Slashdot Mirror
XBOX 360=Dreamcast 2.0?
Tenken writes "1UP has an eye opening article on the many similarities between the XBOX 360 and the Dreamcast. It's actually pretty scary, case in point: both consoles launched a year before their major competitors, and even their logos are incredibly similar. The article also goes on to mention why the 360 will not fail miserably like the Dreamcast. "
that Microsoft is not coming off an abysmal failure of a console, it's coming from a console that did relatively well. It seems a lot of people were just so tired of Sega constantly releasing overpriced hardware(eg 32x, Genesis CD, Sega Saturn) with a very limited software selection that they just gave up on Sega and wouldn't even give the Dreamcast a try. Of course Sony's overhyped PS2 announcement didn't help either, but I don't think that was the main cause of the demise of the dreamcast. Microsoft(in the realm of video games anyway) is coming off a somewhat surprising hit with the XBox, a relatively long lived console with lots of games to choose from. They could still fail, but I don't think it will be for the same reasons the Dreamcast failed.
Monstar L
Because you'd have to be an 8 year old mathematical genius to figure out TFA.
Maybe it's because I'm old [33] or something but that article made little and/or no sense to me on any level.
Idiots.
#13 on the list is "Peter Moore spearheaded the marketing" and most of the actual similarities seem like Marketing aspects of it so I think a better headline would read "How Peter Moore's marketing style resembles Peter Moore's marketing style"
Actually, allow me to explain...
#1 - The Xbox 360 is not launching an entire year before its competition; it's launching 4-8 months before its compeition.
#3 - The Xbox 360 is still bulky.
#12 - How the Hell do they consider a VMU highly customizable? If nothing else, they could've mentioned the fact that you can change a Dreamcast's shell. Then again, you can do that with pretty much any gaming console.
#14 - Dreamcast had a whopping three Bleemcast! discs releases, and maybe one or two Smash Packs (depending on the country).
#15 - I don't recall "Space Channel 5" being too widely anticipated. (I, personally, loved the game, though.)
#18 - These aren't the only two consoles that have headsets...
#19 - Nintendo 64, anyone?
#23 - What?
I don't think the article is meant to be taken seriously. It is part of their "launch coverage" (read: we need to fill time). It is interesting to look at, and some of the coincidences are surprising, but I think it is meant as a laugh.
Either way, when you get to the second page, that is when the article becomes more serious. Many of the 10 reasons the XBox 360 will succeed show why a similarity from the previous page isn't so similar after-all.
An example of this is on the first page, they show both the DC and the 360 have a way to connect to the internet (modem, and ethernet) and tout playing against your friends and such. On the second page, they point out the difference between the modem (yeah, you can use it) and XBox Live (already established, successful, high speed, and there is a good broadband penetration).
This is just one of those "Isn't this interesting" articles, sort of like those things about the similarities between Lincoln and Kennedy. While many of them are kind of eerie, many of the similarities are a stretch and you can see people were just reaching for another connection.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Best. Console. Ever.
If the xbox 360 can have half the amount of original games that the Dreamcast had, I'm getting one.
And yes, even though I hate Microsoft, Sony has become the new Evil. DRM on *everything* seems to be their goal, and the PS3 will be the ultimate foot-in-the door in their quest to lock down all things digital.
Blu-Ray. Just say no!
-Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
Listing fluffy similarities between two systems isn't "pretty scary". It's pretty easy to do when you set your standards for a similarity at such a meaninglessly low level.
OMG!! Both were white systems when the previous generations were black. Noooz!!!
Calling the PS3 "far superior at this point is rediculous. Mentioning "hi-def" when the Dreamcast was released before there was basically any hi-def sets in homes and when the PS3 is also supporting hi-def is moronic.
The article itself was so fluffy I can't believe it made it to the front page. But hey, if you didn't RTFA in this case it only takes aobut 20 seconds and there's lots of little pictures to help you out.
The article mentions that the XBOX 360 controller may be the best console controller ever. I can't see how it's possible. There are some games for which analog sticks are not the apex input device, and the D-pad on that controller looks horrible - it looks like the input on a logitech $9.99 usb controller. As long as the D-pad doesn't have at least a T-bar, instead of the circle of doom, it will never be as good as other controllers for fighting games.
Not to mention, it looks like they've been wishy-washy on what the controller for the left thumb is supposed to be. Is it supposed to be the D-pad, or the analog stick? Ugh. So instead, there's a big blank space where your thumb normally rests, and you have to stress yourself to move to either of the inputs. The buttons look too bubbly to be responsive... I dunno, it just looks like it was designed by marketing people to look slick, and then secondarily to fit the buttons on.
Sorry, but the PSX controller is the best controller ever made. To the point where I use them on my computer with an adapter to play games and emulators. Everything on the ps2 controller feels like it's in exactly the right spot. No controller compares; not the NES, SNES, dreamcast, sega, N-64, gamecube, XBOX, or any controller I've ever used on the computer. I'm not a playstation fanboy (i own a grand total of 3 playstation 2 games, and I didn't buy one of the things until 2 years after it was released), but Sony hit a homerun with that thing.
~Will
sig?
Hmm, I read it, but then put it down in disgust on reason number 7:
D: Had tons of amazing games...but no Halo 3.
X: Will have Halo 3. And it will be huge.
That point being given to the XBox? To put it bluntly, this is biased crap.
Indeed, the people that accuse Dreamcast of being a "failed" system invariably are those that never had a dreamcast! The system rocked, and had eminently fun & groundbreaking games. If, like me, this is what you want from your console, then the Dreamcast was a smashing success (actually its my favorite console of all time). If, on the other hand what you desire from your console is "the same mediocrity that all your friends have", then the PS2 is your man.
I was displeased with the sega saturn, i think that was a turn off for alot of people for the dreamcast. I really enjoyed the dreamcast, i spent countless days playing tony hawk pro skater, sonic, GTA 2, powerstone, Marvel vs capcom etc, when they said they were no longer going to support it, it was very disappointing, the graphics were good, i enjoyed the controler (compared to the N64 which i hated) I think giving up the gamesystem was a mistake for the dreamcast, they finally got one that people actually liked, i guess they couldn't compete with Sony's mega millions
TFA seems to really be picking on the Dreamcast, but I always loved it. Its controller is still my favorite. To this day I use it to play some amazing games via the VGA box, such as Sonic Adventure (the last really great Sonic game), Seaman, or Jet Set Radio.
"DC: Had tons of amazing games...but no Halo 3
X360: Will have Halo 3. And it will be huge."
How the hell do they know Halo 3 will be huge? If it's like the last one it won't be finished and it won't be a patch on the FPS games the PC has been doing for years.
Who the fuck is bribing the whole games industry into giving the Halo franchise such a cock sucking? It's average at best and nothing revolutionary, why everyone hails these games as the second coming I don't know. And before anyone tells me about Halo 2 on Live, it's full of squealing 13 year olds who call everyone gay when they get fragged.
Believe it or not, the gaming business isn't about giving you and your friends fun games to play, it's about making money. That's why it's hard to qualify the XBox as a success. The XBox lost more money than any other console in history. Microsoft has lost billions of dollars on the XBox. Heck, it's still losing money on a quarterly basis as Microsoft readies the 360. If the XBox 360 is as big a financial disaster as the XBox then Microsoft investors are almost certainly going to wonder what they are doing throwing their money down a hole.
Now, I have to slightly disagree with you there. Firstly, was it actually a "disaster"? Is Microsoft in financial troubles because of it? I couldn't claim to have anything near to exact figures, but I'm nonetheless quite sure that the answer is no, it is not in bad financial shape now because of the X-Box. Just because it didn't make money doesn't make Microsoft instantly broke, and investors know that . . .
Now, I'm usually the first to lambast the system for the encouragement of short-term quarterly gains instead of long-term goals, but I think in this case Microsoft (or, since this is slashdot after all, I should say "M$") has been pretty clear with its goals and the investors are on board with it. The fact that Microsoft is making so much money in every other area is exactly why it needs to go into this area even if it means losing a fraction (perhaps a sizable fraction, even) of that profit; there really isn't much room for growth where it is now. Already with a virtual monopoly, what is "M$" left to do? So what if some money is lost in the short term. It's a sacrifice to get a foothold in an industry that is quite difficult to break through into. But the X-Box is a success because it does show a widespread adoption. It was certainly never intended to make money, it was meant to be successful in the "screw the monetary consideration!.....for now" way. And a foothold in the video-game industry gives the Redmondians a stepping stone for access into the vague but promising directions that digital entertainment is always threatening to soar off into.
The company has grown, and growth is nearly synonymous with success. The profit part can come later. If Microsoft had less of a seriously impressive disposable income, then it would be another story, but the company has the luxury of such (relatively) grand planning.
Naturally, if anyone has facts to back up my arguement (or alternatively, to dismantle it) please do elaborate!
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Because we're talking about Microsoft here? Remember Windows 1.0?
The Xbox isn't yet supposed to make money. It's supposed to extend Microsoft's market. Then, it's supposed to make money.
You don't see how the market works. I've worked in it.
When you buy a console, yes, it's a one-time loss for MS. But they gain one more tick in market penetration numbers. So instead of going to EA and saying "There's a million Xboxes out there" they can say "There's a million in one". Now, add that tick with all the others, and you have a signficant increase. They can then charge MORE on licensing fees (which is based on total market) and easily make up the one-time loss, and then some.
The formula for console success is:
First party titles x (licensing fees x installed base) - hardware loss
The first two more than make up for the third.
One interesting aspect of the 360 that may help it fare well is with a DVD drive instead of a newer drive like HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, piracy will be simpler - so more peeople may actually buy the console for that reason. Even pirates end up buying some games so it might help it out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Microsoft literally gave the Xbox away.
:)
Microsoft did not literally give the Xbox away. When we say stuff like "Microsoft gave the Xbox away", we accept some slight exaggeration being used to make a point.
I can't see any justification for throwing "literally" in there, unless you actually meant "literally". Or perhaps you didn't mean "literally" literally. But I doubt it...
Please don't tell me you were actually referring to Microsoft giving a few of the things away in promotions; we know that's not what you meant
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
They are basically only the second company every to succede at that, Sony being the first. After the NES got popular and gaming was revitalized, it was basically a Nintendo-Sega hegemony. Sure there were other consoles, lots of them, but they were all tiny. The PC Engine (TG16), Neo Geo, 3DO, Jaguar, all did just peanuts for business. There was Nintendo on top, Sega with a slowly but surely slipping second place and then maybe someone is a waaaaay distant third.
Sony was the first company to ever smash in to that and survive. Now they did it at an extremely good time too. Sega's downward slide was in full force with the disaster that was the Saturn. Nintendo pissed off some developers with the announcement that the N64 was cart based (Square essentially told Nintendo FF7 WOULD be on a CD, on the N64 or not) and also miscalculated the kid gamer market, forgetting that many of the kids who had NES's were now older teens or young adults. In to that gap, Sony stepped successfully, the first major player other than Nintendo and Sega since, well, Atari.
Microsoft didn't have nearly so easy an environment to try and compete in. Sony's second gen system was out and people liked it, between Nintendo and Sony there was a selection of games for everyone. For all that, they managed to do it and well enough to edge out Nintendo in market share, and they are now comming back for round 2.
I certianly don't think Microsoft has a lock on the gaming market and the 360 may well prove to be less than they hoped, but to try and write it off because the X-box was costly is silly. Of COURSE it was costly, they were trying to bash in to a market that's extremely hard to get in to. They were also smart enough to know you either go all in or you forget it. To try and just poke at the edges, even if your stuff is superior, and sell an expensive console is doomed to failure.
This is even more true these days in the era of the computer GPU. Time was, consoles were it for high-end graphics. You could spend all the money you liked on a computer, the top dog console would still whack it. No longer the case. At best, a first flight console is as good as new accelerators (the 360 should be roughly on par with upper ATi X1000 and nVidia 7000 series accelerators) and it doesn't take long for comptuers to pull ahead. So those with tons of free cash and the need for the best will go with computer gaming, and not spend tons of money on your specality console.
1. Nintendo is the most profitable of the big three, despite having the smallest share.
2. One of the reasons that the Gamecube is so dang affordable ($90 retail here in Canada) is because they left out the ability to play DVDs. Those licenses cost money.
3. The "kiddie" market is extremely lucrative, and Nintendo dominates it. Kids harass their parents constantly about toys. Parents have money. Teenagers and college students don't. Did you ever wonder why 90% of your friends' XBoxes and PS2s are modded?
4. If "Clueless Dad" walks into Wal-Mart looking for a console for his kids, he'll find that the cheapest one has about 200 E-rated games. On top of that, "Clueful Dad" will probably know that this cheap console is so durable that his kids will have to work really, really hard to wreck it before the next generation comes out.
5. Were the 'cutesy discs' really a problem? I can only think of a handful of games that needed to span two discs.
I think that Nintendo is working to convert a bit of its "kiddie" image to a "casual" image. The fact of the matter is, Gates didn't get into the console business because of Sony. He did it because he heard Nintendo had these insane 20% profit margins. Now he cries himself to sleep every night because Nintendo still has 20% profit margins and he's losing a mint.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
If the PS3 can promise immersion and variety, then I'm there. It'll be an easy call. I'm already going to get an XBox 360 because PS3 missed the boat by not having an online service.
I don't see it as missing a boat at all. I see it as not needing to spend $10 (or whatever the cost is now) a month for the rest of my life just to play online games... there are a number of PS2 games with online play too; it's just up to the companies to provide the servers instead of Sony. It's that they've chosen a whole different boat to be on.
Personally I like that approach a lot more since I only irregularily play online games now and have come to detest any form of recurring payment. I do realize the benefits of having a centralized service such as comprehensive buddy lists and invites that can appear while you're in the middle of some other game... but I just don't need it, and sometimes I wonder how many other people really do.
I also see the scary things that can happen like your XBox being forever denied entry to Live if it's hacked. To me it does not seem desireable that a company that makes a thing I buy should so easily be able to remove such a degree of value so easily.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sega probably did fail because of marketing. The Christmas season of 2000 was where they totally failed. PS2 had been anounced, but wasn't available. Dreamcasts were plentiful and had tons of great games (Soul Calibur on Dreamcast is still better than PS2 versions). But Sega didn't market it. There were no commercials on TV for it. They didn't tout it as an alternative to waiting for PS2. So no one bought it. Everyone I know who had a Dreamcast loved the games on it (Sonic Adventure, Soul Calibur, Jet Set Radio, various sports games, Shenmue I and II, Crazy Taxi, Resident Evil: Code Veronica, Skies of Arcadia, Sakura Taisen series, Napple Tale, Vib Ribbon, Space Channel 5, Psychic Force 2012, Rival Schools, Guilty Gear X, and tons more). PS2 didn't get that many good games for it until years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcast
My other first post is car post.
So you are countering an opinion with your opinion. God, what morons! You say the PSX controller is the best so now it must be. Way to put that argument to rest!
People like different things. The XBOX controller to me is by far the most comfortable. The button layout just feels perfect to me. Next comes the PS2 controller. Next, GC controller. So now that I have stated my opinion after yours, I must be right!
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com