work with the Dreamcast, so who knows.

Re:First to Market

[neverkevin]

HDTV is not expensive anymore. My mom just got a 32" HDTV for about $500, which is about $100 more the the average standard def 32" TV. HDTV is not just for the rich anymore.

Re:First to Market

[ivan256]

Nintendo and Sega after two... it was always the newcomer who took the crown.

How do you figure?

Remember that the SNES and the Genesis were in the same console generation. You'd be hard pressed to say that either company "won" that round, and Sega was hardly a newcomer at this point. You can't call Microsoft a newcomer anymore either.

Re:First to Market

[UWC]

I would have pegged 32-inch standard-definition TVs as around $300 or maybe $350, and those come with a built-in tuner (or two in some cases), unlike most HDTVs, which are advertised as "HDTV monitors." The exception is a 30-inch Sanyo I've seen at Wal-Mart for a little under $600 and have actually been tempted to buy.

So in addition to the mark-up for improved picture quality, to get much use out of it beyond progressive scan DVDs and upcoming consoles, you have to either buy a tuner and be lucky enough to get decent over-the-air offerings, or pay extra to your cable provider to get a few HD channels a month.

However! I don't know if it's just a trend in the Southeast or if it's pretty uniform across the country, but for years, even in the tiniest and most run-down of houses, you stand a pretty good chance of spying a gigantic 50-inch projection TV dominating the tiny living room, and just the other day while passing by a smallish house, I couldn't help but notice a huge 16:9 screen staring at me through the front window. So maybe in terms of passive entertainment, the price barrier is a little higher than some other early-adoption technologies. Anyone who stumbles into Circuit City is immediately bombarded with beautiful HD pictures on all sides. It's hard to resist if they have on-site instant financing. Not sure when I'll get around to going HD, though. Trying to avoid extra debt and don't necessarily want to settle for some stopgap solution.

And a random note: a 32" 16:9 screen has less area than a 32" 4:3 screen. So HD gets a few inches benefit when comparing to standard definition.

Re:First to Market

[brkello]

There are 3 companies...Microsoft not being the top player...how can you call them a monopoly? Gaming is becoming more mainstream...the market may be able to handle 3 players now. I think right now is perfect...we have 3 strong competitors which is always a benefit to the consumer. MS is not going to take over this market. They are making a lot of good choices though (like signing Japanese game making companies to make games for them). I am looking forward to all of the next generation consoles. I am not going to buy any of them right when they come out though. Just like the PSP, I am going to give them time to mature and let the price drop. Really, there are still too many quality titles on the "older" gen systems that I need to compete before even thinking of what's next. The only good thing about being older is now I can be patient on these sort of things. As a kid, I needed the next big thing yesterday.

Re:First to Market

[Jakeypants]

"[T]here will be a laundry list of ho-hum crap on XBox2"

That's how system launches go nowadays. Here're the best games (in my opinion) to launch with systems in recent years:
Dreamcast: Sonic Adventure
PS2: SSX
GBA: Super Mario Advance (Mario 2)
GameCube: Luigi's Mansion
Xbox: Halo (well, I hated it, but I'm the only one)
DS: Mario 64
PSP: Lumines (I haven't played it, but this is what they say is the best)

The DS and PSP still need more time to prove themselves, but the rest of those games, save for maybe Sonic Adventure weren't really all that good. A new system doesn't need awesome games, it just needs lots of games. The early adopters will pay $50 for shitty games just so that they have something to play on their new systems. I always bought new systems based on the promise of good games in the future, and I really don't think I'm alone in that.

Re:First to Market

[ZephyrXero]

In 2006, the US gov't will require all TV broacasters to use digital HD format. HDTV sales will be going through the roof next year, and this is the perfect time for MS to take advantage of that.

As the parent mentioned, the 32" 16:9 is smaller vertically than the 4:3 32". I really wish companies would quit using the diagonal dimensions to make consumers just go "Wow! a 32" screen" even though it's the same size as a regular 25" vertically (just guessing). They need to just tell us the width by height instead. I'll probably end up trying to wait off a year or two with a cheap HDTV convertor until prices go a little further down though ;)

Re:First to Market

[rekenner]

I fail to see how more competition is always better, especially in this industry.
Because of more competition, owning all the consoles will probably cost more than $1000. Even if one waits for the consoles to drop in place, it'll still probably be $600-$700.... Not many people can afford that. Most people will probably only buy a single console and a single portable system. I'm one of those people, to be honest. I picked the console that has the most of the games I like, but there are still games for the consoles I don't have that I really want.

Aside from graphics and internet access (Which, all consoles have, but the XBox did do best), just about all the games from the current gen could be released on any of the consoles. How well a company works with developers and how easy a console to develop for is a factor, of course, but I believe that sans any one of the consoles (and Nintendo going third party console dev), we would still have seen the release of 99% of the games still seeing release.

Re:First to Market

[ZephyrXero]

The market will not support 3 consoles. It isn't right now, and no one but those big three want it. We need an Open Console Standards group to form and create an open format so that all games work on all systems.

Re:First to Market

[NanoGator]

"I'm not sure that the current generation of consoles is played-out."

There's a difference between "played out" and "I wanna see something new". Assuming the XBOX 2 is visually better than the XBOX (given the serious upgrade in texture RAM, I'd say this is likely) there'll be demand for it. Since the XBOX does have a decent following right now, they've already got their early adopter base.

"My main concern is that developers will not be ready to properly take advantage of the technology at launch."

The extra RAM alone will be more than enough. Textures will come in at higher res and in multiple passes. It's not like they'll have to turn the dev kit upside down to make this happen.

"This is all speculation and conjecture but my gut tells me that XBox 2 will be about as big a hit as the PSP. That is, some hardcore gamers will rush out and pick it up, but most will have a wait-and-see-PS3 mentality."

Eh. I don't think it's that clear. Part of the PSP's problem is that it's too expensive. Another part of the PSP's problem is that it's a portable PS2... so what? The XBOX 2, however, is (or at least should be) considerably more powerful. It shouldn't be any more than $299, which is a fairly standard price. And it's likely MS will show some compelling demos to say "Yep, this thing is cooll!" I've seen a few screengrabs of next-gen samples, and yeah, the difference will be noticable.

I can't say you're wrong, but you definitely will not be right until the event has happened.

Re:First to Market

[ZephyrXero]

With the exception of Halo and Mario 64, all those games were bland, medium quality games. Launch titles usually suck these days and the good one's don't come out till the following christmas. And I agree the DS and PSP have to be out over a year or two before we can pass an honest judgement on them. I won't make be buying any of the new consoles until all 3 have been out for at least a year and I really know which one's the best. I bought the Dreamcast at launch, and we all know what happened there :( ...I got the Xbox at launch and it's served me well, but I'm still a little disappointed at the game selection. It's hard for tech lovers to wait, but I'm gonna try...

As for Sonic Adventure, that was a horrible travesty compared to the orignal Genesis games. Sonic just doesn't work in 3D it seems. (For reference, Sonic 2 is one of my favorite games ever...so I may be a little biased)

Re:First to Market

[hawkbug]

Right.... and immediately after that group gets formed and all games work on all systems, we'll forn another group and make sure all software works on all computing platforms, ie Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X.

Re:First to Market

[Reignking]

Competition breeds creativity, innovation, and lower prices. Why do think everyone is bitching about EA monopolizing football? Because they except EA to milk the cash cow while barely making any noteworthy improvements.

Re:First to Market

[rekenner]

Of course. I just wanted to provide a counter point to more competition == good.

Re:First to Market

[J-Doggqx]

My question is simple. Can it play on non HDTVs? If it can great, but if not then there are going to be a lot of lost sales due to the fact that most people I know that have a video game system do not own an HDTV (I know 3 people that have HD TVs that have a game system attached compared to a dozen that don't). This whole upcoming generation of game systems reminds me of the Turbo Graphics 16, Genesis, and SNES generation release.

Re:First to Market

[ZephyrXero]

Right...because I have to buy a Sony DVD player to watch Sony DVD Movies, and a Mirimax DVD player for all my Mirimax DVDs huh? It's possible...it's just a matter of getting these bullheaded companies to see the longterm benefits over the shorterm profits.

Re:First to Market

[ZephyrXero]

I wouldn't be surprised if the standard output cables that come with the Xbox are some sort of HD format like HDMI, and then you have to buy a seperate one for older Composite(RCA) or RF connections just like you do with the current generation for RFs.

Re:First to Market

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you say that the PS2 and nintendo launches were timed well, and not include xbox as well? Gamecube and xbox came out within mere days of eachother. You really can't logically say that nintendo was timed well and xbox was not. And the ps2 took a while to take hold because there was little reason to get it at the time. PS1 sales were still strong, and dreamcast had good graphics for the early adopters and came out before ps2. This time around, its true that ps2, xbox, and gamecube's lifetimes could be extended further but none of them were as popular and widespread as the psx. Further, technology is moving at an ever increasing speed and new shader technology really ups the level of detail and realism - before it was just higher res texture and some more polygons.

Also, as another poster mentioned, HD is becoming more widespread and will in the future and PC game graphics are beginning to really leave the current consoles behind. There is a lot more hype and interest in the 3 upcoming next-gen consoles and I think microsoft is doing the right thing (from a profit and marketing standpoint at least) by trying to come out first. If its the only option for next gen, and its graphics completely blow away current console technologies, people will begin to jump ship.

Microsoft is positioning themselves very well and are working hard to eliminate the mistakes of the current XBOX (lack of japanese interest, game selection, variety). If they package the xbox2 with the rumored halo 2.5 (halo 2 with xbox2 level graphics and enhancements) then thats quite a lucrative plan. Im not a huge fan of halo but its popularity and ability to sell is undeniable.

PS3 will be interesting to watch since no one really knows exactly how powerful its going to be, but it should be on par with xbox2. If its comes out later, it risks having the xbox 2 being established and with a nice game selection(something MS is trying really hard to do this time around) so I think xbox2 will do much better than xbox did in the previous console wars.

Re:First to Market

[bigman2003]

About 18 months ago I took a chance on a 4:3 HDTV. I figured that MOST of the TV I watched was 4:3 anyway. And, since my limitation is width (TV cabinet limitation that is) a little extra height would be okay.

Just this weekend I finally ran 1080i for the first time. I was very happily surprised when my TV showed the image in a letterbox format...I was a little worried that it would just chop off the edges.

So my gamble paid off- I've been enjoying a nice big 4:3 TV for a year and a half...and I am ready when the new Xbox comes out with real HD support.

I am a little disappointed that my TV cannot go to 720p. But, at the time I bought my TV there was a huge difference in cost between a 1080i set, and a 720p set.

Re:First to Market

[Dr. Spork]

So how many HDTV's are there to which to hook a new Xbox? Enough to make "3 million sold by xmas" sound realistic? Ha!

Yes, if there were lots of HDTV's in living rooms already, it might be true that the "current generation of consoles is played out." But as it stands, there are precious few. Well, I guess we'll see what Xbox2 looks like and what games there will be. It took a while since the launch of the first Xbox to convince people that the games are worth buying. I suspect the same this time around. If they have a slow start they're dead; the PS3 with the Cell chip will bludgeon them once it's out. Their only hope is to win a big chunk of market share before then, to prevent people from buying the PS3. For living rooms with both, everybody will prefer PS3 versions of games, since the machine will be far more powerful.

Re:First to Market

[snuf23]

If Sony had it their way, they would probably love to have you NEED a Sony DVD player to play Sony movies.
I don't really see any benefit. Homogenizing the hardware for compatability would mean that developers wouild be less likely to program for anything but the lowest common denominator. Hardware differences and software library are the two things the console companies use to try to sell their systems. And they want you to buy an Xbox game, or a Gamecube game or whatever - because they make their money off of a portion of sales of the software.
A DVD player company like Apex doesn't make a royalty off of the movie you purchased. The exception being companies like Sony which own video content - the software as well as the hardware.

Re:First to Market

[Ark42]

You're pretty close. A 32" 16:9 is the same height as a 26.1" 4:3, and I would say that same height means same size, since if you are watching 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen, and want it to display the same size, you are going to have vertical bars on the left and right side, wasting part of the width, and thus, you want the height to be the same.
A 32" 16:9 screen has dimensions 27.9x15.7 while a 4:3 would have 25.6x19.2.

A 32" 4:3 (25.6x19.2) would need a 39.1" 16:9 screen (34.1x19.2) to get the same height.

I think a good way to compare, if you have a calculator handy, is to divide the 16:9 diagonal measurement by about 1.22 or 1.23 to get its "comparable" measurement against 4:3 diagonals, if what you want to know is really how the heights of the screens compare.

Re:First to Market

[RockClimbingFool]

I believe there are around 16 million HDTV's installed in US households right now. At least according to this http://avsforum.com/ post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&t hreadid=525931

I think sales of new HDTVs are going at 4-6 million sets per year now. Those numbers will only get better.

People with HDTVs are just looking for anything to really take advantage of that extra resolution. You can only watch so many nature and travel specials in HD.

I wouldn't be surprised if places like Best Buy and Circuit City start giving away new xbox's with a purchase of an HDTV. Most of them do something similar to that now.

Re:First to Market

[iridium_ionizer]

The slightly edited story of the 3DO released in 1993:

"Rather then manufacturing their new system, 3D0 decided to make 3D0 Interactive Multiplayer a franchise. Sanyo, Panasonic and Goldstar all bought rights to manufacture the 3D0 system. Once produced and sold, 3D0 would claim a royalty for each system and $3 for each game sold.

"In October of 1993, Panasonic began sales of the first 3D0 Interactive Multiplayer. There are several more models established by other companies, but other then a few additions they are all pretty much the same.

"At a whopping $700USD or more, this machine only seemed to attract the wealthy. Even after a few price drops, the 3D0 never recovered from its initial reputation as a rich man's videogame system. Since 3D0 placed no software licensing restrictions, the 3D0 amassed a large library of games."
see: http://darkwatcher.psxfanatics.com/console/3do.htm

Most of today's game system consoles' prices are subsidized by the manufacturers who offset this with royalties of the game sales. While the goal of open standards is laudable, the 3DO system's history shows us that without a royalty/subsidization scheme (which would be much more complicated with multiple manufacturers although not impossible) a console will not garner enough market penetration to ultimately last in the marketplace.

Re:First to Market

[adler187]

First of all your not the only one who hated Halo, I did too.

Also, The best launch title for the Dreamcast was by far Soul Calibur. It was actually better than the arcade version, not only in extras but also graphically. You are correct though, for the most part launch titles suck.

Re:First to Market

[ZephyrXero]

3DO just did it wrong...lol. No, seriously...the $700 price tag was the number one problem, you have to make this thing cheap enough to compete with the other guys. The second thing they did was to still try to retain the royalties on games, that's just a bad way to do business. If you want to make money off of software, make some software yourself. Lastly, 3DO was a company, not a cooperative organization like OpenGL or my proposed group would be. I have quite a few ideas on how to make it successful, and I guess one of these days I need to put it all on paper.

Re:First to Market

[fondue]

"The market will not support 3 consoles."

Where have you been for the last four years?

Re:First to Market

[j.bellone]

Thank you, someone that finally looks at the picture from outside the box. If I had mod points I would definately mod you up, but I doubt anyone else will. The Xbox2 (or whatever it is to be called) is probably coming out at a great time, because the fact is, games are evolving faster than expected and shader technology is definately a must.

I don't think that HD support will be as big as they are pushing, but its definately something that I will be utilizing and anyone with an HDTV will also utilize. If Microsoft pushes the HDTV brand on the Xbox2, many people will buy it just because they need something to work on their TV. If Sony and Nintendo don't push it as well, they might possibilty lose sales to people who just play casual games such as sports titles.

Re:First to Market

[KDR_11k]

The 700$ price tag came from everyone wanting to make money off the hardware. These days consoles are sold at very little profit, the bulk of the money is with the software sales and licensing. Obviously licensing fees and open standards can't be combined so it's either cheap hardware OR open platforms.

Re:First to Market

[gabebear]

the PSP might hurt them

How would the PSP hurt them? One reason I believe Nintendo is still in the console game is because of the gameboy. I'd think the PSP would have a similar effect on PS3 sales that the iPod has on Mac sales.

Sorry, not trying to flame you, I just don't see the PSP as anything but postive for Sony.

Re:First to Market

[brkello]

I really don't get your post. In general, it is true that competition in a capitalist society is a good thing. Maybe there is some example you can come up with where it is bad, but it certainly isn't the console market. Because of competition, you aren't paying $1000 for one console. If they weren't competing with each other, they wouldn't be selling their consoles at a loss (at least initially). This may be a strange concept to you, but no one is forcing people to buy all the consoles. You did the right thing by picking the console with the most games you wanted. Plenty of people can afford to have multiple consoles. That you can't or choose to spend your money on other things is fine, but you can't blame that on competition. You want a gaming monopoly? That's just dumb...then you couldn't afford to have both a console and a handheld. Or wouldn't be able to afford all the games they wanted.

Competition forces companies to reduce prices, increase quality, and basically bring consumers what they want because if they don't, people will buy the other console. Each console has its own upsides/downsides depending on dev kits, graphical capabilities, and deals it has with software companies. And yes, if there was one console, I can easily see a lot of great games not being made...they are a monopoly, so they would have a lot less motivation to put out a top notch dev kit and they would be sure to sqeeze every penny out of the developers that they can...certainly hurting smaller developers...everything would be EA. But if you want to claim competition is a bad thing because you can't play these games..go ahead, but you aren't going to win that argument with anyone with half a brain.

Re:First to Market

[ZephyrXero]

Watching things very closely. You? Seriously, look at the Gamecube right now... it's not doing so hot, no matter what kind of spin people want to put on it. The majority of multi-platform games are just coming out for PS2 and Xbox now as if the GC didn't even exist. Nintendo hasn't really released any games for it in quite a while, with the exception of the up coming Zelda game. Even though I think the GC is a great piece of hardware...I'll be honest that it's days are numbered much shorter than the other guys.

Re:First to Market

[ZephyrXero]

That still doesn't mean you have to sell it for $700. The market has shown in the past that any console over $300 will be over looked by 99% of the people. This console would be no different. Consumers aren't going to care about the reasons it costs more. Thus we would have to agree on a hardware spec that everyone could produce for less than 300. Even if they're just making $50 at first...prices of manufacturing would eventually go way down, especially if multiple companies were using the same chipsets and whatnot...

Re:First to Market

[Zangief]

The Genesis did well in the US and Europe, but on Japan, it was a massive flop. The Sega Saturn was just the reverse, it did well in japan (for a while), and flopped everywhere else.

Back to your point, considering the fact that the Genesis only won for a short while, in Europe and the US, and then was swept by the SNES everywhere, yeah, I could say that the SNES won that round.

(this from a proud genesis owner).

Re:First to Market

[rekenner]

I suppose the essence of my point was that one console that didn't have monopolistic properties (... Never happen) or just 2 consoles would be better.

Really, I suppose I'm just wishing for somethign that would never happen. Cheap gaming...

Re:First to Market

[Anonymous Coward]

Am the only one who didn't see that big a diffference between HD and standard tvs to warrant the price? HD doesn't seem like that big a deal to me, just another toy for people obsessed with electronics.

Re:First to Market

[Omkar]

Well, let's look a little further back. The N64 had Super Mario 64, which was amazing. The PS1's real breakout title was Final Fantasy 7; even though it wasn't really a launch game, it gave the system a crucial boost over the Sega Saturn (esp. in Japan). I think it's fair to say that the drop in launch title quality is a consequence of the first to market madness. I miss the old days when Nintendo just didn't give a fuck when you wanted a game.

BTW, I didn't hate Halo, but I thought it was mediocre. Halo (1, 2) are fun just because it's so easy to get multiplayer games; Perfect Dark and Goldeneye were much better.

Re:First to Market

[DeadScreenSky]

I agree that the PSP will be positive for Sony in itself, but I can definitely see it hurting the PS3 a little.

I don't think your iPod->Mac comparison makes a lot of sense in this area. The iPod dominates its niche, while the Mac is a niche product. The PSP->Playstation situation is the complete opposite. Playstation is the videogame console brand now (though you could reasonably argue Xbox has is on top nowadays when it comes to "cool").

But even more importantly I don't think one platform transfers to the other when it comes to videogames for a lot of reasons. You have to buy completely separate games for the PS2, PSP, and PS3, where with the iPod and Mac the same music is on both. Look at Nintendo's failure to turn their GBA dominance into a sales advantage for the GC (with their maligned "connectivity" concept). It just doesn't seem to work like that with videogames.

The big issue with the PSP is it does sort of dilute Sony's videogame brand. Many Sony fans looking to buy a new game system next year will have to pick either the PSP or the PS3. It's even possible this 'portable problem' is one of the reasons Nintendo has had trouble with their recent consoles. Videogame fans might just pick up a PSP because it does something a normal console doesn't, and stick with the Xbox360 they already have. Or it could be since they just bought the PSP they don't want to shell out cash for another new Sony system the next year, and so they look at Nintendo or MS for a console instead.

A similar problem occurs with Sony developers. Obviously Naughty Dog, Insomniac, etc. can have multiple dev teams, but supporting two hardware platforms is trickier than just going all out for a single console.

All of this is conjecture, naturally. But I think it is clear the PSP very well could hurt Sony in the console market.

Well, Zonk's sold.

[misfit13b]

As for me, I'm getting a bit burned out already, and it's still a few weeks before the MTV wankfest.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing my Xbox, but the early bird pre-unveiling expectant hype before the hype is a bit much, no?

Re:Well, Zonk's sold.

[2bluemike]

I'd like to see MTV bring back Beavis and Butthead as co-hosts. Huh huh huhhhh, wankfest

More market spin

[bigdady92]

The firm expects Microsoft to ship about 3 million units of the Xbox 2 worldwide in the December quarter.

That's what was said in the article. This means that the quarter can range from NOV to JAN and beyond. So this is not saying that DEC it will sell 3 million units alone but over a 3 month period.

I SERIOUSLY think this is an insane notion but at least they are keeping the price right at $249-299. That's about the breaking point for most consumers nowadays.

Me? I won't buy one until the modders got it and I can pick it up for $150 at the pawn shop where I got my last 3.

Re:More market spin

[Reignking]

What's the spin? "December quarter" is exactly what it says -- 3 months total, one including December. The only ones that are "spinning" it is Slashdot, saying "at Christmas"...

Re:More market spin

[ZephyrXero]

Well, you know MS is planning on having 3 different versions of the Xbox2 right? I wouldn't be surprised if the plain jane Xbox2 (w/o harddrive) was released for $250, and then the Xbox2 w/ harddrive (whether it's built in, or an attachment bundle) for $300. That'd be the smart move... a bad move would be for the plain one to come out at $300 and the harddrive edition for $400. I guess we'll know in a month ;)

Outperform?

[Reignking]

MSFT to outperform the market?

It hasn't moved in years, so they think that the XBox2/NeXT/WTF is its saviour?

Scope of Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

3 million units sold in a worldwide launch is not all that tough of a task. With their mass market approach (MTV) in the US and well respected designers/publishers overseas, M$ has a good chance of hitting this.

The question is, can PS3 have the same influence as the PS2 did over the Dreamcast? PS2 wasn't even out and at the time and people had already made up their minds on what console to purchase.

Re:Scope of Launch

[fondue]

The choice the consumer faces is a tough one.

1. Spend $300 on an Xbox2 with no backwards compatibility, lukewarm developer support, HD functions they can't use, fee-based online play, no hard disk, no chipping (for a while), DRM'ed media functions and probably no decent games for the first year, or

2. Wait a few months and buy a more powerful, cheaper, vastly better-supported Playstation 3.

Still, expect Peter Moore (ex-employee of Dreamcast-era Sega) to cook up plenty more substance-free PR stunts over the next few months.

Re:Scope of Launch

[SoVeryWrong]

Wow, that's some serious bias.

I'd have to disagree about the developer support. Sony's development kits have been notoriously bad and poorly documented. Microsoft probably has the most experience in development tools, considering they're an industry standard in PC development (game s or otherwise).

Re:Scope of Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the kind of blind faith that killed the Dreamcast - faith for some reason that Sony will bring a superior product to market, despite their history of extremely poor quality of manufacture of their systems at launch (PS1, PS2, and the recent PSP (dead pixels, anyone?)).

I think backwards compatability might be nice, but honestly, I never use it on my PS2. I would not mind it as a feature, but I hardly think it is as large of an issue as people are making it out to be.

It is not clear at this time (in my opinion) which of the next generation systems is going to end up on top. But I have no reason to blindly believe that Sony is going to deliver some SUPER SYSTEM that just crushes everyone - if you think you have such a reason, you've been listening to too much of their marketing.

Re:Scope of Launch

[Zeussy]

I have to agree that the PS3 will be much more powerful. I can see it doing realtime raytracing. But the xbox2 is going to have much better online gaming support. It just depends what you want. Anyway by the time the PS3 comes out next year you have had plenty of time to save and get both.

Re:Scope of Launch

[NanoGator]

"HD functions they can't use,"

Whoop-de-fuck.

" fee-based online play"

So they're only going to release fee-based on-line games? Sony isn't going to charge fees for on-line play?

" no hard disk" ...that hasn't been a huge hit with the XBOX to begin with.

"no chipping (for a while)"

Yeah, because millions of people have been chipping the original XBOX. Nobody gives a flying fuck, PS3 won't be any different.

" probably no decent games for the first year,"

If you think Sony isn't immune to this, then I suggest you look at the PS2 and PSP's launch lineup.

"Wait a few months"

Uh yeah, anywhere up to 12 months. Then you'll have to pre-order or it'll be closer to 15 before you get it.

" more powerful,"

Heh. Yeah, assuming

a.) Sony delivers on their promises. They don't have a good track record, here.

b.) The developers get 'more poweful' out of their dev kits. (Remember the Dreamcast games looking better than PS2 games?)

c.) There isn't a painful bottleneck created by an arrogant design. (i.e. too little video ram.)

"cheaper,"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

" vastly better-supported"

You can have 'better supported', but 'vastly better' is subjective. If the PS3 has 50 more crap games that developers pooped out of their asses, then 'vastly-better' is hard to justify.

Somehow I doubt you've thought about this objectively.

Re:Scope of Launch

[LWATCDR]

"1. Spend $300 on an Xbox2 with no backwards compatibility"
Are you sure? Microsoft bought VirtualPC for a reason. The new PowerPC chip might have the power to emulate the chip in the current XBox. The change to the new Video chip set maybe a none issue if the game uses directX.

"lukewarm developer support," I do not know about this. Microsoft is pretty good at making developers happy.

"2. Wait a few months and buy a more powerful, cheaper, vastly better-supported Playstation 3."
I actually hope so. I really do hope the Cell is everything they it is. But cheaper? Any proof?

Re:Scope of Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, your responses are obviously objective. You don't sound biased at all. I mean, I often say things like "fuck" and "poop" while being objective.

Re:Scope of Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the matter? Didn't have a good rebuttal so you're posting anonymously to pretend like somebody is on your side?

Re:Scope of Launch

[Ayaress]

Sony still has the name advantage. They've had two wildly successful consoles, and they're currently making a respectable bid in the handheld market. It's certainly not shapping up into the PS2 vs. Dreamcast scenario some people expected, but Nintendo's stranglehold of the handheld market is nigh on over. Microsoft has had some success so far. They've done well in the US, but no Japan. I haven't kept up on the numbers in Europe. If they want to move that many units, though, they're going to need a very good showing in Japan, which means they'll need a lineup of Japanese games for the launch. The Xbox basically has a Shin Meganami Tensei game, which was just a port from the PS2 anyway. Japanese games are quite a bit different than American games. If you've played enough of both, you can usually tell within about three minutes tops seeing a new game wether it was made in north america/europe or in Japan, and that's just counting the ones that are imported to the US. There are a lot of very popular games in Japan that I can't even make sense of or understand, but they're popular. That's the kind of games that Microsoft needs to get anywhere in Japan. No games, no console. Simple.

Re:Scope of Launch

[hunterx11]

I can see it doing realtime raytracing.

Oh, you mean like how the PS2 can render Toy Story in realtime?

Re:Scope of Launch

[hunterx11]

...lukewarm developer support...

Microsoft is going to do everything it can to help the developers.

Developers. Developers. Developers.

DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!

Re:Scope of Launch

[drjenk]

Maybe there will be a "backward compatibility pack" for sale extra, which loads the emulators for the cpu and gfx code, thus taking care of any extra licensing costs owed to nvidia for emulating their hardware. I think this is a possibility.

Re:Scope of Launch

[TyrionEagle]

Oh, you mean like how the PS2 can render Toy Story in realtime?

Where was this said? I see it quoted all the time, but can't ever find it in an online interview or briefing notes from an actual Sony exec. Links would be good.

Re:Scope of Launch

[fondue]

"Sony's development kits have been notoriously bad and poorly documented."

Yes, that was the case this generation also, and yet the PS2 had more developer support than either of the other (comparitively easy to develop for) formats. Support goes where the money is, not where it's easiest to churn out code.

Re:Scope of Launch

[fondue]

"Sony isn't going to charge fees for on-line play?"

Correct.

I see you've researched this topic closely.

Where by 'researched' I mean, 'typed in some swears without actually stopping to figure out what over half of the items you've quoted above actually meant'.

Re:Scope of Launch

[fondue]

To release a console less powerful and/or more expensive than anything else on the market would be, if not commercial suicide, at least acutely embarrassing for Sony.

Using self-manufactured custom chips will probably work out cheaper for them, as it did with the PS2 and PSP.

Having an extra year to develop, tune and wait for component prices to fall will easily widen the performance gap.

Re:Scope of Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, because do you actually know that to be true? Microsoft is already charging for their online service, but it's great and works well, Sony on the other hand doesn't. You'll eventually begin paying for it, you just wait, they only say that now.

Re:Scope of Launch

[j.bellone]

Look out, we've got a fan boy on our hands! Swab the deck matties.

Re:Scope of Launch

[j.bellone]

You don't know Jack?

1. First of all, Microsoft bought VirualPC for a reason; either be they want to have "VirualWindows" for the Mac, or they want to have backwards compadbility with Xbox titles.

How do you know anything about developer support? Developers will definately be jumping on the bandwagon if its easily enough to port their current games to the next generation console. Microsoft has always had great developer support from any standpoint.

There are going to be at least two versions of the Xbox2 as well; one with a hard disk, one without. You can probably expect to have hard disk upgrades for people who bought the cheaper model. No chipping? Of course there isn't going to be chipping for awhile - it takes time. That's a given with any console.

2. A few months? You may be waiting a bit longer than that. A more powerful on what standpoint? There have been no specifications for the PS3 (besides the chip, but remember about the PS2 can launch a nuclear warhead?).

It will not be cheaper, at least, not for the first few months. All consoles start out about the $200 price range at launch. Any console gamer that has seen at least one generation of consoles should know that. Hell, the PS2 was selling for well above $700 pre-U.S. launch.

Supported by whom? The same people who are going to support this console - developers, developers, developers! The developers are the key in any situation, especially the opening up of three new consoles less than a year and a half apart.

So what does that mean? If, and only If, Sony can pull backwards compadibiltiy out of their ass again, then you might see the same situation that we're in now. Nobody knows for sure if Sony, MS, or Nintendo for that matter, are going to have backwards compadibility. That's going to make any console, the ability to already play hit games. It worked for the PS2; it can, and will, work again.

Re:Scope of Launch

[FriedTurkey]

Maybe there will be a "backward compatibility pack" for sale extra, which loads the emulators for the cpu and gfx code, thus taking care of any extra licensing costs owed to nvidia for emulating their hardware. I think this is a possibility.

Yeah, it suspiciously looks like the original Xbox.

Re:Scope of Launch

[NanoGator]

"Where by 'researched' I mean, 'typed in some swears without actually stopping to figure out what over half of the items you've quoted above actually meant'.

Said the guy who only replied to one of my many rebuttals.

Heh.

Re:Scope of Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft bought VirtualPC for a reason.

Yes. To break into the server virtualization software business cheaply and discourage alternative OS's from using its software.

1. Connectix had just released a Windows version of VirtualPC before it was purchased.
2. Connectix was also getting quite good at the MacOS version of its product and there was an OS/2 version as well.
3. Server virtualization was becomming hot and VMWare was the only real player. It lets administrators have different software setups and patches without having to buy another hardware box. Useful and long overdue!

Solution: MS buys out the second best (Connectix) and in the same swoop castrates its competitor's ability to run MS apps on their OS's. Brilliant if you ask me and about a million years before MS had any inkling to use a PowerPC chip for anything.

No, there's little chance MS will pull off backwards compatability. I'm sure they're pouring millions into it right now, but they just can't guarantee 100% compatability. Maybe they'll sell the compatability software separately and require you have a Live! account to get updates for specific games.

But the bad press from poor compatability and frequent updates outweigh the benefits of backwards compatability and they will ditch the idea if they haven't already.

Re:Scope of Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

Yaaar!

Re:Scope of Launch

[SoVeryWrong]

My bad, I assumed the reference was to Sony supporting developers, not developers supporting Sony.

Re:Scope of Launch

[LWATCDR]

"taking care of any extra licensing costs owed to nvidia for emulating their hardware"
Why emulate it. Do many games for the XBox write down to the hardware? I really doubt it. Most if not all XBox games use DirectX to talk to the hardware. DirectX is DirectX. If it does then odds are very good that vitural PC will run them Not only that Microsoft has copies of all the games. They can tweak VirtualPC to run the limited number of Games that are out for the XBox. Yes limited compared to the number of programs that are available for Windows. No need to emulate the nvidia hardware.

Re:Scope of Launch

[hunterx11]

After looking for it, I'm pretty sure now that the quote is actually apocryphal. Still, everybody promises more than they can actually deliver, and I think that live raytracing is very unlikely to be a reality for the PS3.

Re:Scope of Launch

[drjenk]

Quite possible, not sure. Seems like it wouldn't be a 100% slam dunk though for backward compatiblity, as I'd imagine to get every possible fragment of horsepower out of the console maybe there is some low level stuff going on. Only the devs really know.

if GoldMan Sachs thinks it's remotely possible

[tech-hawger]

Then it just might be possible. I think they have some advanced knowledge of what the next-gen Xbox could come bundled with or some kind of killer app that is going to ship with it. There's gotta be some reason they think MS could move 3 mil units. That's a lot of hardware.

Re:if GoldMan Sachs thinks it's remotely possible

[gabebear]

The Xbox2 will sell(even with a retarded name like "Xbox Next"), but I think the guy is on crack(or paid off) if he thinks they will move 3 million of them that quickly. I'll bet they haven't even manufacture 3 million Xbox2s within 3 months of launch.

On the price

[likewowandstuff]

Hasn't the price point on a new console consistently been $299 since the Sega Genesis was released? Why bother teasing us with the possibility of something lower?

Re:On the price

[UWC]

Gamecube launched at $199. And there's speculation that since XBox 2 will have a few variations with respect to included hardware that the lowest end might be a little below the standard price.

Can't wait to stop spending money!

[superultra]

I actually can't wait until the nextgen hits. It's clear that console devs have wrapped their brains around this gen, and with one hit after another (Gods of War, Psychonauts, Jade Empire, Doom 3, Splinter Cell, etc etc) I'm clean out of cash.

I need a new console generation if only to stop spending money, so I can get a breather and watch the devs stumble around with the technology for 3 or 4 years. It's just now that they're figuring out that it's not Havoc physics or glowy effects that make a game.

Re:Can't wait to stop spending money!

[Anonymous Coward]

Should I see a relationship in the fact that I've never been interested in any of the games that you mention, and that the games I most enjoy playing are from designers that have known that "Havoc physics or glowy effects" are not what are most important in their games from the beginning?

Going to depend on how many they can deliver

[slusich]

I think 3 million is probably a good estimate, IF they can get them into stores that quickly. With the release being so close to the holiday season, I'll be surprised if it's not a major hassle to find one between the release date and xmas.

Re:Going to depend on how many they can deliver

[Anonymous Coward]

I think 3 million in three months for Xbox 2 is highly optimistic.

I don't think they could do it even given unlimited supply, but supply will probably be the realistic limiting factor upon release. Meh, it's not like I was ever going to buy one at any price anyway.

I Don't Consider Forbes Reliable

[robbway]

Last March, Forbes acknowledged the multimedia aspects of the PSP, but failed to recognize those aspects as significance, saying it did "little else" than play video games. Also, the article was dated April 8, 2005, a full 2 weeks in the future from when it was published.

Now, just because I don't think they know anything about video games other than historic sales figures and stocks, that doesn't mean they aren't reliable for business news. They're just a little sloppy in the games department.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll give you oversized, overpriced and overhyped, but... overpowered? Maybe your need to alliterate overwhelmed your logic. The Xbox has muscle and that's a good thing. i.e., I've played many games on both systems and, by and large, they look ragged on the PS2 and much cooler on the Xbox. Anybody that can't see that is techno-blind.

Mysterious Controller Speculation

[iridium_ionizer]

If you haven't already, take a look at the quasi-official pics of the controller (from ourcolony.net) and the emailed, real-looking, but possibly fake pics.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/04/06/news_612 18 11.html
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/04/11/n ews_61220 58.html

Based on the supposition that the second batch of pics are real (let's say the blurriness was due to a cell phone cam), I think that there will be a trackball in the middle of the Xbox 2 controllers. Hence the name Xbox 360. You heard it here first!

A trackball could possibly be the innovation the innovation that lends a sense of accuracy to the controllers. Has anyone everplaced an FPS with a trackball? What about Marble Madness?

Still it won't be enough for me to get me to sell my soul to Microsoft.

Re:Mysterious Controller Speculation

[Reignking]

A trackball? Didn't Atari have one? :)

Re:Mysterious Controller Speculation

[UWC]

I played Counter-Strike for a while with a Logitech trackball. One of the ones with the ball on the left side so you moved it with your thumb, while fingers were used like on a normal 3-button mouse. I actually liked it pretty well. If I recall correctly, I think I found inverting the mouse Y-axis worked well for reasonably intuitive movement.

If it has a trackball, they'd better make sure you can remove it and clean it easily. I'd wager console controllers would get gunked up more quickly than at a PC.

Re:Mysterious Controller Speculation

[jfisherwa]

I've been playing with that same trackball (Logitech Trackman Marble) since the Duke3D days, and I assure you I more than hold my own. :)

Re:Mysterious Controller Speculation

[thebudgie]

Trackballs seem great when you first get them and all. Y'know, when they're clean. But after just 20-30 minutes of use they go back to being sticky. I got one to use with my laptop and I find it's alright for browsing the web but any kind of gaming sucks with it.

Re:Mysterious Controller Speculation

[Mitijea]

Yeah, I had one for the Atari 2600 (big sucker - red case with black top and white ball); it was awesome. Made blasting those colored blocks in Missle command almost as good as the arcade. (And shooting those other colored blocks in centipede was cool too - if the port hadn't been so gimped. Ah, the good ol' days.)

My bad...

[the_skywise]

I had read that they were going to *announce* at E3 and made the assumption that they were going to release at Christmas as well (to go head to head with X2).

Unless the reason for the XBox shortage they had over Christmas was because they had stopped XBox development and were building X2's I don't think they'll have 3 million built by Christmas either. (They couldn't meet demand last Christmas... I talked my uncle into getting one and we went to 5 stores in a major city and they were all empty.)

Re:My bad...

[ZephyrXero]

Maybe they meant that they'd have 3 million by the end of this fiscal year....which is probably around Feb. or March for them...

Price and Line up

[Anonymous Coward]

The success of any system comes down to price and the line up of games it has; being that no one really knows what the XBOX2 will sell for, or which games that are being released for it, it is far too early to decide whether it will be an instant success.

The main problem with being the "first out of the gate" is that you're main competition is speculation. My only thought is that Sony used their "Phantom Menace" PS2 to prevent sales of the Dreamcast, can Sony do the same thing to the XBOX 2?

PS. I'm not saying that the PS2 isn't a good system, but instead that when the dreamcast was released it wasn't uncommon to hear "Why would I buy a Dreamcast when Sony said that the PS2 can produce a kagillion polygons, will have a bizzillion games, and will be released 6 months after the Dreamcast"

Why so early?

[Andy_R]

The longer they waited to launch, the better the launch titles would be, and hardware improvements will mean they could either make the machine better, or reduce their losses for the same spec.

If they do go early, they are trading off just one christmas as the only next-gen console in the shops against 4 years of being the least modern console when the other 2 arrive.

There are only 2 ways this strategy is going to be cost effective:
If they can get a contolling market share over that first holiday season or;
If they have the processor power/locked in developers needed to compete on the quality of games for the next 4 years, or however long this generation lasts, despit the others having more hardweare development time.

Given that Nintendo already tried the second option and pretty much failed to set the world on fire with the Gamecube, and Sega tried the first option with the Dreamcast and got burnt to a crisp, I really don't know what Microsoft are thinking.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Xbox2 strategy was a quick cash-grab before folding the home gaming divison, especially if Sony's cell chips deliver the computing power they are promising in a usable form.

Re:Why so early?

[SillyHatsOnly]

In theory, waiting does produce better games (or no game *cough Duke Nukem cough*), but companies need to know where the sweep spot is and pull the trigger. Given that IBM is reportedly manufacturing all 3 next gen console chips, the technology many be similar. M$ is playing it safe by going with advanced, but existing technology which developers will likely be used to. Plus they get the hype and holiday. Sony is taking the risk with their cell technology. There are a lot of unknowns with it and likely changing specs. Not to mention sending out dev kits will take longer. The quality of games on new the cell processors will have a slower ramp up period as developers understand how to use it effectively. It could eventually pay off, but who knows.

Re:Why so early?

[ArsonSmith]

I bet all three marketing and management teams got tegether at some big convention and made a bet. They'll all three release systems with the exact same hardware (from IBM) but spin it in their own marketing manor and plan release times according to all the theroies you see thrown around and see who can win.

It would be an interesting experiment at least.

Rumor is ..

[Milktoast]

They're going to have backwords capability with the release. HOpefully we'll know for sure by E3.

Not a trackball, and the new Dreamcast?

[solowCX]

There is no way that is a trackball. Unless you have really long fingers there would be no way to comfortably hold the controller while using it. More than likely it is a white Xbox logo, IF this the real controller. Microsoft is seemingly taking the Sega track for Xbox 2 however. Going from black system to white, releasing it before everyone else, and (most likely) using a disc with less capacity (Dreamcast used a GD-ROM instead of DVD). Probably other similarities as well.

Wireless controller?

[solowCX]

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but in those (possible) controller images, there is no cord. Could it be wireless will now become standard?

Re:Wireless controller?

[Ayaress]

I hope not. I've always had bad luck with wireless controllers. They're great and all, but all it takes is a glitch in the signal for a split second while a boss is about to bring a huge hammer down on my head, and it'll suffer one of those unfortunate warranty-ending accidents.

Re:Wireless controller?

[Ailure]

It depends on what type of Wireless controllers. Obviously Radio based ones are better than IR based ones. Wireless do work when done properly, wavebird for Nintendo Gamecube is a such controller. Heh, maybe all of the next three decided to have Wireless. While I hate wires, I don't feel exactly like to buy/charge batteries now and then, especially if it's severeal controllers. And if it dies during a multiplayer fragfest, but then you can make it warn about the battery level somehow.

Re:Wireless controller?

[Ayaress]

Battery warnings don't always help. Some brands of battery (the ones that are advertised to hold near their maximum voltage longer) die pretty quickly. My TI-86 will run for months on one set of evereadies (been running since around this time last year on one set, with pretty heavy use), but it rolls over and dies within hours of its first low battery warning.

I'd like to see a wireless controller that has a "dock" and a rechargeable battery. When you're not playing, just set it in the dock and let it recharge. Even then, I've been known to put in game-a-thons that will outlast an army of energizer bunnies.

Re:Wireless controller?

[Anonymous Coward]

That, or it has a cord connector on the bottom.

Re:Wireless controller?

[drjenk]

I am 99% sure of this. I was contacted by MS about a contract job opportunity in test engineering for xbox testing of "RF peripherals", and they also mentioned the next xbox will wirelessly network to your home lan. A friend of mine working as test engineer over there is the one that clued me in to the opening, which is all about RF testing. He mentioned they were in "panic mode" in trying to make the end of the year release, apparently there was still quite a bit of testing to get done. I have no doubt they will though, MS will not lose, they have too much money to throw at winning.

Two words - Blu Ray

[GreatDrok]

I think MS is in an unfortunate position if they want to grab the HD high ground as their XBox2 is supposed to only have a DVD drive. While it is conceivable that they will push more of their WMV9 HD DVDs for this platform I would say it is much more likely that there will be significant HD movies on the Blu Ray discs that the PS3 is going to use. More to the point, the extra capacity of the discs will give PS3 developers more room to do some great things. The more I look the more the XBox2 looks like the Dreamcast of this next generation. The DC had a CD-ROM drive whereas the competition have DVD drives. The DC came out too early and the game developers couldn't justify working just on that platform so games didn't really shine compared with those for the PlayStation. It doesn't bode well for Microsoft. They really should wait until HD-DVD is ready and go with that but of course then they lose their six month (at best) head start on Sony. Without an HD video format the XBox2 is going to look old hat before its packaging is cold....

Re:Two words - Blu Ray

[AvitarX]

I actually think that prior to its death the DC games did shine.

Look at Soul Caliber or Shenmue or even Shenmue 2. The DC had some nice looking racing games also.

I do think that having a CD was a huge minus for the DC, but the games on it were spectacular compared to the competition (early on especialy).

Re:Two words - Blu Ray

[Suddenly_Dead]

Many Playstation 2 games use a pretty large amount of the space on their DVDs for annoying cinematic FMV files. Audio/video/image compression is improving as well, and with the more powerful processor the Xbox 2 could save space that way.

The only super valid point you have there is over the standalone movie playing, but people with high-end TVs generally don't use the current generation consoles to play movies anyways.

Re:Two words - Blu Ray

[__aailob1448]

The dreamcast used proprietary GD-Roms with 1Gb capacity actually. Lot of good it did them...it was the easiest to pirate for. Other than that, I agree with you. I think people tend to forget how significant the PS3 BluRay drive is. Not so much because of the storage capacity (it's not needed for games) but because of the ability to play BluRay movies.

Re:Two words - Blu Ray

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people with HD sets are going to be watching movies on their PS3s?

PS2 got a leg-up as being a cheap DVD player as a bonus, that much is true. But this isn't an equivalent situation. HD-DVD/Blu-ray movies won't do anyone with a normal TV any good, and I doubt anyone buying an HDTV is going to balk at getting a proper HD-DVD player.

And in all liklihood, the PS3 is also going to have to ship before a true HD disc format is decided on, so what it will have isn't guaranteed to be a significant benefit. If the blu-ray wins out, they could deliver the bullet-point.

But if MS's HD-DVD format wins, the PS-3 gets no added benefit from including the more expensive tech.

The way I see it....

[flawedgeek]

I think Microsoft is trying to be the first to market to capture the people who wanna be the first on their block with one. Even if it is indeed mediocre (probably not, but hey, I saw a pig fly today), us american capitalist consumers tend to like having the newest, the best, and the most expensive stuff when compared to our neighbors.

Shotting Themselves on the Foot

[AztecL0B0]

Xbox has great momentum right now,(I am Nintendo type of guy), but this would be shooting themselves on the foot. The XBOX has been out for 4 years by Nov. Every successful console has lasted 6+ years on the market.

NES:1984-1993
SNES:1991-1998
Genesis:1988-1997
PS1: 1994-2000 (Still has new games made for it)
PS2: 2000-2006* Expected


This is a grave mistake, but I am happy because this will bring the console war only to Sony's and Nintendo's door. Microsoft does not see that with the DS and PSP out, consumers will be split on what to buy and this will cannabilize their sales.

The XBox Advantage

[63N1U5]

The Xbox already has an edge on PS2 with Xbox live, which brings consistency and reliability to online play. Xbox Live is simply better than online play on the PS2. Plus, I'd much rather pay one Xbox live subscription than one for each game that I own, or suffer through inconsistant servers that some game publishers provide for online play. Online play is generally the reason that I buy games instead of renting, playing through them and sending them back. Quality online play is what will sell more games, IMO, and we all know that is where the money is made.
If Microsoft can deliver on some of the promises that it has made, they will position themselves as an even stronger opponent to Sony. A few things come to mind:
Longhorn Live? If a PC gamer can play online against an Xbox gamer, that is a huge feather in the Xbox cap (not to mention a few extra bucks for live subscriptions) when MS gets Longhorn released in '06.
Backwards compatibility. Since they will hit the market first, having a large catalog of original Xbox games to play will help potential buyers become actual buyers (not unlike the PS2).
Ease of use for developers.. The PS2 is notoriously hard to code for. With the Xbox, MS created a developer friendly development environment, which most likely will not radically change for Xbox2. The PS3 on the other hand, is already lagging in this area and stands to be radically different in architecture from the PS2.
Let's not forget that Sony has always overpromised and underdelivered on their claims of processing power and graphics. The Xbox took mostly off the shelf components and created a console with graphics that look better and move faster than PS2 (when comparing the same game on both - IMO). I owned both and my PS2 spent alot of time collecting dust until I sold it (very cheap I might add).

Re:The XBox Advantage

[Reignking]

So if the PC user can play the XBox user, the games would have to identical (or close to it) to be fair and consistent. What incentive would the PC owner have to buy the XBox then? (I surely don't know -- I've never bought one. PC is ok with me).

Re:The XBox Advantage

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of people who play videogames do not do so on xbox live.

The vast majority of people who own xboxes, do not play on xbox live.

Xbox live is an expensive, difficult venture, and it has been costing microsoft money left and right.

Online play is a drain on a company, not a plus.

Re:The XBox Advantage

[DeadScreenSky]

Probably the best reason would be the better graphics on the Xbox2 (combined with its cheaper price - less than a heavy PC upgrade). I don't see it happening personally (too much cheating on the PC), but I guess it is possible.

Re:The XBox Advantage

[Anonymous Coward]

xbox live is NOT better than PS2 online... mainly cause you DO NOT have to pay for individual games... they are all FREE except for one game. and yeah, i only buy online games except for the occasional great offline hit.

but hey, if you want to pay a monopolist to play online... be my guest - fool.

Re:The XBox Advantage

[Datamonstar]

Cheating isnt a fair comparison here, because cheating represnts the software, not the hardware. X box is just as hackable as a PC, and I'm sure that it's possible to cheat on it as well.

Re:The XBox Advantage

[2bluemike]

Remember the advantage Xbox has is that it IS a PC... which means/meant that PC game developers could develop for it with just a small hop instead of a giant leap. The PS2 is an intense graphics-based embedded system - completely 100% optimized for 1 thing - games.

The next generation is using dual-core (multi-core) PowerPC chips - THIS IS NOT A PC! Microsoft made a huge decision to go against the PC/x86 architecture for Xbox 2, which means they will not have this advantage in the next round. IMHO, M$ and Sorny are on a level playing field as far as complexity goes - it will boil down to who can provide better tools.

Re:The XBox Advantage

[DeadScreenSky]

You can cheat with hardware mods on the Xbox. But if you have a hardware mod you can't get access to Xbox Live (they can detect it since it is a fairly uniform platform). So that basically does eliminate cheating.

You certainly have people exploiting existing glitches in some Xbox Live games (which hopefully are patched, like Bungie is doing with Halo 2 this Monday), but you simply can't get the aimbots, speed hacks, map hacks, etc. you find in even the most popular PC online games. There's no way to implement them on a stock Xbox. I find it hard to believe Xbox360 will be any different. In this case the hardware does essentially prevent cheating. This is widely stated as a reason why some people (like myself) generally prefer playing online games nowadays on Xbox rather than the PC. It's a huge console advantage ("trusted computing" might bring similar benefits to the PC, but is it worth it?).

I should also note these exploitable glitches usually seem pretty rare. None of the Xbox Live
games I play regularly (lately Phantom Dust and DOA2U) have any major ones that I have encountered.

(As an aside, the PS2 does have rampart online cheating - hardware needs to be well-designed to offer this advantage.)

Backwards? Who cares..

[Taulin]

Who cares if the XBox2 is backwards compatible if I can't transfer my game saves to the new system. There are many games (mostly by Tecmo) that don't allow memory card saves.

The Alpha and the Omega

[vain gloria]

Not sure about the cash grab idea since these things will be selling at a loss like all consoles do. I could see that by going so early they give themselves a chance to fuck up royally and still get another shot with X-Box 3 on the market during the next generation. As long as they believe it will profit them in the long run Microsoft can throw money at the console market until they own it.

I hope...

[code6idiot]

I just hope that they stock enough to sell 3 million, just so when people refuse to pay $300 for a new system. they go into debt.

Re:I hope...

[angle_slam]

3 million units at $300 is $900 million. Considering MS has over $40 Billion in cash, they aren't going to be in debt any time soon.

Re:I hope...

[code6idiot]

But, they'd lose money.

Developer's kits will win this battle

[Datamonstar]

The idea that a development kit for a console should be done like a PC game development kit was a radical idea upon X-box's entry upon the industry. It just wasn't done like that, and yes, Eastern culture's infuence had something to do with this fact. SDK's were made to accomodate the hardware, not the developer's. In the end, no matter how complicated a development kit is developers who are familliar with it and talented enough to use it as the tool for the proper task will create great work with it.
Of course, this also means that developer's who become too familir with it so as to produce work without having to put much effort into it may do this instead. So developer's kits are only a small piece of the picture.
The developer's themselves and liscencing strategies will make or break these systems. With this consoles this has largely been the case for forever. A new development process will not deter a good development house from creating good titles. A bad development process, however, may corner the entire industry into a pattern of handling certain features in games only one way. It isn't nesscarily bad for the company, but it would likely bad for the industry.
I just hope that there are development houses out there that will dedicate themsleves and take time making launch games so that they can learn the subtle differences in the systems. The games will take longer to make, which is a bad thing in the games industry, but the games will be better. I'm tired of seeing developers do easy things that get them a lot of oohs and ahs and credit for a little bit of nothing. Developers: make better games!!! Use your tools to the fullest.

Prediction...

[bergeron76]

It'll be portable (ala PSP); it'll have a home docking station (ala desktop PC) and it'll probably have a "car" docking station for playing video's, mp3s, etc.

You just wait...

idunno

[drjenk]

The games lineup at launch is going to determine how many units sell, not the hardware specs. I wonder if they will reveal that on mtv may 12. I would imagine they would.

they better get building

[drjenk]

It takes at least a few months to ramp up to that capacity, so by my calculation they better be within a couple months of release to manufacturing to make those numbers. They have to start building well in advance.

More market share and huge financial loss

[lordperditor]

MS do not need to care about profit, they just want to increase their share in this sector. It is a foregone conclusion the XBox2 will be a huge financial loss for MS. The big question is will their rush to market get them a big slice of the pie or will people wait to see the other offerings leaving the XBox 2 cluttering up store shelves and fan boys living rooms.

Trackballs rock!

[wikthemighty]

Years ago, after hurting my wrist/hand playing Magic Carpet II (had been playing it solid for a couple of days) I switched to a trackball.

Since then I've played every computer game, FPS or not with a trackball, and I'd have to say it works great. However, I've got a Logitech Mouseman Marble with the large mouse ball you can actually grab with thumb and opposing fingers, so fine movements are easy.

Humm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't it Zonk who attended the game developer confrence, and was at Microsoft's keynote address, where they gave away 1000 Samsung HDTVs?

Wait a minute, I think he was!

It's not all about the hardware...

[guaigean]

People seem to forget that Microsoft makes money on more than just putting out XBOX2's. They also take ina significant amount on licensing, etc, where they are paid for games designed on their systems. They take home a decent chunk of change for every game developed. Even if they take a HUGE loss on the XBOX2 hardware, they'll make it back in dev fees and royalty style licensing.