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
#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"
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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