Slashdot Mirror
Comparing Xbox Launches
IGN is running a piece taking a look at the launch of the Xbox 360, and comparing it to the launch of the original Xbox. From the article: "What we now have is some good old fashioned perspective, and since Sony's PlayStation 3 has yet to launch, what better system to compare the Xbox 360 to than its little brother, the Xbox. Our focus will be the launch of each Microsoft system. Specifically, we'll be answering these questions: How do the games that launched with the Xbox and Xbox 360 compare? What were the big issues surrounding each launch? What worked, what didn't? And which launch was ultimately better?"
I'll pass.
The 360 in all likelihood won't live past 2006. And that will put an end to Microsoft's pipe-dream of owning the living-room through a game console.
The Microsoft of today is nothing like the Microsoft of four to five years ago:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=my
11 billion shares outstanding, declining revenue growth, and flat to declining stock price are not the conditions favorable to another four to five billion dollar console marketplace fiasco.
It is insane that there are still Xbox fans out there who think Microsoft has unlimited billions to throw at the console market.
Right now Microsoft's cash is entirely wrapped up in:
1) Stock buyback/dividens
2) Anti-trust/lawsuit settlement reserves
3) Set aside for more critical market acquisitions, like the recent 80 billion dollar Yahoo offer
We are most likely going to see one or more major departures from the Xbox team soon - "to spend more time with family"
And sometime after the PS3 and Revolutions hit the shelves we are going to see Microsoft pull the plug on the 360.
The 360 still has a couple more months where the illusion of relevance can be kept up, but it is already falling out of the mind of the console consumers as the first PS3 and Revolution games are about to be shown.
was I was able to buy an Xbox at launch vs. the 360. I am beginning to think it was a good thing though with scratched discs, blown out power supplies and over heating issues. Not that I think Sony's Blu-Ray strategy is going to work for them either. I am certain we're not going to see the PS3 this spring in either Japan or America as inevitable delays will push everything back to a fall or winter release.
Just me 2 cents.
The problem when you do a sequel is that you are trying to please the people who liked the original version. Because of this, your target demographic gets older (all the existing customers have gotten older, and you need really a lot of young customers to offset this), this means usually people with more money, but more conservative tastes.
In this sense, a given system is linked to a certain "generation", that largely stays with a system they know. I suspect that the really new games will come out on consoles for younger people, either cheaper or more portable systems.
First, there was a huge shortage of consoles (at least in North America), so you had to either wait outside a store all night or somehow get lucky by knowing when a shipment was going to arrive. Add to this you either have to spend $400 for the "good" console or even more than that to purchase the things that don't come with the Core version. You also need an HD set to really see the graphical improvements. And then you have to pay for Live, which means you're also paying for broadband.
Sorry, but the only people I see enjoying this launch are fanboys (MS fanboys? WTF?), braindead games journalists, and rich idiots who think shiny toys make them "hip" or something.
The 360 doesn't give me a single reason to purchase the system. 3-4 "good" titles in my book doesn't want to make me spend $400 for a box that I know will just sit around and collect dust until the day a game comes out that I won't be able to put down.
The original Xbox had this, Halo. I don't buy consoles to invest in a hopeful future of amazing games.
So they determined that even though the original xbox launch had more selection and better games, the xbox 360 wins because it's technically superior? WTF? Why bother even comparing the two then? I should certainly hope that it's technically superior to the original after 5 years.
If that's their criteria for determining the winner, then all it sounds like is a paid advertisement.
I currently have a xbox, ps2 and gamecube.. but there's no way I'm going to buy either of the new offerings until they are all out and can make an informed decision myself, not from someone _telling me_ what I _should_ buy.
Technically superior?
I just played through Half Life 2 on the original XBox, and it was pretty darn near photorealistic. The game looked fantastic. Many other games on the XBox look great, including Halo 2 and the original Halo. They're already at the point where they look like real life; how much better can graphics really get?
On top of that, even the Playstation II is showing some amazing graphics lately. I've played through some gorgeous games, where the backgrounds were just stunning.
To put this in perspective, I recently tried out a WWII game on the XBox 360 in a Gamestop store, and really, I couldn't see any big difference between that and Half Life II's graphics. It looked pretty much the same to me. I think the only real difference between the two was that the WWII game had clouds of smoke you could run through, which I didn't see too much of in Half Life. But Half Life DID have smoke, so this was probably a game design thing.
Come on, really -- what's the difference? What does the 360 provide that the XBox doesn't already give us? I'd like to know.
If it's just a small step up in graphics quality, what's the big deal?
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Come on, really -- what's the difference? What does the 360 provide that the XBox doesn't already give us? I'd like to know.
I empathize with your comments.. in fact the game I'm playing right now is Half-Life 2.
There's still _alot_ of life left in the current batch of consoles and from my perspective, it seems the biggest reason for both introducing the xbox 360 and the ps3 is to push hi-def, and of course the need to generate profits from the next big console buying frenzy.
At least with the Revolution, Nintendo is trying to do something new and innovative (only the future will tell if they have a winner on their hands).
The difference in value (terms of speed and graphic capabilities) from the PS1 to the PS2 was huge, and much less so to the PS3/360.
This all sounds very similar to the hi-def dvd format war that's looming for the summer. I don't _need_ another format, I don't _want_ to buy the movies all over again that I already own on DVD. It's the electronics manufacturers and movie studios making a push for a new format so they can sell us new hardware and better (read: unbroken) DRM. But yet again, sometimes progress needs to be 'pushed' along.
yeah, I know what the score is, but it saddens me that it has to be this way. Luckily, there's a huge market of used equipment to fall back on. And I'm going to snap up some more PS-IIs (and related games) while they're dirt cheap. I figure, if I have a PS-II and some spares, I can go almost forever on my existing game collection alone.
The way I look at it, games are already "good enough" (read: cartoon quality or better) to be absolutely fun without all the fancy hardware. I'm just going to stock up on everything I can now, cheaply, and in a couple of years, maybe (MAYBE) pick up a next-gen console when they're cheaper and the bugs are worked out (like that one about the XBox 360 scratching disks).
Say, how do you like Half-Life II? I had a blast with it. It has replay value, too -- when you finish it, you can replay any level you want. That's so cool!
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
I think the article's idea of a successful launch is highly questionable. The launch did strictly speaking succeed - they launched a console. I've backed up Microsoft on a lot of decisions they made, particularly the global launch, but I think they made mistakes too.
First of all, I'm noticing an incredible lack of interest in the Core version. It's looking to me as if they should never have made a Core version, particularly not at launch. Launching with only the Premium, using the high price to control demand, and possibly releasing the Core later as a cut down version, would probably have worked better. To be honest, by the time users buy a memory card instead of a hard drive, the cost saving is so minimal as not to be worth having.
Secondly, handling of who got a console when has been a major issue, and particularly the mess with who knows how many XBox 360s being bought just for the purpose of being sold at a massive profit on E-Bay. I think a better solution would have been for Microsoft to handle supply of XBox 360s themselves, until demand dropped down; customers would buy online, or by phone, or by post, and be entered into a single, global queue, with orders handled on a strictly first come first served basis. Resistrict orders to one per household, and you've got a launch that's as good as it gets. Of course, this would really irk the retailers, but I think that's less of an issue in this case.
Discuss.
It also stood a chance of actually happening unlike some stuff like the phantom and other console vaporware wich never had the kinda backing needed to take on Sony.
MS took some intresting decisions. It used existing hardware with minor modifications to simplify and speed up development wich in theory should have made it cheaper but in the end made it a more limited machine with a lot of security flaws (from MS viewpoint) meaning it was hacked to hell and back.
The PS2 continues to be pushed to new heights, the X-box is maxed out. It is kinda sad when a system over 1.5 years older (ps2 early 2000, x-box late 2001) continues to be as powerfull as your new release.
Nonetheless the new kid on the block powered some chances. Despite the fact that none of the current generation seem to include a HD by default it seems that it is going to be an almost essential add-on. Live for better or worse was also a sorta wakeup call especially for Nintendo.
All of the console industry seems to have decided that Japan is THE market. If you don't sell there then you are a failure. It is an odd way to decide a failure because it seems to ignore that if company A sells extremely well in area A then company B is simply going to have less chance since many people do not want 2 consoles. In economic size europe (or everybit of the world that is not japan or north america) is bigger but ofcourse also more expensive to produce for (language barriers, lots of different laws (Sony was "forced" to exchange every PSP even with 1 subpixel error in Holland for instance, something they refused to do in the rest of the world)).
The X-box did okay in america and europe and was considered a failure in Japan. Sales figures are hard to trust but most people seem to have decided that sales wise Sony took the absolute lead with MS and Nintendo fighting for 2nd and 3rd place with Nintendo perhaps being the only one to make a clear profit on their console/software.
The 360 is the first of the new generation wich already shows you one intresting oddity about the console market. The PSP/DS are not counted as consoles. They cost as much as a console PSP is more expensive then a PS2 and the DS is more expensive then a Gamecube and the games retail at the same price as the bigger consoles. Nintendo has certainly proven that you can survive on just handheld sales.
But nevermind, this is game country were normal business rules do not apply. The 360 is in almost every aspect the X-box V2. Although its internal hardware is not a off the shelf as the PC like original it is neither as specialist as the PS3. The exact same thing is happening with the PS3 being claimed to be a bitch to develop for and the 360 being easier. Since we already know the PS2 turned out to haven hidden powers and the x-box was quickly maxed it will be intresting to see what happens this time. Will the 360 continue to get better games, will the PS3 be underused at launch?
What is different is that for the first time in history Europe got a launch before Japan. This might be seen as a snub to the japanese or could be due to the fact that certain european countries like for instance holland have their gift holiday earlier in the month of december (the 5th to be precise) and that japan does not have as strong a tradition of giving expensive presents in december. (or so I am told)
Nonetheless it seems the 360 is yet again not exactly setting Japan alight. The causes could be many but since MS claimed that Japan was an important market they have themselves made it look like the 360 is not the success they hoped for.
In fact even america and europe are not certain yet. Sure they are sold out but so are McClaren F1's. Current sales figures are just to low to decide on success or failure yet. I don't think there is anything artificial about it. Almost every new product has shortages on launch. Just try to buy a new popular car at la
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Oh and you can play an awfull lot of cheap games on a cheaper PC. Remember that shocking article that said there are more female gamers then male in certain age groups? Well they don't play games requiring a SLI setup costing an arm and leg. They play "simpler" flash games on old Dells.
I just don't think it is good for the gaming industry to seperate the PC from other consoles. Yes it is more expensive but if we judge on price how on earth can you compare the PSP with the DS (PSP 2x more expensive).
Especially since so many games nowadays are cross platform INCLUDING the PC.
Oh and as for the common hardware, don't forget that both the PS3 and 360 are available in 2 versions. With and without HD. Oh and the original x-box? Live and not-live versions. Want to play game X? Upgrade hardware. Sure nowhere near the level of a pc (or the cost) but still, not exactly as simple as it used to be.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Even the revolution is getting more storage to support Nintendo's internet shop of old games. Wich I think proves that Nintendo has taken note from x-box live that a networked console can be a good thing.
It will be intresting to see what is going to happen with MMO games. They all seem to require a HD and Sony's biggest MMO's are PC only because of Memory limits on the current consoles.
MMO games have huge draw for game companies. Impossible to pirate and continued income. Blizzards accountant must be having a constant hardon. 4 million subscribers or so? that is 60 million dollars coming in each and every months. Most game companies would drool at reaching that in just single sales. Blizzard gets it each month. Why do you think Sony did a nutter with Star Wars Galaxies (and also dumbed down EQ2)?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Xbox were designed to last 3 years. Sony's Playstation is designed to last 5 years.
Being "technically superior" to the first Xbox is about as low a standard as one can have for console hardware.
The first Xbox was a technological embarrassment that could only come from a company with almost zero embedded hardware experience and billions in money to try to make up for that fact. The fact that the first Xbox:
1) Has been canceled early in its life-span due to the insanely high manufacturing costs of the system
2) And that a system that costs less than half to manufacture and came out a year and a half before is coming out with games that look better, like God of War, Burnout Revenge, etc.
Should finally put to rest any doubt of what a complete piece of shit the first Xbox was. And why so many console developers told Microsoft to go fuck themselves when they were approached to do games for the system.
The 360 is like the first Xbox, only Microsoft no longer has the luxury to lose four to five billion on the project.
At least with the first Xbox a peecee developer could, as it was called, "crap out an Xbox version" of their pc game. But with the retarded limited 10Megs of EDRAM developers have to write custom tile rendering code just to get acceptable AA out of the system. And I won't bother to go into the fucked up memory subsystem the 360 CPU has from IBM slapping an extra core on to one of their existing dual core architectures.
Overall, the Xbox and 360 are roughly the same level technologically. Brute force solutions that come from people who are really only familiar with the outdated x86 desktop peecee graphics world. The problem for Microsoft is they no longer have the luxury of a year and half to cover up their technological incompetence.
I have a hard time believing the 360 won't be axed shortly after the PS3 and Revolution get released in a few months. Microsoft isn't going to wait around for the losses to get into the multi-billions this time around. They've got bigger problems to deal with these days.
I just played through Half Life 2 on the original XBox, and it was pretty darn near photorealistic. The game looked fantastic. Many other games on the XBox look great, including Halo 2 and the original Halo. They're already at the point where they look like real life; how much better can graphics really get?
Answer: a lot better. You think they look like real life now, but two or three years down the line, you'll think today's games look like crap.
How do I know this? Simple: I've been there. Look, I can remember looking at Doom and thinking, this is it, there is no way Quake could possibly be more realistic. And then Quake came out, and it looked like a jerky version of real life itself. Back then.
Look at Half-Life 2 with a critical eye. Compare it to movies or TV, if you find it too difficult to compare a 2D screen with 3D reality itself. Blockiness, jaggy edges, unrealistic motion, flat lighting... it's nowhere near reality. It's nothing like. But your brain is very, very good at error-correction... for as long as it's the best you've seen.
To put this in perspective, I recently tried out a WWII game on the XBox 360 in a Gamestop store, and really, I couldn't see any big difference between that and Half Life II's graphics.
You're comparing a mature XBox title with a first-generation 360 title - one that was written by people who didn't know how to get the best out of the new system.
I think basically you don't understand what "next generation" means. It's not a quantised thing: you don't step up a generation and everything looks so much better and stays looking the same for the next five years. A generation is a period of growth, during which things continue to improve. And next-generation hardware is about enabling the improvement to continue, not about causing that improvement in and of itself. In other words, XBox games look as good as they ever will, but 360 games have a lot of scope for improvement.
And seen PGR3 live, on my HDTV, if I didn't have to stretch (time wise) to get a 360, there's a chance I'd be fired and looking into a career in professional gaming.
A console that flat out comes with wireless controllers sweet, it's not like you didn't have to by those extra and store the wired controllers with every system that came before. The HD is a must, forever killing the PS2 for me. A HD you can take with you to your buddies: So brilliant Guiness is making a beer commercial memorializing it. And the "weekend" version of live is probably all I'd ever need. Guess what, that's free.
You want to game on the cheap, and settle for things, hey, they sell PS2s at Costco, PSOnes, used Dreamcasts. If one wants something a little extravagent, and eminently luxurious, well there's the 360. I'll get one when they're easy to get, unless the PS3 can somehow top it. But man...Halo/Halo 2/all that old xbox goodness with the new candy, and a HD you can take with you. Who cares if you don't get it? Different strokes for different folks. High quality, high convience fun, that costs only a little extra, it's no surprise individuals weight priorities differently.
I feel that the Xbox got off to a better start as noting went very wrong like so meny not working and the like But saying that The 360 should do better cose they now have there foot in the gaming door.Jesas God
On the Xbox, we saw a group of rehashes from existing Dreamcast games, most notably the first appearance of Project Gotham Racing, which was almost identical to the DC's Metropolis Street Racer.
and 1 paragraph later they praise PGR for being the first in a series.
One thing that seems clear is that the Xbox launch had more originality than the Xbox 360. You've got the first titles in several now major franchises, namely PGR and Halo. There was also a wealth of unique titles at the Xbox launch
Make up your mind please.
Xbox 360 didn't just do the same thing, but better graphics. I'm really impressed with the XBL Marketplace, where you can buy a bunch of older or simpler games for really cheap. It's a fantastic idea, it's great for indie developers, and I really hope it catches on.
(Oh and by the way, you may point to the Revolutions ability to download NES games as Microsoft stealing ideas again. I honestly think that the two companies reached a similar conclusion seporately, as the ability to download NES games was only 'rumor' until it was way too late in the 360's dev cycle to add Live Marketplace. And I don't think Revolution will have newer indie games for download, just old ones from their own companies)
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion