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. "

Comments

The biggest difference is

[antifoidulus]

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.

Re:The biggest difference is

[Have Blue]

Considering that they kicked their most experienced competitor out of that "very distant and very sloppy second", I'd say they did pretty well. Also, you're not accounting for games that tanked (of which MGS financed more than a few) and investments in the Xbox Live infrastructure.

This is how MS has always worked- the first version sucks and loses a ton of money (the Xbox somehow dodged the former), but they do learn from their mistakes when they're actually forced to compete with someone.

Re:The biggest difference is

[Svartalf]

Define kicked...

When you start looking at what Nintendo did with the GameCube, you start realizing that it wasn't that Microsoft kicked them out of the second place slot, it's Nintendo failed to execute sufficiently to keep the second place slot.

If they'd designed the GameCube a little differently, say with a DVD drive in it instead of their cutesy discs...
If they'd not gunned for the kiddie games company role (which has always been a failing of Nintendo...)...

If either or both of them happened differently, X-Box would have most likely ended up third. Even then, Microsoft didn't
really kick them, they out bought them. Like the grandparent poster indicated- they basically GAVE the X-Box away, spending more than either of the other two players, just to get that second place. Imagine what would have happened if Sony had seriously opted for that play- Sony's a MUCH bigger company with even deeper pockets.

Re:The biggest difference is

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo never had an unprofitable quarter this generation. When your competitors are losing $4 billion and you're making money, it doesn't matter how much they outsold you by. You won the console race.

#13 Marketing

[the.Ceph]

#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"

Re:Erm...no...

[kubevubin]

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?

Re:Erm...no...

[MBCook]

I've read this article too (I submitted it to /., but I guess he beat me to it).

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.

Dreamcast:

[taxevader]

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!

Submission was retarded

[Liquidrage]

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.

Biased much?

[AndreiK]

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.

dreamcast was "failed" only for non-owners

[ArmorFiend]

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.

Re:dreamcast was "failed" only for non-owners

[Jason Earl]

Here's how you can tell that Dreamcast failed. Instead of making Sega piles of money, it lost Sega piles of money, and it caused them to get out of the console business forever.

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.

Re:dreamcast was "failed" only for non-owners

[despisethesun]

Marketing had little to do with it, I think. It probably had more to do with all the stuff Sega released in the past and then abandoned so quickly. The Sega CD had a short shelf life, the 32X came and went pretty quickly, and in North America Sega dumped the Saturn as soon as it had a little competition. These were all good systems (maybe not the 32X, I never had one so I can't say) but gamers felt like Sega wouldn't support them to the extent they should have, so by the time the Dreamcast came out, the sentiment was "I can buy a Dreamcast now and watch Sega abandon it, or I can wait for a PS2." It was a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy and it was a real shame because the DC had some really great games.

Typical 1Up bullshit.

[PhotoBoy]

"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.

Re:Typical 1Up bullshit.

[Jubii]

How the hell do they know Halo 3 will be huge?

Halo has brand recognition under its belt. You have to look at Halo in the terms of an iPod to understand why, barring some major screw up, it will always be successful.

Halo is to multiplayer FPS's as iPod is to MP3 players. There are a number of similarities when comparing the two. Halo was not the first multiplayer FPS, we've been doing this on PCs for years. In the same way, the iPod was not the first MP3 player out there. In both cases, it was the technically savvy, the geeks, the "true-believers" that actually utilzed what was existing at the time. iPod and Halo brought this stuff to the mainstream masses, in an easy to use, friendly way.

Now they're a part of culture and they "are" the market they belong to. "Do you have an MP3 player?" gets "um.... I have an iPod!?" Same way with Halo... The thing is you know there's better stuff out there, and I know that there's better stuff out there, but the populous either doesn't know or doesn't care. Plus you have to factor in the fact that Halo was a lot of people's first time... and as they say, you always remember your first.

Halo is multiplayer fps, fragging a bunch of the guys on Friday night, the future of gaming, to much of the population out there. Just like it's fun for us to get together and LAN party, it's fun for them to get together and Halo party. That's why the next iteration of Halo will be successful.

about this potential X-Box failure...

[Phil Urich]

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!

Re:about this potential X-Box failure...

[NetRAVEN5000]

"The fact that Microsoft is making so much money in every other area"

What other areas are those? The PDA/cellphone area? No, I gotta say, I think they're losing there. The MP3 player area? No, I gotta say they're losing there, too - even though the majority of MP3 players use MS software, many still don't, and even MS employees agree that the iPod is better. The PC peripheral area? No, I think companies like Logitech and Kensington are still beating them there. The PC gaming area? No, id and Valve have got them beat - and if MS hadn't bought Bungie we'd never be able to make the comparison. Maybe you're talking about Microsoft Press? MS' history is fairly interesting, but I doubt they're making a killing off their books.

Name four areas where MS is "making so much money".

I'll help you out a bit. Let's see - there's the OS area, there's MS Office, there's IE. . . oh, wait, that's free. . . what about OE. . . wait, no, that's free too. . . hmm. . .

And Windows and Office are stolen quite often in other countries. Not to mention the fact that Linux, MacOS, Firefox, and OpenOffice.org are gaining ground. If they ever lose Windows and Office, MS won't last long unless they change their money-spending habits.

Why the 360 may do well - easier piracy

[SuperKendall]

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.

You are full of crap.... but not "literally" (^_^)

[Dogtanian]

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 :)

Bogus, bogus, bogus

[Phantasmo]

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.