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. "
I love my Dreamcast. I still play it daily (used the HD output for years to my projectors). Never owned a PSx. I still have (younger) friends who knock on my door all the time to get their Dreamcast fix.
I also couldn't give up my Intellivision for a Nintendo for 2 years (Metroid finally did it). Graphics hype wasn't enough. My friends with Nintendo came to my house for all-night Intellivision gaming. Playability was tops. I still have my Intellivision for a few games. Love that controller.
I can't see picking up an X360 for gaming. I own 2 X-Box consoles, 90% for my Media Center Extenders, 10% for my broad's vampire games. Since back in the day, my gaming was PC gaming. Castlevania and Conan, Ultima, Utopia, etc.
Console gaming for me was never about video hype. I love repeated playability with longevity, and catchy music/sounds. Graphics have always been better on my PC, but I turn them to the lowest settings. We're getting really close to "Life" rather than "Life-like" and when we get there, I'll put graphics near the top once I can truly be reality immersed.
There aren't many gamers like me, I think. I'm not a market. I spend a TON on hardware, very little on software. I'd love to find a group/site I can communicate with, consisting of people with similar gaming issues.
Chu Chu Rocket, anyone?
I've already read this article, and I don't feel that many of those "similarities" are even relevant. After all, couldn't much of the same be said of other consoles?
The Saturn was a winner in Japan. It was Sega of America that fucked things up in the US by not releasing the good games and as a result Sega cleaned house after the Saturn.
And the 32x was Japan but in the US. It was another US Sega fuck up.
MegaDrive through Saturn were great systems to own, just not in the US.
The Dreamcast died due to being half a generation behind Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. They were the odd man out and not strong enough to pull that off.
They saved the real reason it would succeed until the end. Piles and piles of cash. M$ would all but give the console away to make sure that it succeeded and that is the reason it will do well. People will have $10 worth of anything that is free.
Perhaps the rest of the PC industry could counter this rise of the console by designing a standard PC spec for gaming. First create a few simple categories. I suggest "PC Gaming Machine 2005 Level 1, 2 and 3". In each category spec out three of four machines (eg one amd with a nvidia, one intel with nvidia, etc) built with decent components. Level 1 machines have top of the range components, level 2 is where most people will be, level 3 is entry gaming. The games publishers could just test their game against these machines specs and get a tick in the "PC Gaming Machine 2005 Level 2 Compatible" (or whatever) box.
Simple, understandable and doesn't need to cost the Earth.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Check out this composite:a st3606rp.png
http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/303/superfamic
For those who read TFA... did you notice that the Time Magazine shown in #10 has Bill Gates behind the 360 resembling the all-famous Borg image? *shudder*
In any case, I'd rather have bill gates selling a famous videogame console rather than forcing a crappy operating system down our throats.
So, if one of the biggest problems faced by the original Dreamcast was that is was ahead of its time for some of its features like online play, then I'd say the timing for the 360 is just about perfect!
Sega is a failed console manufacturer. I suppose that would matter if they'd released the system only to have no games for it, like, say, the 32x. But with Dreamcast apperantly they only had money to either (A) Make Great Games or (B) Market it properly. They chose (A), and that's why you don't see DC owners complaining it is a "failed system".
Marketing ?
and deeper pockets.
---
There's also a big difference between DreamCast and Microsoft's consoles :
- DreamCast : runs home brewed software out-of-the-box (although on CD-R and not on GD-ROM).
Some free developpement kits where available for it (KallistiOS)
Some were even blessed by Sega (some *BSD)
- Xbox 1 : DRM filled shit. You must put Mod-Chip inside or exploit bugs to be able to do whatever you want to do with a piece of hardware you paid for.
Microsoft has even tried to stop this, either suing Lik-Sang for providing mod-chips, or trying to lock user with software exploits out of XBox Live.
Developpement has only been possible on the XBox because it is basically a repackaged PC architecture and because the Windows based software is filled with bugs. Developpers have asked to be provided keys to sign software for unmodded X-Boxes but no answers from Microsoft
- Xbox 360 will surely have even more DRM barriers against homebrewer. And isn't PC architecture anymore
---
BTW: DreamCast is not *powered* on Windows CE, but *compatible* with Windows CE. (according to the sticker).
In fact, most of the commercial games are designed using Katana (Sega's own proprietary system),
and most homebrewed software us KallistiOS.
XBOX runs a modified Windows 2k and Microsoft is putting a great deal of efforts to be sure that nothing else runs on it.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
This time around, it feels like the market is a little smarter and not as willing to believe the bullshit. I may be completely wrong about this but that's how it seems. MS will roll out early with a brute force style product, I expect Sony and Nintendo to roll out with products that take much less loss on their initial sales. If there continues to be any parity in the market, and there has been, then they will all be fairly similar in terms of technical specs and it'll come down to the few key titles moving things and then whoever comes up with the next big thing.
The other thing, Sony may have a slight hardware disadavantage in the current market between PS2 and Xbox (tech specs doesn't matter that much though... they are all still pretty close, all things being equal) but they were ambitious, when I bought the PS2, I knew I was going to get a DVD player if nothing else and at that time DVD players were like $150 so I throw in some extra money and I can play games too and I can play ps1 games that block buster sold for $5 a pop. PS3 is doing that with HD and Blu-Ray DVD, ps2 compatibility for my 30-40 games. What's xbox360 doing that with? I don't even know that it will play all of my xbox games, it looks pretty clear that it won't be a DVD player. They're going early but they aren't raising the level, it's just an upgrade and I also think that the technical architecture is going to make it difficult to be manufactured at a break even cost; the big piece where the cost is is a triple core expensive CPU and I think Sony's loss poing will be an early to market bluray and those things historically drop in cost a ton and I just expect a consumer company like Sony to put a lot more thought in to the cost of the CPU so I expect it to be easier to cost reduce than the xbox's will be.
I'm just speculating here but PS3 will either have to be dramatically better looking than the competition or it will be costing the same when it ships so if they can break even faster than MS can, can't they just start rolling with the greatest hits and platinum hits and catch up pretty quickly with cost reduced games since the hardware will pay for itself? That means MS will have to make some really really good games to captialize on this lead, doesn't it?
it's just that their marketing sucked, lots. They had the best looking games in existence. Games that look so good there was no comparison. Games that looked so good that only 5th gen ps2 games (and very few of those) compare. So why the fsck didn't they show them off? Instead, we got dumb ass 'It's thinking' commercials with Sonic all 'jammin' to the xtreme!!!' with the NBA. wtf?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What makes you think the Dreamcast failed because of marketing?
I knew about it. I bought consoles. Heck, I bought an Atari Jaguar - AND the CD unit! It wasn't like I made my choices based on popularity.
But I just wasn't interested in the Dreamcast, because while it had some good games it did not have (in my mind) a lot. And the other problem was that for a brand new system, it seemed underpowered. To a lot of gamers that was a point in time where the increase in graphics meant more than they do now. To me the Dreamcast languished because of being slightly underpowered and a trickle of games I cared about.
In that respect I do think the 360 has some things in common. Not exactly in the graphics where it appears to be about equal, but more in storage with the space-limiting DVD meaning games with wider ranges of graphic content will be released on the PS3. And there just aren't enough interesting games lined up for release yet (the ones that are actually releasing anyway) to make me want to buy the system now, or seemingly even in six months.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Xbox 360 would be Dreamcast 3.0.
Back when Dreamcast was starting up, MS offered up their Windows CE as a platform to Sega as the DC OS. It came in late, so the first games didn't use it. But Sega was pressing their developers to use it, and MS was helping out a lot. Japanese DCs came with the text "designed for Windows CE" on the front.
But something happened, Sega got word MS was doing all this because they were working on a gaming machine of their own, a "super Dreamcast". And MS was offering up CE so that when MS' box came out they would have a lineup of games ready to go, or at least easy to port. It would give them a huge legup on all the other competitors in the video game market (including Sega).
So Sega immediately told their developers not to use Windows CE. Only one game came out with Windows CE, Sega Rally (the browser also used CE). And US Dreamcasts say "compatible with Windows CE" on the front.
And not too long after, MS released their machine with a controller which was very similar to the DC controller. Same basic layout, with two additional buttons and the hole in the top for the memory unit display covered (Sega had moved away from the memory cards with displays by that time too).
So, Xbox really was a super Dreamcast, or a Dreamcast 2.0 if you wish.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The Dreamcast was a financial failure and caused Sega to get out of the hardware business. Sorry.
Were some of the games very good? Oh hell yes. I played the shit out of Phantasy Star Online 1/2 (before cheaters ruined it), Soul Calibur, Skies of Arcadia, and Jet Set Radio. Uh, that was about it though.
Being mad at Sony for having better sales and in the end a much better game selection just proves you're a fanboy. That "mediocrity" comment will provide me with a chuckle or two when I'm playing Shadow of the Collosus, Devil May Cry 3, Ico (for the 10th time), Metal Gear Solid 3, Fatal Frame 1/2, Silent Hill 2/3/4, God of War, Ace Combat 4/5, etc. etc.
I own one and while I don't think it is too kiddie, they DID lend that impression with the GC earlier on because there really wasn't a lot of adult/mature appealing titles out for it when it shipped, unlike the PS2 and X-Box.
What was available in the "M" category at the first release date?
Eternal Darkness, I think was mostly it (And a damned good game at that...). Most of the rest of the titles were kiddie style games and a couple of things like Madden Football, etc. There were follow on titles of the "cool" variety like Eternal Darkness, but the damage of the impression was done by how many kiddie type titles were available for the GC versus the more adult ones.
Nintendo missed the boat on this round of consoles; the titles they'd lined up at release colored the impressions of the console and made it a little less appealing to other studios to make titles for- the impression was that Nintendo was placing the market for the GC with the younger audiences. Basically, Nintendo was still marketing to and planning for the younger crowd where they used to make their money, when they should have been catering initially to a broader audience with the rollout of the GC. When the X-Box came out, they had an edge, but they lost it fairly quickly because MS could out-spend them and managed to score enough X-Box Only titles (such as Shenmue, etc...) that they lost that edge. Right now, I wouldn't count them out yet- they've still got at least one iteration of consoles to go before they're in trouble and I think they might have learned something from the oopses done with the GC's marketing and sales efforts (which they DID do...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It's easy to say the Xbox failed due to the fact that it lost money. However, it's hard to find a 10-year old nowadays who doesn't know Halo. They might also know GTA, but Halo has much less controversy surrounding it and is more likely to hit that critical pre-teen bracket where product preference is formed. Plus most of those 10 year olds can't play GTA anyways. Think about it from a marketing standpoint. Perhaps PS2 sold more systems and games, but which system has the movies being made about it's game characters? Even Nintendo's attempts to capitalize on Mario failed. Doom and Halo both are available for the Xbox exclusively and are (going to be) major motion pictures, even though Sony owns it's own motion picture studio. So even though Microsoft may have lost the financial fight, they probably at least are neck and neck, if not ahead, in the product recognition race. And that's what Microsoft does best - market to the masses. That's why Windows is more prevalent than CP/M, why Office is more prevalent that Lotus, and why the Xbox is helping them win over the next generation of geeks to walk the world.
I think Microsoft and Sony both realize that the average age of gamers is not in the teens, but more in the twenties and will likely increase as time goes by. Just like the movies industry where there are movies for adults and for children, I think the games industry will need to fulfill both markets.
Can you please name some of these adult-oriented games? I mean, seriously, name some games that have a storyline (not just a theme) that an intelligent, educated adult would actually find engaging. Or hell, name some with puzzles that are more challenging than "put gold key in gold lock" or "push box onto switch to hold it down."
There aren't very many. For any system.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Cycles in consoles exist because the older consoles and games have to be sufficiently out of date to allow a new consoles onto the market. The games have to appear dated and the game play outmoded compared to expectations as to what should availalable. Microsofts failure to date has forced them to jump early, basically a blind leap and they already showing expectations of failure. Fake sold out marketing campaign and claims they don't want to sell to many consoles are both indications of the Sony has picked the right renewal cycle and microsoft know it.
Sony will have a more powerfull console coming at the right time, not a year to early at a time when the majority market is not yet ready to dump their previous consoles for the latest versions. For microsoft the xbox will just be a further drain on revenues and an additional black mark for management with no idea. They only seem capable of exploiting a monopoly with lies and deceit once some else has given it to them, beyond that they have nothing.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Bill Gates I'm sure is perfectly content with his sleeping schedule.
The reason the Xbox exists is so that Sony doesn't dominate the TV platform like Microsoft was able to dominate the PC. The future is in media and communications when it comes to technology. If Bill Gates didn't have windows running on your TV, Sony would jump on the chance to do just that.
Blue Ray, HD DVD, all of these are just a passing ghost as true online delivery takes over. On-Demand is the future, everybody knows it, and what better way to position yourself for the HD future than to get your hardware online and in HD hooked up to potential customer's TVs? In my mind, games are nothing more than a trick to get customers to buy an HD, online media delivery platform.
I can see Bill's tear of joy right now.
Just a quick note
Anyway, I work at MS and even I know the big cash cows are Office and the OS. Sure, some businesses here and there make money (MSN has been profitable recently, thanks to the huge boom in Internet advertising again; MGS has made money occasionally, when there are big releases like Halo 2), but no where does it compare to the "core businesses". It's a bit irritating actually (I work at MGS and sometimes I feel like we get no respect from those in other divisions).
-- jchenx