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.
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.
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.