The 360's Position in the Next-Gen War

An anonymous reader wrote to mention a great article on the Elite Bastards site looking at the Xbox 360's positioning in the next-gen market. In the first of a three part article series, the author looks at the lessons Microsoft learned from its first hardware outing, and what he feels the company's strategy will be in the near future. From the article: "Clearly my impression of the Xbox 360 is that it is positioned to compete significantly better in the next gen console race than its predecessor. The difference this time around is that although Microsoft will no longer have the decidedly most powerful console, they also won't have the most expensive console, and believe me, they will compete on price. The Xbox 360s media (DVD) and input device (gamepad) are safe choices and the CPU may be merely adequate, but the GPU is quite potent and should go far in keeping Microsoft's box in the same league as Sony's overall despite the disparity in time to market."

Comments

My Take

[American AC in Paris]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the XBox 360 is in for a rough future.

The Launch: Microsoft did a decent job hyping the system, but the launch was, on balance, weak. You had your brief hysteria of $5,000 systems on eBay, but it died down fairly quickly. You had serious supply issues--to the point where it hurt more than helped. You had the whole power supply issue. You had decent games, but no "killer title" that made you want to go out and get it.

Today: The games are still pretty pedestrian--the operative word is "prettier", which will only get you so far. Now that the insanity of the launch period has passed, there isn't much about the XBox 360 that appeals to the average consumer--it's expensive, it has decent games but nothing "must-have", and finally, it's expensive. $350 for the system and $50-60 games is simply too expensive for the casual gamer.

Tomorrow: As Thanksgiving approaches, I'm willing to bet that the 360 hits hard times. Unless they can come up with a bigger hit than Halo, all the chatter is going to be about the Revolution. Nintendo is going to have the luxury of not needing killer games at launch; the new user interface alone will likely drive sales, and if they can put out a few decent games that take advantage of this, they'll be set.

Basically, to your average consumer, there's little reason to get an XBox 360 right now. It's a big enough investment that most people won't consider it as an impulse buy, and it's enough like the last generation of consoles that it won't generate enough interest--again, this is unless they can get a truly must-have game out before, say, September.

The 360's position in the next-gen war is that of the gung-ho kid who vaults out of the trench and bursts ahead of the rest of the charge: he's out front right now and will bask in glory if he can survive--but he's also the first target to come in range.

Or, from another angle: Sony and Microsoft are working hard to field the finest cavalry regiments ever seen on a field of battle. Nintendo is working hard on building a tank.

Re:My Take

[Soporific]

$350 for the system and $50-60 games is simply too expensive for the casual gamer.

What new systems are going to sell below that on launch? And I seem to remember paying upwards of $75 for Sega Genesis games, I don't think $50 or $60 is unreasonable.

~S

Re:My Take

[AuMatar]

Revolution is going to come in around 200.

And I don't remember ANY SNES/Genesis games costing over $60. The vast majority released at $50.

Re:My Take

[Shadow Wrought]

Exactly. The only advantage of the 360, that I can see, is nicer graphics. The games are pretty much the same as anywhere else- except a lot more money. If the PS3 is comparably priced and has better graphics, while the Revolution targets an entirely different demographic with a much lower cost, then the 360 will be the big loser of the Next-Gen war.

I think one of the most interesting things being said, or rather not said, is that the PS3 and Revolution will have to perform at a high level to beat the 360. It seems to be that as long as the one or the other doesn't do something stupid, they will be very successful.

Re:My Take

[Mr.Dippy]

There were games like Strider and Virtual Racer that went for like 70 to 100 dollars depending on how much ram they put into them. But you are right, 98% of the games where $50 or less

Re:My Take

[TubeSteak]

Nintendo is also hoping to pull in Girls with the new interface.

I think they have a very strong opportunity to expand the number of females who are buying and regularly playing console games.

Nintendo needs something like The Sims or some female friendly game that makes good use of the innovative controller. Reaching out to women is how they can really blow-out the X-Box.

Re:My Take

[American AC in Paris]

What new systems are going to sell below that on launch?

NES: $199 ($353)
SMS: $199 ($340)

SNES: $199 ($280)
Genesis: $249 ($388)

Saturn: $399 ($496)
PS1: $299 ($372)
N64: $199 ($241)

DC: $199 ($230)

PS2: $299 ($332)
XBox: $299 ($324)
GC: $199 ($299)

First number is launch price, second is launch price adjusted for inflation (USD in 2005). "Winner" in bold.

The XBox 360 comes in at the high end, price-wise; the "real" system launched at $399, which means that only the Sega Saturn was more expensive at launch, in adjusted dollars.

What this does not show is the relative technological leap between console generations. The leap between the current next-gen and their predecessors is much, much narrower than was the leap between earlier iterations. You don't look at side-by-side screenshots of XBox and XBox 360 games and go, "Holy shit, that's amazing!" like you did when you first saw the SNES...

And I seem to remember paying upwards of $75 for Sega Genesis games, I don't think $50 or $60 is unreasonable.

As I recall, $75 games were the exception, not the rule. Remember, too, that Nintendo won that round--and I'm reasonably certain that their games tended to be less expensive than Sega's games.

Re:My Take

[aardvarkjoe]

And I don't remember ANY SNES/Genesis games costing over $60. The vast majority released at $50.

Well, to be fair, due to inflation, $50 in the SNES era is worth about the same as $60 today, perhaps a little more. So by that measure, the prices haven't really changed. You would do better to compare them to previous-generation games (most of those started at $50, too, so the price goes up by $10.)

I suspect that those who were willing to pay $50 for the latest games a year ago will be willing to pay $60 now. Those of us who are more money-conscious aren't paying fifty dollars for a game anyway; we wait a year for them to drop to twenty.

Re:My Take

[Golias]

Buckle up and get ready for it.

All the X-Box titles were $50 and under too, but most of the 360 games are $60. It's the direction the entire market is moving at the moment. It's a safe bet that new titles for the Revolution will retail around that price as well.

The console itself will be cheaper, but then it should be. No HD == no place in my living room. Maybe the rec room, though. $200 is reasonable for a second game system, if it has a lot of cool games available.

Then again, once I have a PS3 or 360, I'll probably eventually be putting my old X-Box down there (and getting about as good of graphics as the Revolution appears to be touting, with a bigger library of available games, at least at first.)

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it the direction that the entire market is moving to? So far only one console manufacturer has increased prices. PS2 games from Sony have actually gotten cheaper over time (they used to debut at $50 and now are starting at $40).

Perhaps most surprising is that the most talked about 360 game lately is Geometry Wars and that's not even near $60. Just because a few publishers want $60 doesn't mean that the market is moving in that direction.

Re:My Take

[American AC in Paris]

Fanboy? Until I got a DS--my only piece of Nintendo hardware--I hadn't purchased anything from Nintendo since the SNES. I've been a PlayStation man for close to a decade now.

The simple truth here is that of the three major console producers, only one of them seems poised to do something beyond "what we did last time plus five years". It is my honest opinion that Nintendo will come out on top this round because they're willing to take a sizeable risk, while the other two are playing it safe--and "safe" isn't going to be exciting enough to justify the historically high price tags.

What they conveniently overlook is Nintendo's lack of HD support is going to be awful for them.

I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of HD to the average consumer. The people who really care about HD have already purchased their XBox 360. Remember that many, many people still jack their current-gen systems in with a freakin' coax line, despite the availability of composite and S-Video on the TV they already own..

Then again, perhaps I expect too much from an individual who posts:

"Even if they don't have such a TV, families will walk into the store next Christmas season and see PS3, X-Box, and Nintendo screens side by side in demo areas, and next to the other two, the Nintendo will look like something from a 1980s arcade machine."

"the Revolution will have.... what? A "para para" game to take advantage of the new interface, and maybe a puppy simulator? Wow. That will still be dazzling people ten months from now, eh?" (emphasis mine)

Which of the two of us has a bone to pick, here?

Re:My Take

[HAKdragon]

The big reason why Virtual Racer cost $100 is because to pull the game off they need to put a co-processor inside of the cartridge to handle all of the polygons. It was similar to the FX chip inside SNES games like Starfox.

Re:My Take

[Spades_]

Inflation for the GC doesn't look right, $100 adjusted for inflation when the other consoles only went up between $30-40 in roughly the same time. Just thought I'd point that out...

Re:My Take

[n8_f]

And I don't remember ANY SNES/Genesis games costing over $60.

Oooh, Star Control on the Genesis. It cost $69.99, but it was sooo worth it. That game was a masterpiece.

Re:My Take

[TrancePhreak]

Nintendo's games in the SNES/Genesis era were more expensive. The same game on Genesis and SNES would often retail for $50 on Genesis and $60 on SNES. Most of the Final Fantasy games cost >= $70. Part of this is because Nintendo's cartridges contained more hardware than the Genesis ones, making them more expensive to manufacture. Another part might be the devkit costs, but I am unsure of the numbers there.

Re:My Take

[Overneath42]

This is a very solid point. While the female demographic has been gaining presence in the last few years, video gaming is still very much a male activity. Nintendo's decision to simplify the Revolution experience, by making it more natural and fluid is extremely smart - as opposed to punching an ever-increasing number of buttons and analog sticks.

Re:My Take

[archen]

Not just girls but everyone who isn't your conventional "gamer" demographic. The PS2 seems to have attained the widest audience just because it managed to be sitting as the fat cat at the top the longest and has the largest library. The Xbox seems to be targeting college age males extensively. Then MS seems to go after the same target audience again with the 360. I doubt Sony really has much of a comprehensive plan on a target market aside from throw out as much hype as possible and try to dazzle everyone you can.

Sony and MS seem to be missing the really big picture here, and that's that there is a HUGE untapped market that's going to be emergeing - everyone ELSE. My wife likes to play various games, but is quite dismayed at the fact that very very little seems to appeal to females at all. When you're talking about kids, family-oriented stuff, WOMEN, and possibly other segmants not considered - that adds up to a huge potential MS has already over-looked, and Sony will probably gloss over as well.

Re:My Take

[ClamIAm]

There is no console "war."

"Business is war".

Re:My Take

[NegativeFX]

Actually, because of larger memory requirements of some games, the price did hit $60. A few off of the top of my head that I remember paying $60 for were Donkey Kong Country, Super Street Fighter II, and Starfox. But you are right, there weren't a whole lot that hit that price point.

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

Street Fighter II Turbo Edition for SNES retailed at $75 at launch and remained there for about six months. Donkey Kong Country launched at $70.

Standard pricing for games was $55-$65.

Re:My Take

[Blakey Rat]

Well, to be fair, you have to admit that Slashdot is so pro-Nintendo that the Xbox and PS3 fans probably think they have to shout louder to be heard, as it were. If the discussion were more balanced, there'd be fewer trolls/potential trolls.

Re:My Take

[soft_guy]

despite the availability of composite and S-Video on the TV they already own.

Lots of TVs don't have composite or S-Video. I have two TVs. One only has coax and the other one only has 2 sets of two little screws labeled "VHF" and "UHF".

Re:My Take

[vux984]

Not a lot of people are using HD sets yet but most of the new ones being sold are HD systems.

Its an interesting gamble by Nintendo. But, although marketshare dynamics are important, they didn't only consider the marketshare of HD.

HD is a performance drain.

HD textures require lots of memory, HD video requires lots of disk space, HD rendering is like quadruple the number of pixels that have to be computed.

That has several side effects - it raises the cost of the hardware, as you need more memory, faster gpus, etc - as well as imposes longer level load times and other annoyances.

And they predict that most people won't even benefit from it - at least during the lifecycle of this generation of consoles.

Even if they don't have such a TV, families will walk into the store next Christmas season and see PS3, X-Box, and Nintendo screens side by side in demo areas, and next to the other two, the Nintendo will look like something from a 1980s arcade machine.

Hardly. At the local Electrnics boutiques, BestBuys, Future Shops, and Circuit Cities these "demo screens" are mounted into mini 'arcade' stands between game racks and tend to be a whopping 15" sdtv, so any "hd-ness" will be invisible.

Sure there is usually a 40"+ plasma with a console hooked up to it for some feature game from the console with the highest margin, but that isn't putting the 3 systems 'side-by-side'. But even there the revolution will support 480p (progressive scan), and so there is no reason it can't look as good as DVD, which stands up quite well as compared to hdtv. (Indeed I have DVDs that look better than much of the 'hdtv' that comes in over the air - due to compression.

So what families will really see when they walk in at Christmas is that the Nintendo is almost half the price (meaning they can get their kid something in addition to the Nintendo that year). And that 'half price'-ness comes in significant part because they skipped HD this go around.

I'm not sure if it was the "right" move. Only time will tell, but its nothing like the ridiculous 1980's arcade game comparison you portray. Its DVD quality picture at half the price of xbox360.

Meanwhile, the 360 will have a year's worth of new games to show off, the PS3 will have its usual stable of Sony exclusives, and the Revolution will have.... what?

Precisely. The Revolution has the potential to give us something truly new. We don't know *what* the games are going to be and that's half the point. Though of course we can expect representation from their iconic franchises -- mario, zelda, metroid, etc.

The gaming market is now big enough to handle three major players. Probably more.

The market maybe, store shelves, not so much.

There's only room for "one winner" at the retailers... one will be up front, featured on the big plasma, with a good selection of games prominently displayed and the others will be available but comparatively marginalized to varying degrees, with less shelf space and less game and accessory selection.

All three consoles are probably going to end up making lots and lots of money.

Microsoft will have to stop losing money on the xbox before I'll buy into 'making lots and lots' of it.

The only people who care about a "winner" between the three consoles are drooling fanboys of one platform or another.

Agreed.

Re:My Take

[timeOday]

Those are pretty interesting numbers, especially since PC prices (especially in real dollars) have fallen so much over the same period. $399 is really bumping up against PC prices these days. Whether consoles are direct competitors to PCs is up for debate, but they certainly do use a lot of the same technology. I have to wonder if consoles will hit a point where more people choose to reap technology advances through price cuts instead of higher performance, as with PCs over the last 5 years or so.

Re:My Take

[RedFive99]

I recall games such as Final Fantasy III, Mortal Kombat II and Donkey Kong Country costing $60 - $70 when they were released in the US.

Re:My Take

[tepples]

The console itself will be cheaper, but then it should be. No HD == no place in my living room.

The best rumor that we have about the Revolution's resolution is that all games will support 480i and 480p (or 576i and 576p for European titles), and developers have the option of supporting 720p.

Re:My Take

[miro f]

funny, isn't the Nintendo DS outselling the Sony PSP?

But the PSP is more powerful! The graphics look better! and all nintendo has is a puppy sim!

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

All the X-Box titles were $50 and under too, but most of the 360 games are $60. It's the direction the entire market is moving at the moment. It's a safe bet that new titles for the Revolution will retail around that price as well.

"The Market" doesn't decide the price of Revolution titles. Nintendo decides the price of Revolution titles. Nintendo gets to decide this because they will be the publisher who makes the best-selling Revolution games.

When the Sony PSP came out, Sony jacked up the prices of the games available for it $10 above what GBA games usually cost (from $30-40 to $40-50). But Nintendo DS games still cost about what GBA games cost. I think it's pretty likely that Nintendo will not raise their prices just cuz the other kids are doing it with the Revolution, any more than they did with the DS.

Re:My Take

[Gulthek]

My brothers and I pooled out money to buy Street Fighter II for the SNES for $75 from Toys 'r Us on release day. And it was the only store that even had it in stock.

Re:My Take

[bigman2003]

HD is a performance drain.


Then again, so is color. Why not just make it black and white?

Re:My Take

[Saige]

Xbox Live Arcade. Bejeweled, Hexic, Hardwood Backgammon/Spades/Hearts, Zuma, etc. More PopCap games and other casual and puzzle games on the way.

I've heard quite a few cases of guys that bought a 360, showed their wife the arcade games... and found themselves having to wait to get on the console. So they're getting the market for the casual women gamers that way.

(Of course, the serious female gamers don't need those sorts of games, though we do play them. I'm much more interested in other games - DOA4, Full Auto, PDZ, etc)

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

No, lots of TVs do have composite and/or S-Video. Just because you're a cheapass and have two 20-year old TVs doesn't mean that everyone else is the same way.

Re:My Take

[vux984]

Pretty lame troll.

Then again, so is color. Why not just make it black and white?

1) Because you can see the difference between color and monochrome even on a 2.5" gameboy screen. Meanwhile 480p and 720p/1080i are impossible to tell apart until you compare them on a 40" HDTV or better, and even then its pretty minor -- hardly "night vs day" like "color vs monochrome".

2) Because the incremental cost and performance drain of color on todays hardware is effectively zero. That is, in fact, what Nintendo is predicting ... by the next generation of consoles the cost of supporting HD won't add anything to the price of the unit.

Re:My Take

[cornface]

Or, from another angle: Sony and Microsoft are working hard to field the finest cavalry regiments ever seen on a field of battle. Nintendo is working hard on building a tank.

Or, from reality: Sony and Microsoft are working hard to field the finest cavalry regiments ever seen on a field of battle. Nintendo is cheerfully prancing and arranging flowers in the middle of the field, completely oblivious, and wondering why no third parties are scurrying to pick flowers for their pretty bouquet.

Just like they've done for the last two generations.

Re:My Take

[ejp1082]

I'll lay odds that Nintendo doesn't even view Sony and Microsoft as competition, except in a very narrow sense. The products are similar but the markets they're going after are completely different.

I don't know if Nintendo will "win" this round, but I think the strategy will work for them. There's a huge untapped market of casual gamers out there, that likely dwarfs the "hardcore" market. If Nintendo can reach even a fraction of it, they should do well.

Re:My Take

[cornface]

Not just girls but everyone who isn't your conventional "gamer" demographic.

Do an experiment. Find 10 people that don't play video games. Ask them if they would spend $300* to play video games.

Go ahead.

Ask them.

The fact is, people who don't play video games aren't going to buy a console. There are cheap hockey sticks available on the market RIGHT NOW! If you don't play hockey, you're not likely to care, no matter how innovative the design may be.

It's the same thing.

*$300, on the assumption that the Revolution is $200 + 2 games.

Re:My Take

[Exinex]

You're forgetting inflation. A game that cost $50 in 1994 for example, would now cost $63. We're actually getting a pretty decent deal on current games that are priced $60.

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo is skipping about with flowers over the nuclear silo they've built underneath the battlefield. Just wait 'til they open the hatch and everyone sees the fucker of a missile they've built.

Offtopic: hehe, my authentication word is "boning".

Re:My Take

[SetupWeasel]

You forget that Nintendo has already launched their experiment. By all accounts, the DS has been convincing unconventional customers to spend their money. The Revolution is not likely to be that much more money.

Re:My Take

[SetupWeasel]

This reminds me of those people who exclaim "Look how cheap gas is!" when it reaches $2.20/gallon.

If we don't buy the corporate line, we won't have to pay the higher price. $50/game is plenty enough for people to make money on.

Re:My Take

[Capt Xano]

The Launch: Microsoft did a decent job hyping the system, but the launch was, on balance, weak. You had your brief hysteria of $5,000 systems on eBay, but it died down fairly quickly. You had serious supply issues--to the point where it hurt more than helped. You had the whole power supply issue. You had decent games, but no "killer title" that made you want to go out and get it.

Today: The games are still pretty pedestrian--the operative word is "prettier", which will only get you so far. Now that the insanity of the launch period has passed, there isn't much about the XBox 360 that appeals to the average consumer--it's expensive, it has decent games but nothing "must-have", and finally, it's expensive. $350 for the system and $50-60 games is simply too expensive for the casual gamer.

Assuming this is all true, it makes the XBox 360 no different from virtually any game system that has ever launched: supply problems, too expensive for the "average consumer" (whatever that means, though I guess that means only "above average" consumers were waiting in line to buy them), not enough quality games, some defective units, etc. And as it was for the PS2, it will be no different for the PS3, except by then M$ will drop the price and throw down the latest iteration of Halo. Not a bad place to be in while Sony and/or Nintendo are dealing with the issues Xbox has already moved past.

As for the Revolution. Betting on a "user interface" as you put it seems quite the risk. I can't imagine 13 year old children begging their parents to buy a Revolution so they can try that fancy new "user interface." We can only hope it fares better than the Power Glove.

Re:My Take

[TimboJones]

X-Box... with a bigger library of available games

Except for that whole downloadable library of games from earlier Nintendo systems. That's a pretty big library. But I suppose those games are too primitive for your sophisticated HD tastes.

Re:My Take

[Firehed]

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I don't ever remember paying more than $40 for a Genesis game. Of course, I was about seven at the time, so my parents are much more likely to remember the cost than I am. I do remember that I picked up the system for $120 - so I obviously wasn't going for cutting edge. But Sonic and Knuckles is still a fun game to play, provided I can find a TV that still has inputs for it.

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

Youre forgetting ENTIRELY about the 360's premise as a multimedia center. It appeals to the average consumer because a)it is the most powerful system out there, so the gamer in the family will want it and b)everyone else can use if for their media purposes. So far, Sony has said nothing about integrating it with computers or media other than DVD and possibly the PSP. When the PS3 is released, I think we all assume that it will be more powerful than the 360, which is a safe bet, but developers will have been working with the 360 longer and will be able to pull some pretty wicked things out of it by the time the PS3 comes out.

Plus, the only reason you havent heard of any "killer games" yet is because the system itself is still the "hot item." If you've played PGR3 or Condemned, I think you would see that there are indeed quality titles out, and more quality on the way.

In the end though, I think Sony's ingenious marketing techniques will win the day once more. They've already gotten the go-ahead with the power supply issue (which was more a "dont be stupid" thing than a "Oh we built it wrong" thing), and they will have to do little to place themselves in position to market themselves as the "cooler" system.

Re:My Take

[cornface]

You forget that Nintendo has already launched their experiment. By all accounts, the DS has been convincing unconventional customers to spend their money. The Revolution is not likely to be that much more money.

I think you're crazy. I don't know anyone who owns a DS that didn't either:

- already like videogames

or

- own a gameboy at some point

Do you? Really?

Re:My Take

[SetupWeasel]

Anecdotal evidence is worthless.

Re:My Take

[Physician]

You obviously have a very short memory. All SNES games were at least $60. Heck my Street Fighter II cost $70. You may also remember that for a long time most N64 games cost $60 as well. It wasn't toward the end of its life that at least the first party N64 games were brought down to $50. Why you got ranked 5 for informative I haven't the slightest clue.

Re:My Take

[DAldredge]

Little Plastic discs are just a little cheaper to make than PCB full of ICs

Re:My Take

[Doctor Faustus]

The fact is, people who don't play video games aren't going to buy a console.
Perhaps, but I've never had much interest in console games (I like strategy and sometimes RPG), and I'm planning to buy a Revolution. That will be my first console ever, and I turn 30 in June.

Re:My Take

[cornface]

That would carry more weight if you had provided any evidence for your initial claim other than "all accounts," of which, I might add, you provided exactly zero.

Re:My Take

[ereshiere]

People have already mentioned a number of SNES games costing more than that, but I remember the Genesis Strider costing $75 at Toys R Us. It did what Nintendon't!

Re:My Take

[AuMatar]

Having bought a few dozen SNES games on release day- no, no they weren't by and large. A small percentage of them went as high as 60 (as I said- I said nothing was above 60). Most were 50.

Re:My Take

[bigman2003]

I *just* finished watching a TV show (Survivor if anyone cares...yeah, yeah, total crap...but I watch it) on my 360.

Downloaded it onto my computer, and streamed it to the 360. Looked great. Ended up watching an episode I would have missed.

That, and viewing my pictures on my HD TV...or streaming music to my games.

Yes, those things are important to me. (Not in a cosmic/life/love way, but only in a 'choosing a game console' way.)

Re:My Take

[bigman2003]

If you can't see the difference between 32" HD and 32" NTSC (or PAL if you swing that way) then you need glasses.

Re:My Take

[British]

If I'm recalling right, Virtua Racer for the Genesis cost $100, due to the extra hardware. I played it on the Sega Classics collection for the PS2, and eh. It didn't have enough depth to justify the cost, but it's a fun game on the super-cheap.

Neo Geo games were $200, and the console was $600. It priced itself out of the market.

Re:My Take

[vux984]

Are you being ignorant on purpose? I never mentioned NTSC. Who cares if you can tell the difference between NTSC and HDTV on a 32" screen?

The Revolution will support 480p (so called "EDTV") which is an order of magnitude better than NTSC. In fact, experts consider 480p to be much closer to HDTV in appearance than NTSC.

Now EDTV vs HDTV on a 32" screen; sure side by side you can spot the difference. Whoop-de-doo. The average person, on a 32" screen at normal viewing distance would not be able to identify whether they were looking at an EDTV or HDTV image UNLESS they were side by side for them to make a direct comparison.

Only on large TVs (~50" and up) does the difference between EDTV and HDTV really become apparent.

NTSC is a different ball game. And in this case, an irrelevant one.

Re:My Take

[Ucklak]

In my day, the Atari 2600 was $200 new and Pac-Man, E.T., Haunted House, Adventure (what todays kids call the duck game http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3137498&did=1) were $50 and that's 1980 dollars where video games were 25 cents and could last all day if you were good enough.

Intellivision and Colecovision were in the upper $100 to $200 and those games were $30 to $50.

I seem to remember that is was SNES, Genesis where the ames broke the $60 mark but they also warrant that in terms of artistic quality at least.
Mortal Kombat was worth the price for SNES as it was the a game that was close to identical to the arcade version.

No matter what, $350 is alot of money for a game console that doesn't include a game (or maybe it does) and $700 is way too much for a bundle but I understand the marketing angle as there are some families that will buy it.

If I were to buy a console today, Nintendo has my vote as $200 is a price that is a lot easier to part with for some mindless entertainment.

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

Phantasy Star IV was expensive as hell.

Re:My Take

[jchenx]

I'm not sure what you mean by "all accounts". Have DS sales been really good? Sure they have, especially in Japan. I'll even give you that the popularity of Nintendogs has wooed those "unconventional customers" in Japan you talk about.

But I don't think that's happened in the US yet. I think Nintendo's problem is that they still have that kid-friendly image attached to their name. It's a double-edge sword. Parents associate Nintendo as being safe for their kids. They think of brands like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and not so much GTA, Rumble Roses, etc. So when the "unconventional customer" wants to dabble in video games, I find it a lot more likely that adults pick up a PSP (for all the media options) or dabble with cell phone/PDA games. It's always the kids I see that are holding onto their Gameboy or DS systems.

Is it an incorrect assumption that Nintendo is just for kids? It sure is. We are long gone from the days of the censored Mortal Kombat on the SNES. Did you know BMX XXX is uncensored on the GC and Xbox, but censored on the PS2? I didn't, until I happened to read about it. But it's going to take a while, and more marketing, until Nintendo changes that kiddy image. (And I'm sure they don't want to change their brand completely either, since there is a benefit to being perceived as a "family safe" brand)

Personally, I love my DS. But I'm not going to kid myself and think that it's the hot gaming platform that everyone's suddenly talking about.

Re:My Take

[shoptroll]

Except for the fact that I can buy Quake 4 for $40 on PC, but I'd have to shell out $60 for the XBox360 version. Wasn't King Kong going for $50 on all systems but the 360?

Re:My Take

[solios]

Final Fantasy III cost me 70$. I still have the receipt. :P

SNES retail was 40$ for "budget" titles, 55-60 for everything else, 65-70 for certain Big games. The "bargin bin" level was 20-35$.

Re:My Take

[rohlfinator]

"I have to wonder if consoles will hit a point where more people choose to reap technology advances through price cuts instead of higher performance, as with PCs over the last 5 years or so."

That's essentially what Nintendo is doing. The Revolution is rumored to be a less dramatic performance improvement than past generations have seen, which will allow Nintendo to sell it for a lower price than the competition.

Re:My Take

[IamNotWitchboy]

Mortal Kombat was worth the price for Genesis as it was the a game that was close to identical to the arcade version.

There, fixed it for you

How can you say that the SNES was close to identical to the Arcade version, when the main attractive that game had were the blood and the fatalities, which were absent from the SNES version?

The Sega Genesis version was much closer to the original, same thing with MK2, MK3 and Street Fighter Champion Edition and SUPER Street Fighter II

Re:My Take

[Golias]

The people who really care about HD have already purchased their XBox 360.

Obviously not true.

I care about HD, and I haven't already purchased one yet. I find it hard to believe I'm all that unique.

I *will* most likely purchase a next-gen console for my HD system within the next year, but I do not know if it will be a PS3 or an X-Box 360. The one thing I do know is: it won't be a "low-def" Nintendo.

Re:My Take

[Golias]

Hardly. At the local Electrnics boutiques, BestBuys, Future Shops, and Circuit Cities these "demo screens" are mounted into mini 'arcade' stands between game racks and tend to be a whopping 15" sdtv, so any "hd-ness" will be invisible.

I was just in Best Buy this afternoon. The X-Box 360 demo box was hooked up to a 50" widescreen HDTV with surround sound.

Would you like anything to go with that crow?

Re:My Take

[aweraw]

The Sega Genesis version was much closer to the original, same thing with MK2, MK3 and Street Fighter Champion Edition and SUPER Street Fighter II

Granted the First Mortal Kombat for SNES was bloodless (there was a stupid game genie code that changes the sweat red... they claimed that was a blood code... yeah right), but the 2nd and 3rd games in the series were just as bloody as their arcade counterparts, and given the relative superiority of the SNES hardware over the Genesis (they were called mega-drives here in Australia), they were superior in most respects. From memory, Street Fighter 2 (all of em, including the ultra! mega!! turbo!!?! editions) seemed to run alot faster on SNES too...

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Chrono Trigger and Secret of Evermore were $70 at release, too. Though I might be off on Evermore. Phantasy Star 4 was $80.

I guess it really depends on what kind of games you were playing how often you wound up seeing these kind of prices on those systems. I remember it being a lot more common than it has been since PSX. Though that seems to be changing with these new systems and the "bonus" editions of games like (Need for Speed Most Wanted "Black" or whatever it's called comes to mine) being released.

Personally I really hope that Nintendo will keep the price down on Revolution games. Maybe even dial it down from $50 for average new releases since that's what keeps me from buying new games.

Re:My Take

[vux984]

I was just in Best Buy this afternoon. The X-Box 360 demo box was hooked up to a 50" widescreen HDTV with surround sound.

And? This sounds exactly like what I said there would be.

Would you like anything to go with that crow?

What crow!? Did you even READ my post or did you stop as soon as you saw what you quoted, because the VERY next paragraph to the one you quoted said:

Sure there is usually a 40"+ plasma with a console hooked up to it for some feature game from the console with the highest margin, but that isn't putting the 3 systems 'side-by-side'...

If anything, the crow is yours.

*One* HDTV setup won't give consumers any comparative idea of the relevative graphics 'quality' of the 3 systems. (And I quote 'quality', because there is the matter of finding 'comparable' sources. An xbox exclusive might look better than a revolution 'exclusive' -- but its hard to compare two different games. You really need the same image on both TVs to make any sort of real judgement but that leads to other issues:

The quality of the port is probably more important the actual resolution when comparing graphics.

And then there are several xbox 360 titles that aren't actually rendering 720p, they're rendering at 480p and then upscaling to 720p. And for xbox360 titles like *that* the xbox upscaling makes no difference at all because your HDTV will take the Revolution's native 480p and upscale to 720p/1080i as well. So then its just a question of which upscaler is higher quality. On an expensive TV, I'd bet on the TV. On a cheap TV, *maybe* the xbox will do the better job.)

Re:My Take

[KDR_11k]

Actually Nintendo dropped game prices during the GBA->DS transition but the US prices were so much below the international average (40-50$ for a GBA game after currency conversion) it ended up being a price hike there.

Re:My Take

[DrMrLordX]

Unlike SNES Mortal Kombat, the number of people who actually bought and played BMX XXX was tiny. The game was terrible. Why didn't you mention Conker's Bad Fur Day instead? That was one of the most notorious raunchy Nintendo game in recent memory. BMX XXX was a pile of garbage.

Re:My Take

[Bega]

I care about HD, and I haven't already purchased one yet. I find it hard to believe I'm all that unique. You post on /.

Re:My Take

[KDR_11k]

Many people owned a Gameboy only to play Tetris and didn't play much more since then so having owned a gameboy at some point does not constitute being in the gamer demographic.

Re:My Take

[briancnorton]

Especially if the revolution comes out at $100 - $150.
Think about it. Even hardcore gamers would get one as a second system, and parents would be MUCH more likely to get one than a $300 Xbox or PS3.

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] despite the availability of composite and S-Video on the TV they already own..

And that's because they can't tell the difference between composite and component video. Just like you, but for you it's the words, for them it's the picture they can't tell apart.

Re:My Take

[KDR_11k]

He wanted to point out the different reactions between the manufacturers, not that Nintendo has its raunchy games as well. Sony didn't want to taint their family-friendly image and opted not to release God Of War in Germany because it was unrated. How's that for annoying?

Re:My Take

[gabebear]

Yep, you can buy a Dell that's pretty comperable to the 360(sans 3d card) for under $300. Considering the fact that you need to have a High-Def TV to even get much of an improvment over current-gen games, the 360 just doesn't seem worth it.

I'm going to reserve final judgement(and my money) until after Sony and Nintendo get their consoles out, but unless Sony AND Nintendo both blow it bigtime then I don't see the Microsoft staying in the console business long. MSFT has to answer to their stockholders sooner or later, and operating such a high profile division at a loss for this long doesn't look good for a convicted monopolist.

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

PS2: $299 ($332)
XBox: $299 ($324)
GC: $199 ($299)

What? How can

A) Two consoles with the same price have different prices after inflation?
B) The GameCube price inflate $100 over 5 years?
C) SNES the winner? For lame-ass JRPG fanboys maybe...

Re:My Take

[American AC in Paris]

I meant exactly what I said. There are tons of TVs out there with compostite video. That's the one with the cute little yellow plug, the cute little red plug and the cute little white plug, right? Ohmigod! *ditzy giggle*

You'll get a better gaming experience using composite than you will with coax, even though it's still far from optimal. By contrast, there are comparatively few TVs out there with component video--if for no other reason than it's a much newer input method for TVs.

But hey, don't let me ruin your moment.

Re:My Take

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken from a true Nintendo fanboi. The 360 is going to do well and it is games like Ghost Recon AW that are going to amaze casual and hardcore gamers alike.

The Revolution is in for the real challenge. In a society based on image, who wants to get get caught swinging around that remote? The Revolution (like the Gamecube) will always be what it was percieved to be: a toy for children.

Re:My Take

[sesshomaru]

Yes, this reminds me of the Dreamcast's VGA compatibility. I loved it, the graphic were much better, most people couldn't care less. They wanted their Dreamcasts, PS2s, etc hooked up to their living room TVs even if it was lower definition graphics.

Most of the HD fans on /. remind me of that nut on the Simpsons, "My militia has a secret plan to beat up all sorts of government officials! That'll teach them to drag their feet on high definition TV!" The fact is most people aren't video-philes or audio-philes (hence the popularity of MP3, an audio downgrade from CD which itself was an audio downgrade from vinyl!) and they won't switch to HD TV unless they are forced or the prices are close to inline with regular TV.

This is the reality, unfortunately, you get all the home theater elitists on /. thinking that their view of things is the realistic one.

Re:My Take

[SilentChris]

Nintendo doesn't want to blow anyone out of the water. They want to survive. It's in their best interest not to rile up either Sony or Microsoft (and considering neither take Nintendo to be a direct competitor, they're doing a pretty good job of staying out of the spotlight).

The fact that you think the controller will draw in women gamers is pretty silly. The Sims drew women in because it was a non-violent "dollhouse" (Will Wright's own description). Keep in mind it used a keyboard and mouse, "controllers" that have been around for over 40 years.

Also, note that Nintendo has a long history of failing with "risky" new endeavors. Off the top of my head I can think of Virtual Boy, Rob the Robot, the Power Pad (which should've been successful given today Dance Dance craze), the SuperScope 6, the SNES Mouse, the N64 microphone, e-Reader cards, etc. All of these were intended to light flames under the industry and spawn new genres. Instead, each ran with only a couple of games and faded into obscurity.

And for those about to mention the DS as an "innovative success", keep in mind that the dual screens and touchpad have nothing to do with the system's success. Being able to run the existing GBA library and having more games than PSP is why the system is successful.

Re:My Take

[Bobsledboy]

I had the understanding the only place it wasn't called "Mega Drive" was in the US.

Re:My Take

[Rayonic]

I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of HD to the average consumer. The people who really care about HD have already purchased their XBox 360.

To be fair, supply problems mean that some people who want an Xbox 360 haven't got one yet.

And, although most people have abyssimal TV setups, Microsoft hitching their wagon to the "HD revolution" might have a good side-effect. People who just bought an HDTV, after all, are looking for ways to show it off/make use of it. Plus, advertising HDTV support sounds next-gen-ish, which is great for the hype machine.

Current TV technology is primitive and low-res. Don't you want everyone to upgrade anyways?

Re:My Take

[DeadScreenSky]

Come on now, you're just making stuff up here. Which experts consider 480p closer to HD than NTSC? 480p is roughly 300,000 pixels. 480i is obviously half that (no "order of magnitude" here). 720p is more than 900,000 pixels (and a lot of consumers are going to use 1080i, which is even higher).

And the difference in resolutions on a smaller HDTV (like say, even less than 30") is readily apparent with reasonable source material to most people that don't severely need new glasses. You think MS hasn't done the research on this? Their standard kiosk HDTV size is only 23".

There are good arguments to be made in favor of Nintendo skipping HD resolutions, especially if it lets them release the console at $150 or less. But pretending HD isn't a significant upgrade over SDTV and EDTV is not one of these reasons.

Re:My Take

[wanorris]

Yes, but do you know what consoles non-traditional gamers will be buying this Christmas? Discounted PS2s and XBoxen, that's what. Why? Because the consoles are cheap, and a ton of cheap games are available.

Either that, or they'll buy the little $20 PacMan games that are a controller on a cord.

Even $200 for a Revolution is a lot of money if you're not really that into gaming.

By the time non-traditional gamers get around to buying a console in the 360/PS3/Revolution generation, there will already be well-demarcated winners and losers, and they'll know to stay away from whatever console is going to be orphaned.

While non-traditional gamers are an important market, they follow the rest of the market, they don't drive it.

Re:My Take

[vux984]

480p is roughly 300,000 pixels. 480i is obviously half that (no "order of magnitude" here). 720p is more than 900,000 pixels

You don't have to be an expert. Pixel count really means squat; "more is always better" but as the numbers go up the difference it makes is exponentially less.

The image quality leap from 640x480 (300k pixels) to 800x600 (480k) is a huge leap in quality, but adds only 180k pixels.

The leap from 800x600 to 1024x768 (780k) is significant, but its *less* dramatic an improvement than the jump from 640x480 to 800x600, yet it adds nearly twice as many pixels.

You can see the effect yourself playing with your desktop, with a hi-res background, and your normal desktop icons, and menus visible.

---

Furthermore the difference between 480p and 720p on an HTDV is not a pixel count comparison at all, because the 480p will have been upscaled to 720p. So the pixel count is identical. The only difference is that the upscaled image will have interpolated some of the pixel data while the actual 720p image will have 'real' data for all those pixels. On many types of scenes, particularly where there is a lot of motion (ie virtually all games) the upscaled image will be very good.

Its like the difference between a decent quality jpg vs a bitmap. At normal viewing distances they are practically indistinguishable, they'd have to be side by side or you'd have to really get up close and know what to look for or you'd never know the difference.)

I'm not saying HDTV isn't a significant upgrade over EDTV. But in practice its less then the difference 800x600 to 1024x768, in a world where practically everyone is still running 640x480.

HDTV *really* shines on static highly detailed scenes that are moving slowly. It *IS* a dramatic improvement there. And its why slow moving pans and static images are the most popular HD 'demo' material -- because the extra detail available is actually visible. In the real world you might see the credits at the end of movies are perfectly crisp and readable for example. But it's far less relevant on scenes with a lot of motion (ie most games) due to the 'blurring' effect of motion. If the scene is getting motion blurred then the extra detail is getting "lost", and a 480p upscaled image ends up looking much the same.

I have an HDTV and really, the difference between a DVD (upscaled 480p) and broadcast HD (720p) is not nearly as dramatic as the difference between whatching regular TV and watching a DVD.

Re:My Take

[etherealmuse]

You know what else there is? HD TVs are in about 9% of households right now. I know that people with HD TVs crave that HD flavor but you're not missing much when you settle on 480p instead of 720i (which by the way isnt supported by any XBOX games I know of) Oh and the Rev will never be more than $300 don't worry.

Re:My Take

[Phleg]

You don't look at side-by-side screenshots of XBox and XBox 360 games and go, "Holy shit, that's amazing!" like you did when you first saw the SNES.

I'd normally agree with you, but screenshots don't do a console like the 360 justice. Seeing games on the XBox 360 on an HDTV compared to the original XBox is absolutely stunning.

Games like Kameo and Project Gotham Racing 3 are absolutely breathtaking in the quality of their visuals--and I'm not one so easily impressed by such things, having witnessed basically every graphical revision in the PC market for at least 12 years. Trust me when I say that, while the 360 does represent an evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary leap in graphical capabilities, it does represent a leap, and not a small one at that.

Re:My Take

[Miraba]

Xbox Live Arcade. Bejeweled, Hexic, Hardwood Backgammon/Spades/Hearts, Zuma, etc. More PopCap games and other casual and puzzle games on the way. Start naming games that can't be played on a computer and you might have something.

The submitter really likes the term "next gen".

[Jason1729]

That summary wsa painful to read.

Well, duh!

[babbling]

Of course it's going to compete significantly better! It has no competitors now, and won't have any for months yet. The 360 has a huge head-start.

Re:Well, duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's going to compete significantly better! It has no competitors now, and won't have any for months yet. The 360 has a huge head-start.

So did the Dreamcast

Re:Well, duh!

[babbling]

The Dreamcast was Sega. They screwed up all of their consoles after Genesis/MegaDrive. That said, I think Sega deserved better. Their consoles did have some pretty fun games on them. Still, some sort of Sega curse prevented them from being successful anytime after 1996. :)

So far, going no better in Japan

[ChrisRijk]

Xbox 360 is going nowhere fast in Japan. Worse than original Xbox actually. Latest weekly sales available (*) show just 1288 units being sold (estimated) - even the Game Cube is still selling more. Of course, there's still the rest of the world, but one of Microsoft's objectives with Xbox 360 was to succeed in Japan. Looks to be a distant dream right now.

(*) See bottom of: http://www.m-create.com/jpn/s_ranking.html

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[DaveCBio]

The Japanese market, while important, isn't as dominant as it once was. Both in terms of developers and sales. I think it's entirely possible to be the number one console in the world and still bomb in Japan. I don't think the PS3 is going to be the slam dunk Sony thought it would be and it seems to me that they are a lot more concerned about Microsoft this time around.

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Different culture, different preferences in games and consoles. Meh.

I know that Microsoft are worried about it, but most consumers outside of Asia won't know nor care what sales are like in Japan. Performance in Europe and North America will be much stronger...

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[jchenx]

Of course the 360 is going nowhere in Japan at the moment! There aren't any RPGs for the platform, for crying out loud. DOA 4 alone isn't going to bring over Japanese gamers.

But there are several Japanese RPGs in development, most notably those by Mistwalker Studios (headed by a former Square-Enix producer). I think the 360 in Japan is really going to depend on the quality of these first games. If they aren't that that good, then yeah, the 360 in Japan is going to continue to flounder. But, if they turn out to be pretty decent, then I would imagine the 360 is going to do better. Also, we still have to see what Square-Enix decides to do with the platform. Somehow I doubt FFXI is going to be the only game released for the 360.

That said, I've looked at the previews for one of the first Japanese RPGs (Enchant Arm), and it doesn't look that hot to me. I'm a big fan of Japanese RPGs (most Squeenix titles, Xenosaga, Disgaea, etc.), so I guess I'm a target audience.

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. It is just as dominant, Nintendo realizes this, and will utterly destroy Microsoft in Q4.

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

The original Xbox had several high status japanese RPGs as well in development, the launch and first few months were so bad that most of them were quickly axed. The one or two that managed to come out did little to help the sales.

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[justchris]

Actually, it is worrying. The problem is, about 50% of the largest and most popular game developers are still Japanese developers, and Japanese developers do look at Japanese sales numbers. Short of an overwhelming majority of market share in another region (enough that they could afford to ignore the Japanese market entirely), no Japanese development studio is going to ignore sales numbers in Japan. If those companies decide not to make games for the system based on the sales in Japan, that will mean less games for the system overall, and therefore less sales in other regions, as the people who would have bought the system flock to Sony or Nintendo for the games they want.

So yes, Japan does matter to Microsoft, unless they can show developers that they can make significantly more money in the US & European regions.

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[jchenx]

I'm trying to remember what Japanese RPGs you're referring to, aside from True Fantasy Online (which was axed, unfortunately). The sad thing about TFO is that it was looking to be a really good game, and from the same team that made the phenomenal Dragon Quest VIII game.

Now there were a few HORRIBLE role-playing games made for the original Xbox launch, like Azurik and Nightcaster. But I believe those were made internally in MGS, and they were actually released whereas they should have been axed. *shudder*

The platform did get a few decent RPGs, most notably Knights of the Old Republic (produced by Bioware). Fable, Jade Empire, and KotOR II were decent as well, although I'll take most Squeenix titles over them any day. (... except for FFX-2, I can't believe I played and finished that)

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

To whoever modded that up: An informative post is supposed to present plain facts, often with sources, not an oppinion. Mod oppinions up with Insightful (contributes something new to the discussion/dissects facts properly) or Interesting (well, obvious), NOT Informative!

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the 360 is going nowhere in Japan at the moment! There aren't any RPGs for the platform, for crying out loud.

If it's so obvious, MS should have concentrated on this in the first place instead of letting this opportunity slip out of their hands, because it clearly hurt them a lot.

Re:So far, going no better in Japan

[jchenx]

If it's so obvious, MS should have concentrated on this in the first place instead of letting this opportunity slip out of their hands, because it clearly hurt them a lot.

The problem is that good RPGs take time to develop, and they're normally not launch titles. Whereas many FPS and racing games can mostly concentrate on pretty graphics and better gameplay, RPG developers also have to craft a LOT of additional content and develop a decent story as well. If you want an example of how long a top-tier RPG can take to develop for a platform, I'll use the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series. They're the most popular RPGs in the US and Japan, bar none.

Playstation
- Released in Japan: December, 1994
- Released in US: September, 1995

Final Fantasy VII (first FF for the PS)
- Released in 1997

Dragon Quest VII (first and only DQ for the PS)
- Released in Japan: August, 2000
- Released in US: November, 2001

PS2
- Released in Japan: March, 2000
- Released in US: October, 2000

Final Fantasy X (first FF for the PS2)
- Released in 2001

Dragon Quest VIII (first DQ for the PS2)
- Released in Japan: November, 2004
- Released in US: November, 2005

Obviously there are other RPGs than these, but I don't recall any great RPGs that released with the launch of either the PS or PS2. Besides, you can't argue the important of Final Fantasy (in both the US and Japan) and Dragon Quest (in Japan).

It IS a good sign that MS landed a port of FFXI. I believe that's coming out soon. Yeah, it's just a port, and not that great of an MMO (at least compared to WoW, IMHO), but it's a good sign that there's at least a positive relationship between MS and Square-Enix. And I'm hopeful that I'll see some good RPGs come out of Mistwalker Studios. But it's going to take a while.

I would imagine it's the same thing with the PS3 as well. Besides, FFXII hasn't even shipped yet, and that's for the PS2. It'll be years before we see the next FF game for the PS3 (tech demos don't count). Well, they could shock everyone with a FFVII for the PS3 launch announcement at E3, but personally I think that's unlikely. (If that DID happen though, it wouldn't bode well for MS or Nintendo. It'd be a lot like the release of FFX at the same time the Xbox and GC launched) But that's still speculation. :)

Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned better

[Richthofen80]

Clearly my impression of the Xbox 360 is that it is positioned to compete significantly better in the next gen console

Could that be because the Xbox360 actually exists, and isn't just an idea. Does PS3 even have a launch date yet? People keep saying this and that about PS3, but Microsoft actually anticipated their existing product's shelf life accurately, and planned for it. I have been dying for some of the stuff the xbox 360 does, like HD gaming, a consistent online experience, and OEM wireless that comes with the system. Sure, xbox has issues, namely a lot of bugs made it through. But since I'm online they're patched pretty quickly and things are working out pretty well.

I'll take HD gaming now versus something that doesn't have a launch date yet.

I think more of this depends on Sony...

[Siguy]

I own a 360. I like the console a lot. There's definitely a dearth of good games right now, but there are at least two that I really want coming out next week, and I did really enjoy some of the ones I got at launch.

Having said that, I think your opinion of what's going to happen in this console race depends on your opinion of Sony. If you think they're gonna have a great launch with tons of titles lined up and in great shape and lots of available consoles and on time this year, then you have to think they're gonna cream Microsoft's anemic launch. If you think Sony is gonna be in the same boat as the 360 with even more complicated components and an even tighter release schedule that might get pushed back, then you probably think it'll be a pretty even battle with maybe a slight edge going either way.

Personally, my bet is that Sony runs into the same problems Microsoft did. I think they sell more consoles, but by then the 360 has a decent amount of games and it's a fairly even race for a year or two till the 360 fades about 6 months earlier than the PS3 does. Then we get the next next gen, and so on, and so on.

Re:I think more of this depends on Sony...

[Anonymous Coward]

". . .it's a fairly even race for a year or two till the 360 fades about 6 months earlier than the PS3 does. Then we get the next next gen, and so on, and so on."

I disagree with a couple of points here. There is no way that the 360 will arbitrarily "fade" six months earlier than the PS3. Look at this generation. Comparing release dates to staying power, it seems that the earliest (PS2) has the most staying power. This trend goes both ways, and is evident in both the U.S. and Japan, where the release order of Xbox and GCN were opposite. In Japan, Gamecube was released before Xbox. Xbox is doing HORRIBLY in Japan. In the U.S., Xbox was released (3 days) before GCN. We all know the American attitude towards Gamecube. Keep in mind, I am not saying that THIS trend is true, just that not every console has the same, predictable "lifespan."

Also, you say that PS3 and 360 will battle for a year or two before the NEXT next generation. A year or two?! I certainly hope that you simply didn't notice that one.

Re:I think more of this depends on Sony...

[xbox360-files.com]

It really depends if the PS3 actually ever comes out and if Xbox 360s can be put on shelves again.

Re:I think more of this depends on Sony...

[xbox360-files.com]

Microsoft has a wicked opportunity this time with the xbox 360 because the PS3 will be so expensive when it comes out. I keep hearing rumors from 800 - 900 dollars.

That CD rootkit is going to bite Sony

[Jason1729]

The target audience for the PS3 is the same people who buy lots of CDs, and were most affected by the rootkit.

Since the rootkit got so much attention, victims will remember it when the PS3 comes out.

Re:That CD rootkit is going to bite Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't be buying another SONY product. I had to work on the weekend because those bitches infected my corporate network with rootkits. Or, provided rootkits disguised as CDs to my users who infected my network . . . either way.

I'm waiting for the revolution. Oh, and I heard nintendo has something coming out soon too.

Re:That CD rootkit is going to bite Sony

[the bluebrain]

... yah, right now I feel like queuing up when the PS3 comes out (whenever that may be) for two days or whatever, then demonstratively walking out holding an xBox 360, in the hope there's a camera crew hanging close by.

But then, when the time comes, that feeling will likely have passed.

Re:Who are they kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a complete idiot would continue buying Sony products at this point.

Early Launch

[Silence86]

The XBox 360 is doing well now. This is unsurprising, as it has no competition at the given moment. The true test for Microsoft and the 360 will be its staying power and ability to compete against the more-powerful, better-backed playstation. Because it had a headstart, the 360 made a good bit of money due to the cool-factor of being the first next-gen console. But the question we have to ask ourselves is "will these graphics even be on par in 3 years?". The answer to that, probably not. I know that as the developers get a feel for the platform the graphics will improve, but they can't outreach the limits of the hardware itself, which frankly are mediocre. When the Playstation relases, I predict that it will have slighly less "burst" profitability, but will have much greater staying power. Sony has traditionally had better backing from game developers, and I don't really see that changing. I was a proud owner of all three consoles of the previous generation. Most of the games I bought for XBox were on other systems as well. I bought them for XBox because it was the most powerful. Now I'll buy them for Playstation because it'll be the most powerful. Gameplay is important, but if you can get the same game on two different consoles, which would you choose. Most people would choose the one with more power.

Re:Early Launch

[bn_me]

"will these graphics even be on par in 3 years?"

On par with what? PS2 games have no issues with keeping up with XBOX games, even though the XBOX is suppose to be a more powerful console.

It also greatly depends on the developers, and how well they manage to use the hardware that is provided, and also how good the gameplay of their games is, since hey, the Nintendo Revolution won't be "on par" with either the XBOX360 or PS3 in terms of horsepower. All three will probably be nowhere near par versus PC games, in terms of graphics.

But I guess that's one of the advantages of having a stable platform to develop on. You can't rely solely on better graphics and a better physics engine to sell your game... you also have to work on the gameplay a bit.

From the early reports around the net from the developers working on both of these consoles, they aren't saying one is a lot more powerful than the other... and who knows... 3 years from now... Microsoft might just release another one.

Re:Early Launch

[Silence86]

Well, not even in three years. Will these graphics be on par when the PS3 releases would be a more pertinent question. From a money-making standpoint, you can't ignore the segment of the casual gaming community that buys consoles and games based on how pretty the graphics are. They don't read reviews, they don't do research. They simply see impressive graphics and they buy them. Also, these same casual gamers are more likely to play console games than PC games, as it's easier to plug in and go. S You are right. The 360 will need to rely heavily on solid gameplay. Once the PS3 comes out, they won't have the same "pretty-graphics factor". Everything at this point is really nothing more than speculation. PS2 had the games last generation, and who will have them this generation is anyone's guess.

Re:Early Launch

[Aokubidaikon]

he true test for Microsoft and the 360 will be its staying power and ability to compete against the more-powerful, better-backed playstation. Because it had a headstart, the 360 made a good bit of money due to the cool-factor of being the first next-gen console. This is Microsoft we're talking about. It HAS NO cool-factor, no matter how much money they spend on product placement like in "The Island" or tie-ins with MTV.

Also this is the first I've heard of XBox actually making money! Silly me, believing that the XBox division was a financial black hole for M$ all this time!

Re:Early Launch

[justchris]

You know, I did that once. Bought a game that was available on all three consoles for the Xbox cause it had better graphics, shorter load times and online play. It was an FPS. Last time I make that mistake.

As it turns out, as much as I hate load times, a lousy, stiff, horribly inaccurate controller is an even bigger annoyance. The 360 controller is leaps and fucking bounds above the original Xbox controller, but if the PS3 or Rev have better control yet, then I won't be getting my cross platform games on 360. Control beats graphics hands down.

Xenon CPU "merely adequate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read this, I couldn't help but laugh. A three core, six thread CPU with serious vector resources is simply not "merely adequate". It is a good CPU for what it does, and it will be years before Intel ships something as "adequate." In any case, the fate of the 360 will be a matter determined by software, not hardware.

For this reason, the next generation from Nintendo and Sony are likely to continue their dominance in the market. Especially in Japan, where the majority of games simply don't exist for the Xbox/360 platform, and never will. I and many others, are much more interested in content than flashy graphics, and I don't think Microsoft understands this.

Re:Xenon CPU "merely adequate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I said "merely adequate" as being obviously relative (or at least I thought so) to its competition... Sony's cell. Compared to the cell the 360 CPU is merely adequate.

Re:Xenon CPU "merely adequate?"

[richman555]

I didn't know Intel made Xbox 360 CPUs. Last I heard I thought it was only IBM.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[Anonymous Coward]

OK he held up his end of the deal, Microsoft--please make the check out to "Ed Giardina" at your earliest convenience

The games make the console

[RodgerTheGreat]

Whatever console has the best games will come out on top. Hardware alone will not win this war.

Personally, I hope that the new power of Next-gen consoles will let game developers explore new ideas in games, an area mostly limited to PCs due to processing power and licensing issues, such as the groundbreaking Garry's Mod, a physics-based sandbox in which you can build mechanical contraptions, vehicles, etc, and make them really work. Hopefully the revamped systems should give game makers room to forge new genres.

Re:The games make the console

[WillAffleckUW]

Which is why I'm waiting until the PS3 and NR come out, before I waste money on a new console.

So far, all I've seen is stuff that's cross-platform, so I can't get excited by xBox360. And all I hear about for the 360 is pretty boring. yet more FPS, yet more racing, nothing that makes fun.

Until they come out with GTA:Cascadia or GT5:Emerald City (the Seattle versions), I'm not buying yet another cross-platform.

I wouldn't be surprised if sony is 'rallying'

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a bit of news on consumer hardware enthusiast sites recently that nVidia has been 'caught' promoting their products on message boards without disclosing their affiliation. Which isn't surprising to me. I just can't help but wonder every time I see some shill promote the Playstation Three like it will be a 'paradigm shift' in gaming that they are in fact of the same nature. I imagine a lot of companies do it. It make sense to create a large base of rabid morons who infect every corner of the intranet with their specious claims about the awesomeness of blu-ray & sony's,^W IBM's Cell processor. I can't fathom how one could be stupid enough to actually believe the videos of the 'ps3' in action are anything besides prerendered CGI. Have any consoles even been produced for developers to test on? As far as I know they were just using commodity hardware as an approximation.

I think the prudent decision here is a 'wait & see.'

No profit for M$ still

[InsaneProcessor]

I can see nothing the M$ did on the 360 that is going to make them more competitive. The audience is still too narrow and game prices are still to high. Most of the older games have to be thrown away becuase they don't work on it. They haven't made any money yet, what make anyone think that they will this time?

Re:Who are they kidding?

[RiotXIX]

Warning: personal rant.

As much as that sounds like a troll, I'd have to agree with you. I use to be a loyal follower of Sony - basically for no other reason than I figured that they made superior products, and you'd pay a bit more for them but it was worth it. But two things have annoyed me significantly to arrange my own little boycott (and I know this is true for many others):

Sony BMG.
the whole rootkit fiasco

Sony Hardware
-but more significantly, they make disposable crap. My minidisc player just died because of the blankdisc error - an inevitable ribbon cable snap (which everyone will require eventually) due to opening/closing 'too many times'. An almost $400 'walkman' inevitably requiring a $100 fixed rate repair a few years later. The new mp3 walkman don't have backlit screens (what happens at night?), and they're bigger than cheaper 3rd party ones.

Linux:
Their hardware is unlikely to ever support my os, because (perhaps because they're a giant popular corporation) they like to keep it all closed up.

They definitely aren't the company I perceived them as (many are realising this) - I hope they get what they deserve for treating consumers like dirt. But they'll still rule the hardware market I figure (because of history, and the perception than paying more means better products).

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[pythas]

I agree 100%. Look at all the promises Sony made about the PS2. How many of the came true??? Is the PS2 tying everything in your house together? Are you downloading movies (legally) and watching them on the PS2? Where's all the online services that Sony promised?

Sony has the position now of being able to sit down and say anything they want about the PS3.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[Richthofen80]

hey man, I am a videogame fan. I like my xbox 360. What can I say? should I pretend I don't? I was also one of the first people to buy a Sony Playstation, back when we all had a bad taste in our mouths from the last regular corporation to try and dump into the market (phillips 3DO anyone?). I don't have a PS2 becauseabout 75% of games released are released on the big 3 at once (cube, ps2, xbox), and the xbox had marginally better graphics than PS2.

I give credit where credit is due... the original xbox was released after the PS2, and now the xbox 360 beat the PS2 to market, by probably close to a year. I also would give credit to how the PS2 came to market even though there wasn't an imminent MS threat.

Besides, it works both ways. I used to work at Funcoland video game store and heard my fellow employees openly bash xbox to customers. we all have our agendas.

Development Tools

[mrm677]

Talk to game developers and many/most will say that Microsoft has better developer tools, documentation, and assistance.

Re:Development Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

"Talk to game developers and many/most will say that Microsoft has better developer tools, documentation, and assistance."

Let me guess, those 'developers' just happen to be, drumroll please!, peecee developers.

What a fucking retard.

Give the 'easy to develop for' bullshit a rest fanboy, you clowns have been trying to use that line for over five years.

Re:Development Tools

[TrancePhreak]

They are also console developers. Way to flame it out. Go talk to Tecmo and shutup about it.

Re:Development Tools

[mrm677]

Nope. The developers I'm talking about put out a top-selling game in 2004/2005 for the Xbox, PS2, and GameCube. They are now working on Xbox360 and PS3.

Re:Development Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

I know! You so want to believe it!

Fucking dipshits like you are the trash that litter the console world.

Re:Development Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk to game buyers and many/most will say they've never touched a Microsoft console and never will.

The dream is over.

Re:Development Tools

[UnknownSoldier]

How many console titles have you shipped?

Re:Development Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

My spouse has shipped 4 console titles and says the same thing.

Re:Development Tools

[pommiekiwifruit]

Lemme guess, you're married to a Mac developer :-)

Everyone else develops on PC, and have done for years (since the Amiga days).

So how did that Pippin launch go then?

(for my development I use a mixture of tools).

The awful truth

[Y-Crate]

It's far too early to tell how this generation is going to pan out. That won't generate traffic to any gaming sites, so they have to go off into the realm of mindless conjecture.

So far, the PS3 has been nothing but a smoke and mirrors show. The reason being, Sony needed to do something to blunt the 360 announcement long before the PS3 hardware was ready, so they sent the FUD machine into overdrive and spat out the same drivel they did when trying to kill off the Dreamcast. Not surprisingly, people lapped it right up, despite the previews being little more than mockups and "real time demos" rendered at 1FPS prior to the show and sped up. I'm not saying the PS3 is going to be a disappointment, nor am I saying that it will be comparable to, or lightyears beyond the 360 or Revolution. We simply know far too little substantive information about its capabilities and exactly what its game library will look like.

The Revolution was being heralded as the only good console of this generation - even before there was a single feature announced. Other than the controller and the back-catalog being rereleased for it, we have seen nothing of what it can do or what it will bring to the table.

Let's have this conversation in a few months, after E3.

Re:The awful truth

[ClamIAm]

The Revolution was being heralded as the only good console of this generation - even before there was a single feature announced.

Oh really? Care to cite some sources? (and no, slashdot posts don't count)

Other than the controller and the back-catalog being rereleased for it, we have seen nothing of what it can do or what it will bring to the table.

Wi-Fi/online service, Gamecube backwards-compatability (both games and controllers), video DVD functionality, smaller than a midtower... etc.

Re:The awful truth

[Anonymous Coward]

re: render fete for the ps3

Yes the screens are basically photoshop rasterbation exercises, but from the chatter at nVidea, the chipset they've provided puts the demos thus far at the low end of the capabilities spectrum.

It's still a game war not a console war and - for me - it boils down to GTA. More encompassing environments and devestating weapons pretty much make up my mind. If the chainsaw is now fully rendered - as are the flying heads - I'm a happy guy. With Sony still having a lock on Rockstar for release schedules thus far, the platform war is moot. Zelda your brains out - play the 78th iteration of italian plumbers - I'll be tearing around virtual cities instead and giving Jack Thompson nightmares - the way it should be.

Re:The awful truth

[justchris]

The awful truth is, if we were willing to wait a few months, we wouldn't be reading these stories and arguing about them, and they wouldn't generate traffic to the sites. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have nothing better to do at work (well, nothing I enjoy more) than reading gaming news. If I was at home, I'd actually be playing games.

These articles pop up because people actually care, and want to discuss it. If they didn't, this article wouldn't have over 100 comments.

Re: The Machine

[dch24]

There is no console "war."

Sure, but I believe Microsoft will find a way to loose money on the 360 anyway. In the Desktop OS market, they made money because they could out-pirate the cutthroat businessmen. They made most of their profits with corporate tactics.

In the gaming market, they will loose money, because it is even more consumer-driven than the entertainment industry. They will try to kill off innovative games on other platforms, try to tie people to Xbox Live with restrictive licensing, and try to cut into the home theater market profits.

What will really happen is exactly what you said: there is no scarcity in the console market. Microsoft can't compete in the open source arena for this reason -- they waste 80% of their money going after the 20% of the server market they don't own, instead of peacefully coexisting with other platforms.

And so, in the console market, I predict* that their games will be clones of previous successes, that Xbox Live will degenerate into the same kind of experience as you get at msn.com, and that the home theater market will largely ignore them as being way too expensive.

* IDNWFM$ (I don't work for...) so my predictions are worth $0.02

Re:Who are they kidding?

[bunbuntheminilop]

What are you talking about? The ps2 had a linux kit available so anyone (provided you pay for it...don't start!) could mess around with the Emotion Engine, and people did.

Also, the ps3 will be running, apparently, a version of linux, as server-focused cell applications will be primarily linux based.

Has everyone forgotten?

I don't know why

[bored]

Everyone seems to think the PS3 is going to be so much better than the Xbox3. It seems to me to be a repeat of the xbox vs ps2. Originally everyone said the Ps2 was going to blow the doors off of the xbox, but then it turned out all that wierd hardware didn't really perform as well as everyone expected. There is a distinct posibilty the same thing will happen this time around. In a couple years we can decide which was better, right now i'm leaving my opinion up in the air, and I wish everyone else would too.

Re:I don't know why

[snarlydwarf]

Cool hardware doesn't sell systems.

Games do.

And the PS2 did "blow the doors off the xbox."

Sony made billions on PS2. Microsoft lost billions on Xbox.

Re:I don't know why

[WillAffleckUW]

Everyone seems to think the PS3 is going to be so much better than the Xbox3.

Because, in the end, it's all about the games.

Sure, xBox and xBox360 might do well for FPS and sports sims.

But that's about it. sadly.

[caveat - I own MSFT shares, have owned Sony & Nintendo shares, and own Konami shares - and own an xBox and a GameCube]

Re:I don't know why

[christoscamaro]

I don't get this. I don't recall hearing about the X-box until a year or two after the PS2 was out.

Re:I don't know why

[n8_f]

Originally everyone said the Ps2 was going to blow the doors off of the xbox, but then it turned out all that wierd hardware didn't really perform as well as everyone expected.

Umm, no one said that, because the Xbox didn't come out until a year and a half after the PlayStation2. When the PlayStation2 came out, the Xbox was just a twinkle in Bill Gates' eye.

Re:I don't know why

[Blakey Rat]

You might mention that Microsoft *expected* to lose money during the first generation Xbox release, and that they've actually done better than their projections. In that sense, the product is a success.

Re:I don't know why

[Musteval]

I have just created a new game console. I call it the Phantom. I expect to lose $10 trillion on it.

*TEN YEARS LATER*

The Phantom was a raging success!

Re:I don't know why

[DDLKermit007]

Uhh...Sony never made anything off the PS2. They lost money on the PS2. I guess you could say they lost less than Microsoft and therefore "made" more money than Microsoft, but, they have yet to make a dime off the PS2. Now if you wanted to talk about Nintendo. Theres a company that "blew the doors off." They were in the black shortly after the Gamecube came out. Oh yeah...the gross ammount of $$$ in the videogame buisness is only around 10billion (total...includeing cellphones & PCs). No one of the 3 companies can even come close to captureing over 1/10th of that. You gaw damn fanboys are as another poster put it: "the grabage littering the console world."

Re:I don't know why

[snarlydwarf]

So the $575M Operating Income made last quarter is a loss?

Please: Sony certainly has financial woes, but the Playstation2 has propped up the rest of the company for the past few years. It is an enormous cash cow.

They even profit on the hardware, not to mention the games.

Microsoft has lost money on the hardware, and the game revenue is not enough to offset that.

Again, it's about the games, not the hardware. Who wins the console wars has nothing to do with "My system has better specs!" It is about which system ends up with the most popular games.

Re:I don't know why

[asc99c]

This is very much the reverse of the true situation. The PS2 looked to have significantly less general purpose power than the Xbox, coming out a long way before. The weird hardware was pretty well suited for games though and I remember substantial improvements in graphics over the first few generations of PS2 games, presumably as developers learned to work with the hardware. That allowed it to keep pace with the newer Xbox and of course due to cheaper hardware, allowed Sony to make bucketloads of money.

I think if PS3 has more powerful hardware than Xbox360, but is harder to make use of, we'll see the PS3 struggle for a bit but my opinion is that second and third gen games will blow away what can be done with the Xbox360.

Re:I don't know why

[Anonymous Coward]

one quarters profit does not make up for years and billions of losses. sony will have to continue to make those sort of profits just on the ps2 for a number of years before they break even.

Re:I don't know why

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh...Sony never made anything off the PS2. They lost money on the PS2. I guess you could say they lost less than Microsoft and therefore "made" more money than Microsoft, but, they have yet to make a dime off the PS2.

Sony doesn't profit from the PS2? What the hell?

Theres a company that "blew the doors off." They were in the black shortly after the Gamecube came out.

Unless you are thinking of an alternate universe, the GC didn't save Nintendo from anything. They've always profitted more from Pokemon merchandise and portable consoles than from the N64 or the Gamecube (both hardware and software licenses).

Putting the GC as a better investment than the PS2 is totally laughable. Capcom was so desperate about the potential sales in PS2 that they ported RE4 as soon as the exclusivity contract allowed it, profitting much more in sheer months than they did on the GC for years now.

You gaw damn fanboys are as another poster put it: "the grabage littering the console world."

You know, insulting Nintendo zealots like you aren't exactly the most brilliant people around. Most gaming forums are now being invaded by people that say things like "the N64 has a better catalogue than the PSX, on quality alone". To hell with fanatics.

X-Box 360: Great Console looking for Great Titles

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that Microsoft did a reasonable job with the console's launch. It was not a perfect launch, but Microsoft did not drop the ball either. Microsoft's launch titles were reasonable as well. There were no truly spectacular titles, but launch titles are rarely spectacular in anything except possibly the glitz (i.e. graphics and sound.) All in all, Microsoft's performance is what I expected it to be about this time. The launch is certainly better than the launch of the original X-Box.

Microsoft has an advantage to market because it is the first mover in the next generation console war. I expect Microsoft to obtain a significant but not unsurmountable lead in the user base-- in other words, Microsoft can't expect the same amount of dominance that Sony enjoyed with the PS2 for simply being first. Think about it: If awesome high definition graphics and blow-away sound were the dominating factors in the console market, people would have been scrapping PS2s a long time ago. Even the original X-Box was vastly superior (in terms of hardware) compared to the underpowered PS2, after all. But I read in a trade magazine that PS2s outsold the XBox 360 in December, which means that people are continuing to purchase the PS2.

The big problem for Microsoft in the immediate future is trying to find spectacular, killer titles that really define a personality for the console. There are some good software already released, but no "killer" app. And there are some good, promising titles in the future (for example, I think Oblivion will be interesting), but the future remains mostly uncertain. I don't have a X-Box 360 (but I know lots of people who do, and I've played its games) but I do have a Sony PSP. And the situation is similar: After a splashy launch, there seems to be mostly silence, a quiet before a storm of strong titles that 360 fans are hoping for. (Microsoft has some good developers for it and the storm WILL happen, the only question is when.) There's a title here and there that look interesting, but none that grab attention.

But Sony and its line of developers have a huge line of titles that are in the horizon. If you're an RPG fan, then you're still going to stay on the side that is going to see major releases from Square-Enix, Konami, and Namco. If you're an action fan, then you have Metal Gear, Devil May Cry, Kingdom Hearts, and other strong titles to play/look foward to. Sony is going to do all it can to steal Microsoft's limelight because it has the trump card that matters most: The games, many of which are exclusive to PS2. And while a lot of Sony's hardware is pure speculation and hype right now, its likely that once PS3 comes out, it will have one feature that currently is not availble on 360: The PS3 has Blu-Ray and will enable high definition movie playback.

Microsoft got a good running start. But it needs a "I GOTTA HAVE THIS GAME!" title. I don't believe Revolution is really a major factor in the current stage of the game-- not because I'm trying to knock Nintendo, but because some of Revolutions's concepts are so radical that it is not easy to "predict" what will happen. Revolution could be the next major breakthrough in gaming, but it could also be widely rejected by customers. Because of the uncertainty, I think most of Nintendo's competitors-- while wary about what the console could do-- are now focusing on their own core strengths instead of worrying about reacting to what Nintendo does.

Cheers!

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[Anonymous Coward]

but Microsoft actually anticipated their existing product's shelf life accurately

I really don't understand where you get this idea. All of those things you listed are available for the Xbox today (HD, online gaming with Xbox Live, and even wireless). Most gamers would agree that the Xbox still has at least a good year or two left in it. I imagine that most Xbox developers would say that there's still a lot of potential in the machine that's unused. Microsoft even admits that they did a preemptive launch to chill Sony's launch plans.

I think this is more of the PC gaming mentality where you upgrade every other year or faster because you can't play a great game unless it's running on the latest processor with the latest graphics card.

I really hope consoles stay with their 6 year life span instead of Microsoft's hopes to shorten it. Not only is it cheaper on the individual, but IMO it really allows more innovative gameplay to shine because all the development toward the best graphics is over with and there's more concentration on the actual game.

Oh come on...

[serginho]

Let's be realistic. Rootkit? Bad, bad move. But thinking that this will keep people from buying the PS3? What's "so much attention"? We're talking about millions of consoles. Well, Sony might lose some Slashdot customers (not me, by the way).

Re: The Machine

[Radres]

You're going to loose at the game of life if you don't realize when to use the word "loose" and the word "lose".

I hate you.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[mrm677]

Are you aware that the original XBox already has 720p HD output? Of course the PS2 and Gamecube do *not* have any HD.

Get realistic...

[7Prime]

Oh come on, I've heard this arguement more than a few times, only from slashdot. But the other 98% of the population doesn't even know what a "rootkit" is. And "so much attention" is only relative. It got quite a bit of attention on tech sites, but if it wasn't on NBC Nightly News or on the front of a section of the NY Times, it won't even make a dent in sales. I would say, even if it DID make headline news, you might see a 1% sales drop. Most people use consoles for playing games, not viewing media, anyway, most of what Joe Sumer will be hooked with is fancy graphics, a lot of buzz, and news of must-have games. I have little doubt that Sony will be able to deliver those three things just fine, as it did on their last two releases. So no, the rootkit issues is not going to bite Sony.

Re:Get realistic...

[miro f]

You're right, my girlfriend is being annoying and reading over my shoulder and asked 'what is a rootkit?'

Is it important?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't care less about it. Really.
If there's something I've learned from the american feelings of "teh market", is that also I have to vote with my wallet (disclaimer: I'm not from US).
So, no MS products around me (if possible, obvious. If imposed by my job, it is a differen matter, sadly).
I'm just wondering how many people have the same point of view and how many just wank in front of that console just because it's a trendy-toy.

View from a disinterested observer

[jmorris42]

Having not bothered with any console since the Atari2600, here is how I view the landscape.

Xbox 360

Pro: Out first, never discount the advantage of getting on shelves first.
Fairly solid design, nothing too daring.
Massive marketing push

Con: Fairly solid design, nothing too daring.
Early mover advantage all but negated by supply issues, Xmas '05 was a bust.
Only a DVD Drive

PS3

Pro: Backward compatibility with PS2 and PS1.
Proven ability to churn out titles appealing to key 16-24yo male demographic.
BlueRay, especially if it wins in the broader next gen DVD war.

Con: Late arrival

???: Cell. If it can be harnessed it will be a major plus, otherwise another Itanic fiasco.

Revolution

Pro: Widest range of software covering the most catagories.

Con: From teh prelim info available it appears to be woefully underpowered.

???: New input system is a total wildcard much like Cell.

I'd say Nintendo will survive this round simply because it will mostly be fighting for ground not coveted by the other two contenders. If the new input system permits new catagories of gaming the others can't port it could gain major ground.

However there really isn't room for both Xbox and the Playstation since they both target the same demographic and neither is likely to be able to slide into the media center/tivo market with their current generation hardware.

If Xbox suffers another lackluster second place finish to Sony it will be hard to convince the instituitional investors who hold vast quantities of Microsoft stock in pension plans to piss away billions more on a third try. Sony on the other hand can probably afford to lose a round and come back with another try so while the pressure is on Sony to deliver a knockout and end the war they probably can better survive a loss while for Microsoft it is probably "win or go home" time. Expect them to realize that and play for keeps, slashing prices at the first hint of erosion in sales, knowing this brief period before PS3 & Revolution launch is their best opportunity to lock in customers.

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing missing from your 'analysis' was it being written in crayon.

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[cornface]

Revolution

Pro: Widest range of software covering the most catagories.

Yes, because there have been so many titles announced for the Revolution already. You can say you like Nintendo games and want them to do well without pretending to do an "analysis."

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[jmorris42]

> Yes, because there have been so many titles announced for the Revolution already.

Don't really care all that much myself. However based on trends going back a decade now it is fairly safe to assume Nintendo will quickly build a broad and deep catalog while Sony will focus on the male teen/young adult demographic again, as will Microsoft.

Because Xbox didn't sell much in Japan and neither does the 360 appear to be, Sony will have the advantage of having most independent Japanese development houses on their side and will probably rival Nintendo for sheer number of titles, assuming that their battle with Xbox doesn't turn into a massacre that drives 3rd party developers away. But beyond a certain minimum number, title count probably won't decide the issue between Xbox and Playstation. It will be critical for Nintendo though because they will need good coverage in every market segment NOT involved in the scorced earth war between Sony & Microsoft plus enough in that area to at least be seen as competitive.

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[dootbran]

Having not bothered with any console since the Atari2600, here is how I view the landscape.

Having not bothered to continue reading past this statement I don't understand how this post could get modded 'insightful'

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[neumayr]

Didn't they announce that all titles that ever came out on Nintendo's consoles will work on the Revolution? At least I thought that's what the GP meant...

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I don't think Microsoft shot themselves in the foot with their release - it didn't go as smooth as it should have, and personally I think they shouldn't have even tried in Japan and instead focussed all of their energies in Europe and the US, but I don't think it was a devistating launch. Their North America numbers are only off by about 300,000 from what they were predicting prior to launch, and their European launch actually seems to be quite successful. They hosed Japan though, but I can't imagine they were counting on actually doing well there.

If the PS3 debuts in June at $400, it was a horrible launch and Microsoft is in for a tough couple years. I don't think that's going to happen. I think it'll debut for 450-500 in October-November and I think it'll have fewer launch titles than the 360 did. I also think that the 360 will reduce to 250/350 a month or two before the PS3 launches, and every time you turn your TV on you'll be bombarded with images of Halo 3. If that happens, Microsoft will have a good system with a healthy number of titles including the most anticipated title in North America out at Christmastime at half the price of the Sony's console which is a good enough position as-is, but if you factor in likely PS3 supply shortages before Christmas in North America, I think it puts the 360 in a good spot.

All of this also assumes that the hype for the PS3 doesn't deflate - so much rumor and speculation have gone into the PS3's potential that if it doesn't have DVR capabilities and outstanding PSP integration and an outstanding Live system and at least one game that knocks the socks off of everyone, then all of this hype may turn the other direction.

If anything, the delay might be remembered at Microsoft as a lucky break. Several of their most anticipated launch titles were delayed. If everyone who wanted a 360 got one before Christmas, they'd all be moaning about the lack of titles for it now. As it stands, the fanboys got their 360s, and as the rest of us start to pick them up throughout March and April, those titles will be on the shelves with a large number looming right on the horizon.

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[cornface]

Don't really care all that much myself. However based on trends going back a decade now it is fairly safe to assume Nintendo will quickly build a broad and deep catalog while Sony will focus on the male teen/young adult demographic again, as will Microsoft.

Sony has had a broader and deeper catalog than Nintendo for the last ten years. They have more games, spanning more genres. You can ignore the massive number of quality Sony titles (Gran Turismo, Metal Gear, the Jak series, Ratchet and Clank, sports, puzzle games, flying games, family games, action games, strategy games, RPGs, "weird games" -- Mr. Mosquito, Katamari, robot games, fighting games) if you want, but saying that Nintendo has had a broader and deeper catalog for the last ten years is simply not true, no matter how you slice it.

I'm going to assume that what you actually mean is "Nintendo has games that I like," which is completely okay. They've put out some cool titles. But neither broader, nor deeper, in the catalog department.

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[cornface]

Didn't they announce that all titles that ever came out on Nintendo's consoles will work on the Revolution? At least I thought that's what the GP meant...

No.

They've said that Gamecube games will play on it and that there will be some sort of download service offering (enhanced?) versions of some nebulous selection of their old games. You can't plug N64/SNES/NES carts into it. There haven't been any details on whether it will include third party games, or how many, or what, or for what price, will be available via their service.

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[jmorris42]

> Personally, I don't think Microsoft shot themselves in the foot with their release...

Me neither, but the severe shortages undermined the first to market advantage without doubt. Yes a lot of boxes will be sold between now and PS3 launch but we all know the magic of the "Golden Quarter" and they could have sold a lot more boxes had they been able to supply them.

> If the PS3 debuts in June at $400, it was a horrible launch...

No, if Sony pulls that off they probably win right there. But I'd agree they probably won't make that time or price. But they are smart enough to realize they damned well better have ample supply in the system by Black Friday 06 so that means they will start pushing boxes by late Sep no matter what else gets compromised to do it.

> ...at half the price of the Sony's console...

Only if you assume Sony is totally insane does that situation develop. They know what is at stake and will compete. Being a hundred over Xbox is acceptable, them being the new system but double would be fatal, thus not permitted.

> ...that if it doesn't have DVR capabilities...

None of this crop of consoles will be DVRs and I'd bet it doesn't happen on the next generation either. Everybody talks about it but it is simply improbable. PVR means that at any moment the system must be able to devote overhead to realtime streaming, and nowadays that means the potential for HD content bouncing around the bus. Plus there are no standards for the input. You would need co-marketing agreements with each satelite and cable provider to gain access to their content, remember it is all encrypted now.

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[ScaryFroMan]

Con: From teh prelim info available it appears to be woefully underpowered.

That's BS. The revolution will certainly have respectable components. It will be a few times more powerful than the Gamecube, which had quite excellent graphics, in some places superior to the XBox (particle effects, for instance.) It's likely to be similar to the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray vs. DVD battle-to-come, where the difference in graphics between an NRV and a 360/PS3 are really only that noticable to someone with an expensive tv.

It is underpowered, compared to the 360 and PS3, but that's all relative, and the three consoles will probably look very similar.

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[justchris]

Actually, not quite.

While Playstation certainly has more titles than Gamecube, gamecube has just as wide a variety of genres available as playstation, it just has differing amounts of games in those genre's. Every genre you've listed, and a few you skipped over, exist for gamecube. Some cross platform, some exclusive.

Speaking of the specific companies themselves, of course, titles developed and/or published by Nintendo do tend to have a broader spectrum than titles developed and/or published by Sony. Sony thrives primarily on 3rd parties. Nintendo has mostly depended on 1st parties because they did not have enough market share to garner truly strong 3rd party support.

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[justchris]

The most anticipated game in North America right now is Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, but I'll give you that Halo 3 is in the top 5.

If the PS3 releases in June at $400, it will absolutely destroy the 360 in sales, at least for a while. Releasing that early, it won't have many more launch titles than the 360 had. So basically, it will be on almost the exact same footing as the 360, except it will have the Playstation name going for it, and that still counts for more than the Xbox name right now.

I agree that this scenario is unlikely. Even if the PS3 releases in June, I doubt it'll be a simultaneous worldwide release. I'd expect a June release for Japan, and a US release, at best, by September.

Of course, with no in game footage shown yet, and, in fact, nothing concrete shown except the cell processor, I don't see it making that target. And Sony is not like Nintendo. Nintendo never says anything, until it's already working 100% and nearly complete. Sony is 'teh hype machine', and I think if they had playable software that could compare to what the 360 has, they'd have shown it by now. Promises and videos are great for hype, until you show those same exact videos for the 4th or 5th time. In this case, Nintendo has done better by not showing videos. Had they shown videos of games in play at E3 or even TGS last year, we'd have been wowed, it'd've generated hype, but if they went to GDC and showed those exact same videos again, we'd be showing the same sort of general disappointment we're showing for PS3. It's not that we don't believe the hype (we always want to believe the hype), but man does not live by hype (and the occasional slice of bread) alone. On the other end of the spectrum, I just don't see Halo 3 launching near simultaneously with the PS3, even if it's not out until November. It's all a matter of marketing here, and there are two different perspectives to look at.

Perspective 1: Halo is our flagship title, a million seller and highly anticipated. Guaranteed Xbox Live multiplay, when Sony's HUB service is still in it's infancy. We need to get it out there and crush Sony.

Perspective 2: Halo is our flagship title. As Halo goes, so goes Xbox. If we release Halo, and it's a great disappointment, our Xbox 360 system may never recover. We have to make this software as good as it can be however long it takes.

To quote, or most likely paraphrase Shigeru Miyamoto (when speaking in regards to Zelda:TP), 'A delayed game is eventually good. A rushed game is bad forever.'

The smart move on Microsoft's part, is to go with Plan 2 over Plan 1. Plan 1 would eat into the hype of the newly released PS3, but if a title that is veritably synonymous with the platform is universally panned, they're going to be hard put to hang on, and it's too early in the system's life cycle for a title of that caliber to be fit into a single year development cycle. A final word. Don't underestimate the power of hype, but most of all, don't underestimate the disposability of hype. The PS3 doesn't have to lilve up to they hype it's generating. Once you've bought the system, that's recorded in sales numbers. Whichever system gets the most sales is the sytem that gets the most developers, which means it gets the most games. And games sell systems more than hype ever will. The PS3 just has to meet enough of the hype not to start riots, as long as it's a decently powerful system, with at least half the promised qualities available (not necessarily included, some people are fine with sold separately) they still have a chance. Look at all the hype that surrounded to PS2. How much of it actually panned out? Half? Less than half? Sure, people were disappointed, but they got over it, cause one stunning game, one memorable experience, wipes all the hype away.

Re:View from a disinterested observer

[wanorris]

I agree that Sony has the wherewithal to mount another try if the PS3 doesn't win, but if that's the case, they're going to be in serious trouble by the time they release a PS4. Sony hasn't been in the best of shape lately -- they're a "safe, established brand," not an innovator in key categories like flat-screen TVs. They're a complete non-factor in MP3 players. They're a small niche "lifestyle brand" in computers.

XBox is providing heavy pressure in the console market, basically the last segment in which Sony enjoys both excellent sales and excellent margins. If the Playstation cash cow gets slaughtered, what exactly does Sony still have going for them?

They still have best brand name in the industry, of course, but did that save RCA, GE, and other consumer electronics brands that used to be great back in the day?

Gran Turismo

[daverabbitz]

Gran Turismo is the single best (modern) console game I've ever played. I'm going with whoever has GT, probably sony.

I never understood how people can play FPS and RTS on console, without a mouse I'm hosed, especially with the huge dead-zones on Current Analog noobsticks.

I haven't seen a single game on Xbox that has made me want one. Gran Turismo on it's own is enough for me to buy PS3 and there will most likely be 2 releases for PS3, along with the mini GT's like GT:Concept.

As for platform fighters, I'll stick with neo-geo.

Re:Gran Turismo

[Anonymous Coward]

Gran Turismo is so second-rate. There's FAR better racers out there than that, but for some reason, nobody looks for them. Project Gotham 3 is a better game, for sure.

If you have a PC, check out rFactor, GTR: FIA GT Racing, and GT Legends. GTR2 is set to be released later this year. All are racing sims that totally blow the doors off Gran Turismo.

I got myself a gamecube

[bazorg]

these new hightech game-boxes sure take their time getting down here to grandma's basement. I got my first game console this week. used Gamecube. Took me more than 30 ebay auctions before finally getting one for less than EUR30.

Also ended up buying some racing game from the supermarket. EUR9.9 and I'll be racing with some green dudes shooting each other while flying around in surfboards or something.

I'll give it a go this weekend and stop by /. every now and then to hear from you guys just how better and innovative the new generation games are.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[bsmoor01]

The PS2 does support HD. It's a matter of software, not hardware. GT4 in 1080i is a sight to behold.

But... the same issue exists on the xbox, too. Only a very few games are in HD. With the 360, everything's either in HD native, or antialiased and upscaled so it looks decent. Microsoft's mandate of at least 720p support is a very good thing, IMO.

Re:Who are they kidding?

[asland]

Their hardware is unlikely to ever support my os, because (perhaps because they're a giant popular corporation) they like to keep it all closed up.

My VGN-S360 runs linux just fine, and every bit of hardware in it is supported and is working fine. Except maybe the memory stick reader, but I don't have any memory sticks anyway.

MS screwed em selves over launching too soon...

[Zantetsuken]

IMHO, Microsoft really screwed themselves over by launching too soon. The reason they did it was mostly to get a product out significantly sooner than Sony so they could get 1) people that owned nothing but the original XBox to buy a 360, 2) get the people that did no console research at all to buy a 360, and 3) so people with money to burn would have something to tide them over until the PS3 launch.

In order to get this signicifantly earlier (than the other next-gen consoles) launch date, they had no choice to sacrifice product quality of including vastly improved technologies - and the problem is Microsoft apparently (as the 360 launched this way) didnt give a damn about being worlds better than the current (PS2, Xbox) consoles.

These are the features and improvements I think are obvious MS ditched to get a 1st launch

1) They went with DVDs, which in the media market are becoming fastly outdated - they didnt even go with HD-DVDs, which wouldnt (as I understand it) required *nearly* the renovation of manufacturing facilities that BD-discs would have

2) IBM designed and made/is making the CPUs for all 3 next-gen console companies - Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo - and they have *very* apparently put much more of their company towards developing the Cell chip - which has other applications. MS did what Apple did with IBM, they wanted a good chip, but they wanted it for *JUST* desktop/PC gaming level applications - whereas IBM wants to build super high end supercomputer and server chips, which Sony's contract lets IBM do, produce a high end server level chip.

3) One of the hardware issues I had read about the 360 when it was in production - the software companies developing for the 360 had to *REQUEST* 512 megs of RAM to be put in the system - MS was gonna put a measley 256 in the 360! If virtually every PC game (made to run on the OS Microsoft made, mind you) has a minimum of 256 and a recommended of 512 RAM, wouldnt it apply to consoles also? When a system launches, it should hav *no* problem playing launch games, and then towards the end of that console's ability to provide an abundance of GPU and CPU power, the truly KILLER apps get released for it (note on the PS2, Killzone, the soon to be released "Black", ect) - If MS had launched the 360 with only 256 RAM, the 360 wouldnt have a chance in hell of this type of killer app developement, mostly because it wouldnt have had the power to get through the launch games, let alone the end-of-system-life killer apps.

But then again, those are *just* my personal thoughts on the 360...

Re:MS screwed em selves over launching too soon...

[Anonymous Coward]

2) IBM designed and made/is making the CPUs for all 3 next-gen console companies - Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo

Thhe real winner of the next-gen console war - IBM

Re:MS screwed em selves over launching too soon...

[Osty]

One of the hardware issues I had read about the 360 when it was in production - the software companies developing for the 360 had to *REQUEST* 512 megs of RAM to be put in the system - MS was gonna put a measley 256 in the 360!

At least Microsoft listened.

If virtually every PC game (made to run on the OS Microsoft made, mind you) has a minimum of 256 and a recommended of 512 RAM, wouldnt it apply to consoles also?

Nope. PC games need so much RAM because they aren't the only thing running on a system and they can't make assumptions about the environment where they'll run (is the hard drive or optical drive fast enough to stream textures in a Just In Time manner?). Conversely, consoles are a solid target. You can make assumptions about the hardware, and you can write your code in such a way that RAM is nothing more than a temporary buffer as you pull stuff off of the hard drive or optical disk. That's how the Xbox got by with only 64MB of unified memory in 2001 (and the PS2 has only 4MB of video buffer!), and that's why the 360 could've done just fine with 256MB of RAM and is a console developer's wet dream at 512MB.

When a system launches, it should hav *no* problem playing launch games, and then towards the end of that console's ability to provide an abundance of GPU and CPU power, the truly KILLER apps get released for it (note on the PS2, Killzone, the soon to be released "Black", ect)

I haven't seen much about Black on the PS2, but you conveniently forgot to mention that it'll also be out on Xbox. Having played the demo, I didn't find it to be all that special, and I probably won't pick it up until I can get it used (to avoid lining EA's pockets). As for Killzone, I'm surprised you can mention that game with a straight face. It was supposed to be a Halo killer (keep in mind, Killzone shipped in 2004 while Halo shipped in 2001), and ended up with boring gameplay and a host of graphical and audio issues. While Halo has an average review rating of 96% and Halo 2 averages at 95%, Killzone has an average rating of only 73%. It's a little better if you look at user ratings rather than "official" reviews: H1/H2 average 8.8 and 8.3, while Killzone averages 7.7. Since those numbers are from users, they're obviously full of fanboys for and against both games, giving H2 a 1/10 because it's not Half-Life 2, or giving it a 10/10 because they're blind with fanboyism.

Anyway, where was I going with this? Oh, yeah -- 512MB of RAM vs. 256MB is nice, but certainly wasn't absolutely necessary. However, it's interesting to note that given the choice between having a hard drive as standard equipment (ie, no Core 360) or 512MB of RAM, almost every developer chose to have 512MB of RAM.

Re:MS screwed em selves over launching too soon...

[ghost1911]

I hate to sound zealous, but your keynote:

>2) get the people that did no console research at all to buy a 360.

There's been a little analysis of this and if you're referring to the hardware of the 360 and the PS3, it's a pretty moot battle at this point. Also, if you're referring to the online service, the only "real" online service right now is XBox live. Finally, if you're referring to games, the 360 has Morrowind, GRAW, and Fight Night in the pipeline for next month.

I'm not sure that the early adopters of the 360 have been shortsighted in purchasing their consoles -- we have great HD games on a system that will be neck and neck with the PS3. And we've gotten it at least 8 months before anyone else will be seeing the competition.

Re:MS screwed em selves over launching too soon...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Microsoft rushed the 360 at all - I think they rushed production of the 360 to meet the holiday season 2k5 and that has bit them a little, but I do not believe they rushed it more than one or two months.

1) They went with DVDs, which in the media market are becoming fastly outdated - they didnt even go with HD-DVDs...

Everyone seems to think that not shipping with HD DVD support was a bad move. I don't. Consider the following - first gen HD DVD (and Blueray, to a lesser extent) drives are relatively slow, and without a mandatory hard drive for developers to do caching on, load times on 360 games would have suffered badly. I don't believe there will be many games that need more than one standard DVD. If they can fit the extremely vast world of Oblivion on a single DVD, they can fit most games, especially with games moving more and more towards dynamically generated artwork (which the 360 is just as capable of doing as the PS3 is). Where it loses is the ability to play HD DVD movies. This is a minor inconvenience to consumers two to three years out if HD DVD survives that long, but not a problem for consumers now. It is a blow to HD DVD in the HD wars, but I'll be honest, I don't think Microsoft ever wanted HD DVD to win. I think they just wanted it to survive long enough to keep Blueray from becoming a standard before digital distribution takes hold (there's actually an article on Engadget about that very topic yesterday).

2) IBM designed and made/is making the CPUs for all 3 next-gen console companies - Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo - and they have *very* apparently put much more of their company towards developing the Cell chip

IBM may be backing the Cell bigtime, but that doesn't mean its a better chip for this task. Microsoft knew they would get good solid performance from the chips they chose. The actual performance of the Cell is still a debated topic. Is the future for the Cell bright? Absolutely. Is its first incarnation the greatest thing since sliced bread? Nobody knows yet. From everything I've read, the Cell will have an edge in overall power, but not a very large edge. Personally, I don't think people are really going to start utilizing the Cell's full potential for another 4-5 years, by which time I suspect the Xbox 720 or whatever they wanna call it will be coming out - quite possibly with a later version Cell in it. Until then, I think the lack of a branch predictor is going to hurt AI on the Cell especially considering that the PS3's 256 megs of general purpose RAM isn't enough for the types of AI that a processor like the Cell would really excel at, like ANNs.

3) One of the hardware issues I had read about the 360 when it was in production - the software companies developing for the 360 had to *REQUEST* 512 megs of RAM to be put in the system

Okay, so software companies had to request more memory - they got it. Clearly Microsoft listened to their input and decided in favor of them. What's wrong with that? We're not talking about how the 360 would have performed if they had only put in 256 megs of RAM, we're talking about how the 360 they released performs. Also, I don't think that Microsoft was ever intending to put just 256 megs of RAM into the 360 - I think they were intending to do what the PS3 does and put 256mb of general purpose RAM in along with another 256mb of dedicated video RAM. Based on UMA work ATI had done and the opinions of those working on the box, they decided to go with their current memory model, which every 360 developer I've talked to LOVES.

Re:MS screwed em selves over launching too soon...

[xtracto]

Microsoft really screwed themselves over by launching too soon. The reason they did it was mostly to get a product out significantly sooner than Sony

I agree. When the Sony Playstation 3 and Revolution come out the Xbox360 will be seen as a "mid-step" next generation console. Something like a Gameboy Color.

Nintendo and Sony could force this by waiting utnil the middle of the year or a bit later, and then promote their systems under that premises.

360 vs. PS3

[podwich]

Up until about a month ago, I was waiting until the PS3 to come out to buy a new console. I've since changed my mind-I'm going to buy a 360 (once I can find one that's NOT in a bundle). Here's why-
1) Timing: I just don't want to wait another year or whatever until it comes out.
2) Graphics and gameplay: I've been more or less convinced that neither console will have a huge advantage over the other.
3)Cost: $400 is a lot of money-I can't see myself spending much more than that on a console.
4) I've lost trust in Sony. The crap with the rootkit, hardware getting crappier, etc. has just taken away any loyalty I had to them.
5) HD movie playback (Blu-Ray): I have a HDTV that doesn't have HDMI. I'm not spending multiple thousands on a new TV just to get a TV that'll display HD content from movies since apparently they are going to require HDMI w/ HDCP. It's just not worth it to me. I'll just buy a standalone player (if I can use it on my non-HDCP TV or I buy a new TV) once a format wins (or they make a player that supports both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD).

The last two points (especially #5) are the pretty much the ones helped me make my decision.

Re:360 vs. PS3

[DarkJC]

Just so you know, HDMI isn't the only thing that supports HDCP. DVI does too, so if your TV has a DVI port, you just may be ready for the HD content. Check your TV/Manual.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[Cerium]

I understand that bugs have gotten harder to prevent as our games have gotten more complex, but the fact that some consumers have accepted bugs in 'final' products is utter nonsense. While some may argue that allowing the console to support patches and upgrades for games is a good thing, Im going to strongly disagree. What were going to see is rushed projects and 'coming soon' features that are only made available through a service that costs money. Users who just want to play a game periodically are going to get hosed on the deal. I dont have broadband or a live account, nor do I want the latter. Yet, if I want to keep my games in working order, it seems im going to have to open that pocketbook for MS. Hooray!

Beee...caaaause...

[cthellis]

...all of the plethora of Windows security holes detracts from 360 sales?

Methinks thou doth underestimate the forgetful nature of the this market too much, and their attraction to "shineys." ;-)

Re:Beee...caaaause...

[Anonymous Coward]

truer words doth never spoketh =P

Re:Beee...caaaause...

[Jason1729]

First, MS did not put in security holes on purpose (at least it's not been proven).

Second, the Windows -> Xbox market has a lot less overlap than music -> PS3

My opinion on the Xbox 360

[krunoce]

I purchased one, and the 2 games I have are pretty fun(PGR3 & Call of Duty 2), but not addicting. 99% of the time I use my xbox 360 is for DVD playing.

I was expecting to have more titles available, and it sucks to see long periods of time seperating release dates for the new games. Actually, the only game I'm looking forward to is Burnout that comes out in March. Sure you can play old Xbox games, but I want to play games in full HD.

For MS's sake they should put out more titles soon, because the PS3 will dominate if the Xbox 360 game selection still sucks like it does now.

Now that I think of it, the cause for this bad game selection is probably because of all the nonsense that companies require to make modern games. I mean shit, a symphony orchestra is needed for the sounds. Maybe if the SDK/MS licensing was cheaper, developers that aren't as rich as EA can afford to make/sell games too.

::Dusts off NES and Mario 3::

Re:Who are they kidding?

[cthellis]

Linux:
Their hardware is unlikely to ever support my os, because (perhaps because they're a giant popular corporation) they like to keep it all closed up.

Spoken truly! How could you ever fit Linux onto a PERSONAL COMPUTER?!! Zounds! Let alone on a console! The mere concept is laughable by its very nature!

Or... um... have you been trying to load Knoppix on your set-top DVD player?

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[ClamIAm]

Could that be because the Dreamcast actually exists, and isn't just an idea. Does PS2 even have a launch date yet? People keep saying this and that about PS2, but Sega actually anticipated their existing product's shelf life accurately, and planned for it. I have been dying for some of the stuff the Dreamcast does, like high-res texture gaming, an online experience, and OEM modem that comes with the system. Sure, DC has issues, namely a lot of bugs made it through. But since I'm online they're patched pretty quickly and things are working out pretty well. I'll take next-gen gaming now versus something that doesn't have a launch date yet.

Um, yeah.

Re: The Machine

[Osty]

They will try to kill off innovative games on other platforms

Microsoft doesn't really have much control over other platforms, you know. Aside from purchasing development houses (which they've done twice in the past five years. How many developers have EA, Take Two, or Ubi purchased since then?), they have no way to stop developers from making innovative games on other platforms. All they can do is try to get developers to make innovative games on their platform, and they have a perfect opportunity to pull in the indy folks via XBLA. That's already happening with games like Mutant Storm, Outpost Kaloki, Wik, and Ultra Marble Blast (some of which have appeared on the PC or original Xbox, but all of which are from small-time developers -- I left out Geometry Wars because it's from BC, and I left out arcade ports because they're arcade ports). Maybe getting these developers to innovate on the XBLA platform is a way of locking them into the 360, but I don't think it'd be difficult for those developers to publish their games online for the PC as well (as I already mentioned, many do that now).

try to tie people to Xbox Live with restrictive licensing

What? I mean, really, what do you mean by this? Are you saying that they'll using licensing to prevent developers from making their games interoperate with other platforms (false -- Final Fantasy XI does just that)? I just don't see what licensing has to do with this at all. And besides, what do you think Sony's going to do with their Xbox Live clone, the HUB?

try to cut into the home theater market profits

Cut into those profits from where? DVD players? What profit can there be in a market where you can buy a $30 progressive scan DVD player that's perfectly adequate? If anything, the 360 will be a compliment to a home theater, because it works as a Media Center extender right out of the box. Since Vista will include media center functionality in every version, you won't be able to not buy a media center PC in a year if you want Windows (and if you don't, this doesn't apply to you anyway). The 360's media center integration has been called one of its greater strengths by most reviews, along with XBLA. The way I see it, MCE integration and Arcade are the 360's "backwards compatibility", where "backwards compatibility" is defined by it's functional purpose -- "A way to get some valuable usage out of a system during that first 9-12 months of its life when the number of good games just aren't there." Sony did this with PS1 games on the PS2 (which had an even worse launch line-up than the 360). The 360 does this by providing fun arcade games and media center integration.

And so, in the console market, I predict* that their games will be clones of previous successes, that Xbox Live will degenerate into the same kind of experience as you get at msn.com, and that the home theater market will largely ignore them as being way too expensive.

And I predict that there will be a mix of "old faithful" games (Halo 3, EA's sports regurgitation year after year, another Splinter Cell, another Ghost Recon, etc) and innovative games (whether full titles or on XBLA), Xbox Live will continue to be a great service even when the 12 year olds continuously drop the N-bomb and question your sexual orientation, and the home theater market will only care about the 360 as a game machine or media center extender (because it's not meant to be a top of the line DVD player, and even if it was the home theater market segment will always prefer stand-alone units).

Re:Who are they kidding?

[RiotXIX]

That's because it's a laptop, made up of non-sony components. & from the sounds of it, the one drm specific sony piece of hardware it has doesn't work, and is probably illegal to reverse engineer.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[tgibbs]

Could that be because the Xbox360 actually exists, and isn't just an idea.

Can't prove it by me; I've been on a waiting list since before release.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[Blakey Rat]

Amazon has them in stock. I got one from Gamestop monday.

If you're still on a waiting list, you're being ripped-off.

Re:Who are they kidding?

[RiotXIX]

Yeah, actually I appreciate the work they've done on linux for the ps2 - it's cool (even if it costs about $200 in Europe and is no longer available in the US). But sony is a split up company. PS2 techeads might not be the same people trying to stop you from using your computer transfer Sony camcorders, mp3 players + other peripheral devices so it doesn't get cracked in 6 months instead of 12. And that's optimistic - 4 years on Sony net-mindisc players + walkmen (old or new) still can't transfer mp3 files under linux.

Xbox 360's position at retail

[Animats]

The Xbox 360's position in retail is "those guys made us tie up all that shelf space just before XMas and then botched the launch. And we've still got unsold accessories and games stacked up. Next time, their box goes in the back unless they pay us for positioning".

Christ Hironbu?!?!

[Nazmun]

Wasn't Hironbu Sakaguchi the guy who headed final fantasy 7 and was a big wig for numerous projects there? Was his decline that bad after the first failed movie that he had to get kicked or move to another company?

Re:Christ Hironbu?!?!

[jchenx]

Yes, I believe he headed both FFVII and the failed FF movie. Then again, seeing how Advent Children is getting so much attention, maybe he was just "ahead of the time".

Personally, FFVII was the only FF game I skipped (well, FFXI too, but I almost don't count that since it's an MMO), and I wasn't a fan of the Final Fantasy movie. Thus, I'm hesitant on saying Sakaguchi's studio is going to be the saviour for Japanese support on the 360. But it's still better than the lack of support for the first Xbox. (Most of the RPGs were created by non-Japanese companies, like Bioware, and there were a few that were cancelled, like True Fantasy Online)

Re:Early Launch vs Good Games

[WillAffleckUW]

Gameplay is important, but if you can get the same game on two different consoles, which would you choose. Most people would choose the one with more power.

Now, there is some truth in that.

I bought the xBox version of Lego Star Wars and Sims 2 - both multi-platform - because the graphics are better for the xBox version than the GameCube.

But, overall, I've bought way more GameCube games, cause they're just plain more fun! And, in the end, that matters more.

Re:Who are they kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony BMG.
the whole rootkit fiasco

Just like you, I've been a loyal to Sony over the years for their quality products, but the more I learned about their dirty DRM tricks the more I distanced myself from them. The stealthy rootkit installation was the drop that caused the flood... never again Sony.

I'm disappointed...

[Gordo_1]

I thought this article was going to explore how children are being prepared for duty in next-generation wars via realistic first-person shooters running on X-box 360s.

Oh well, back to playing America's Army I go...

The safe bet in gaming, isn't

[cgenman]

I'm also of the opinion that the X360's future isn't perfectly smooth sailing.

The problem is that "being safe" in gaming usually means delivering an experience a lot like everyone else's experiences. But this really is a hit-driven industry, and so far Microsoft's only homer is Xbox Live.

Nintendo is pushing the bounds of immersion. It might be the next 2D to 3D revolution, or the next Virtual Boy. We'll see. The PS3 might be a slightly more powerful X360 with 10x the storage, but that storage capacity will come in really handy... if you have 5x the RAM, you will need at least 5x the storage.

But by the same token, the 360 is no slouch. It has decent power in an otherwise traditional package. Xbox Live is amazing, and really the reason to own a 360, but is that enough for the average consumer?

It will all come down to which games are the most revolutionary, and only time will tell.

Re:The safe bet in gaming, isn't

[ivan256]

But this really is a hit-driven industry, and so far Microsoft's only homer is Xbox Live.

If it's a "homer", then why isn't it very popular?

The concept of online gaming just doen't appeal to, well, most people, and the types of people who do play online right now in the types of game available on a console don't really provide an experience that makes pepole come around. Combine that with parents who don't want their kids gaming online due to language, etc... and you'll see that relying on Live too much is going to be a problem. Subscriptions to Live were a tiny fraction of Xbox owners, who were a tiny fraction of the console gaming market. The numbers seem higher for the 360 right now, but you have to remember that only the hardcore Xbox fans have a 360 right now, and that percentage will probably come down a bit as your average gamers pick up a 360.

"Online" doesn't make a game good. The game has to be good to begin with, and good games sell consoles, not the connectivity.

Where the Girls Are

[WillAffleckUW]

Nintendo needs something like The Sims or some female friendly game that makes good use of the innovative controller. Reaching out to women is how they can really blow-out the X-Box.

I tend to agree. It's actually for that reason alone that I'm not willing to count out Nintendo, even tho I sold my shares in them, as every market study i've seen in the Wall Street Journal says that this is going to be an exploding game sector (women and girls).

For some reason, I tend to like a lot of the same games that many women and girls choose, even tho I'm a guy - heck, I'm ex-Army, used to shoot real people, but I'm so over FPS ...

Maybe it's cause I've been watching too much Japanimation with my son - he's 14 - and he's heavily into anime and manga, so that may be influencing me - or maybe it's the university crowd I hang out with, who come from many nations, and half of our scientists are women (yes, a lot of really beautiful ones too, if you must know).

But I'm waiting till all three platforms are out before I start thinking of buying my next console - already have GameCube and xBox for now, wish I'd gotten PS2.

SVP vs. Super FX

[tepples]

The big reason why Virtual Racer cost $100 is because to pull the game off they need to put a co-processor inside of the cartridge

So how did Star Fox, Stunt Race FX, and Yoshi's Island, all of which used the Super FX coprocessor, manage to come in at 60 USD MSRP?

Re:SVP vs. Super FX

[Bacon Bits]

Probably because Virtual Racer didn't use the FX chip? Games that used the generic FX coprocessor got to benefit from the economics of scale. Or, you know, maybe it was just a lower quality chip.

Not that I know anything about Virtual Racer. I would never pay that much for a racing game.

Re:SVP vs. Super FX

[KDR_11k]

'Cos that's Sega and Sega isn't known for cost effective hardware, as opposed to Nintendo.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[Anonymous Coward]

Not every game on the Xbox 1 supports 720p. It was too much of a performanc hit. There's only a handfull. On the 360 ALL the games are in 720P.

Re:Who are they kidding?

[tepples]

The ps2 had a linux kit

Past tense. It's sold out.

Sony/MS win, consumers lose.

[Mr_eX9]

For the record: Xbox/GameCube owner, ex-PS2 owner, currently an avid PC gamer.

Let's face it, regardless of what Microsoft does, Sony is going to make piles of money off of the PS3, simply because they've got the brand. Most likely, Microsoft will be raking in similar piles of money this generation because they got their product out first. As long as there are console-exclusive Halos and GTAs out there to keep the casual gamers playing, neither console is going anywhere.

But that's not what concerns me. What concerns me is the fact that the Core System excludes the most ballsy feature that the Xbox introduced to console gaming--the hard drive. In order to make a good investment, you need to spend $400 on the Premium Package, which IMO is too much money to spend on a console that doesn't even have a single exclusive AAA title (on the same level as Halo back in '01) in its launch lineup.

A $450-460 minimum buy-in without a launch game that won't make you think twice about the money you just laid down? Gimmie a break.

Microsoft is doing what they do best--taking consumers for a ride. I can only fear what Sony thinks it'll be able to get away with for the PS3 launch. They've been hyping that the PS3 is not a console, but a "supercomputer for computer entertainment"--I see this as an excuse to stray outside the (IMO) reasonable launch price of $300. Combine this with the Cell chip and $100 blu-ray drives and you've got a console that could easily cost more than the Xbox 360 Premium Package without any accessories.

I know some of you must be thinking "stop whining and wait for price drops," which is exactly what I'm doing--assuming an exclusive must-have technology *cough* or game comes out on either console.

My console gaming sights are currently set on the Revolution. Since Nintendo is touting innovation over specs, I suspect the console will probably launch for $200 just like the GameCube did. Also, I can trust Nintendo to deliver outstanding games that are worth my attention, even if they don't come out very often. I'm hoping that E3 2006 will confirm these beliefs.

For now, I'm still having fun with FEAR (October 2005,) Guild Wars (April 2005,) and Resident Evil 4 (January 2005.) FEAR and Guild Wars are about as next-gen as it gets from both artistic and technology standpoints.

Until the new generation of consoles offers me something that gamers have never seen before, my incentive to upgrade is basically zero.

Re:Sony/MS win, consumers lose.

[xtracto]

My console gaming sights are currently set on the Revolution.

Me too, I have my PC to play all the games that get to Playstation and Xbox (at least, all the games I care).

Unlike that, the Revolution is supposed to give me other kind of entertainment which I can not get now with my PC. So the winning combo for me is my hardcore PC + a Revolution. Meanwhile, I am happilly waiting playing HL2, WoW and CivIV.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[Anonymous Coward]

"On the 360 ALL the games are in 720P."

Bzzzt!!!

The weak 360 graphics hardware has forced the makers of PGR3 to render the game in a lower resolution. Too bad the fucked up ATI graphics system still puts out jaggs galore even at that lower resolution.

There will be others...

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[Anonymous Coward]

X-Box 360's exist? I thought they were a marketing scam!

Umm... I highly doubt that...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a girlfriend?

Come on, let's keep this realistic here...

Re:Umm... I highly doubt that...

[miro f]

Ahhh whoops sorry, I forgot I was posting on /. here. I'd better get back in line with the geek stereotype.

"One of my d&d party members just asked me 'what's a rootkit?'"

Re:Umm... I highly doubt that...

[Anonymous Coward]

You play D&D with people who don't know what a rootkit is? Find a better group ;)

Re:Who are they kidding?

[bunbuntheminilop]

Holy crap! I should have bought one!

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[tgibbs]

I can't find anything on Amazon except those stupid bundles where you have to buy a bunch of crappy games and other stuff you don't want.

I'm waiting for AI.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'm skipping this generation of consoles. I'm not seeing what I really wanted to see, which was improved AI. It's all graphics and online play. Bleh.

It's the games, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

What Microsoft can't seem to figure out, what with their corporate culture of copying from someone else, reverse-engineering, and renaming everything they sell, is that losses on price, hardware, and exclusive-rights agreements only get you so far. We're -gamers-, not actuaries. I'd rather play the original Legend of Zelda than Halo 2, any day of the week. That's why the Xbox lost*, and that's why the 360 will lose, unless Gates has made some changes that I'm not aware of.

* I still remember, two weeks later, trading my Christmas-gotten Xbox + DOA3 for a PS2 + FFX. One of the best decisions I ever made. Hated dodging that lightning though.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[fejta]

In contrast to the Dreamcast, a substantial number of people use the Xbox 360's online features. Oh, and that is also the (most compelling) selling point for the console.

Re:Who are they kidding?

[Hurga]

Linux:
Their hardware is unlikely to ever support my os, because (perhaps because they're a giant popular corporation) they like to keep it all closed up.

WTF? It's been all over the news... http://forevergeek.com/games/playstation_3_hdd_to_ run_linux.php for example.

Hanno

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk to game developers with a PC programming background and lack of experience in embedded systems and many/most will say that Microsoft has better developer tools, documentation, and assistance.

That's not surprising, as the xbox is largely a box with a PC inside.

MOD PARENT UP

[DavidHOzAu]

IAASEA (I am a student engineer), and embedded systems have a completely different architecture than a PC. A PC has operating systems or a cut down version of one, embedded systems have no operating system.

Xbox is a glorified PC and isn't that hard to program with... but embedded systems require a completely different class of programming/hackers. Remember the days when you could get lots of power simply by writing to ports? That's the PS3... an embedded system designed for running games. XBox is similar, but is more a PC than an embedded gaming system.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[wheany]

Embedded systems can have an operating system, and often do. One such operating system that I have worked with, is uC/OS2 (that's actually "mu"C/OS2, but Slashdot eats the character).

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[DavidHOzAu]

To an embedded system, an operating system is just another name for a BIOS chip.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[wheany]

How so?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[DavidHOzAu]

When I said that the so-called "operating system" is on the BIOS, it is basically a ROM chip. This is what you see when you don't put a disc in.
1. At turn the RESET gets pulled active low (or high, depending on the logic used).
2. Microprocessor loads IP with RESET vector
3. BIOS boots
4. CD/whatever runs

In PC architecture, an operating system goes between 3 and 4. When you put a disc in, it runs between the game/app and the hardware, and the program has to interact with the operating system instead of the hardware.

In the PSX architecture, when you put a disc in, all the bootstrap does is load the disc image, and that's it. You're on your own; you control the hardware, not through some cutdown DirectX API. This is the kind of freedom we used to have on our computers before the days of DPMI, V86 and Windows that hid the hardware from us.

In a truly embedded system, you can skip the third step: the reset vector often points to the main bit of code to run and skips any bootstrap stuff entirely. Chances are that if you've bulit an embedded system, you don't need an operating system because you designed the hardware with your application in mind.

Think about it: the PSX architecture was designed to run games, but the PC architecture was always designed to run PC applications.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[wheany]

Yes, but you can have an operating system in an embedded system that handles multitasting, memory management and other resources. Like I said, I've personally used uC/OS2, on an Intel 8052 -compatible microcontoller.

And embedded system doesn't necessarily give you direct access to hardware. Try banging bits with J2ME on a cellphone.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Oldsmobile]

I usually prefer a good California Pinot Noir when I'm multitasting.

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[ClamIAm]

In contrast to the Dreamcast, broadband penetration in the US is at a much higher level than in '99. Also, having a peripheral feature sell your console (instead of, I dunno, good games) doesn't sound like that great of a business model.

Complete with Rumble Pack...

[dhalgren99]

Yeah...VG Cats thought about that a while back...

Look at the 5th panel...

VG Cats

GTA is what matters

[hixie]

I'm your average not-a-huge-console-fan consumer and the only thing I care about is the next GTA. Doesn't matter what the specs of the console are -- whichever console runs the next GTA is the one that I'm getting.

Re:GTA is what matters

[justchris]

So if all 3 of them run it, which are you getting then? The one that runs it first, or the one that runs it better?

Xbox Japanese launch campaign.

[McFadden]

Frankly the Xbox launch in Japan was lousy. I can't speak for Tokyo, but up here in Sapporo (which is Japan's fifth largest city with a population of nearly 2 million) we got a few crappy billboard ads on the walls at train and subway stations. I couldn't even tell you what date it launched on, until I noticed they were selling it one day when I walked into an electronics store. Apart from instore displays (which were not exactly mindblowing - a couple of demo consoles and some posters) I saw little else. There was no television or radio that I can recall.

Additionally the billboard ads were ridiculous. They just showed an Xbox logo and a list of upcoming releases. Except IIRC many of the releases were listed as late 2006 (bear in mind this was late 2005 at the time) so essentially the posters just screamed "buy this very expensive room heater, and wait at least a year before any decent games start appearing in your country". Which marketing idiot came up with that creative masterpiece? By the way - I assume someone else has reported it, but in case you haven't read, the head of Xbox Japan has just been fired.

But seriously, the launch flop has a lot more to it than just bad marketing. Microsoft has majorly underestimated the power of the Japanese collective consciousness. They're NEVER going to succeed in Japan. Period. Why...? Because the Japanese are very much aware of the threat to their position as the world's second largest economy and their quality of life as they are having to compete more and more on the world stage. The US is just one threat, but there are other emerging competitors like China right on our doorstep. Japan is still far and away the world leader in videogames hardware and still one of the most important creators of game software. They're not about to give that up and face the financial consequences (Sony/Nintendo taking a huge financial hit, knock on effect to the domestic economy, lost jobs etc.) that it would bring if they surrendered the number 1 position to Microsoft. Xbox is not just a rival console - it's one battleship in a larger fleet that threatens the future financial security of Japan. This is not about the best console, the most powerful console, the cheapest console... It's a mixture of national pride, and looking after one's own future.

Ok, lets take a new perspective

[Jfarro]

Wow. Time and again I see the same things...Nintendos controllers going to do wonderful things, Sony's graphics are going to do amazing things. As someone thats played games since the 2600, I'm really thinking that people aren't 'getting it'.

You dont factor winners by how strong a launch they have. But you do factor losers. If they dont sell (we're looking at you Gizmondo and those sidetalkers) then you have problems. If you sell them as fast as you can make them, well no prob, make more, move on.

Long term, its the possiblities that matter. I can watch and stream HD content to my 360. NOW. TODAY. I can download games. I can download trials and demos. A 360, out of the box, is more fun than any past console. The xbox arcade is the thing that should be most talked about. Sure, theres only a few titles out there, ranging 50 to 70 bucks. But on xbox arcade, theres titles from 5 bucks to 10, and theres a ton of them. Noone talks about them. But damn, I know I spend more time on them than anything else.

Game demos being downloadable...I've played the demo for Fight Night longer than I'd played many of my older xbox games. For Free! Today...not tomorrow, not promised, not vaporware. MS delivered that experience, and it was fluid.

I can purchase games for the arcade via xbl with points. I can download trailers and watch them. I can play music from my computer. The XBL functionality is upped tenfold. Achievments make arcade games fun again.

Now that stuffs not a big deal...except when you look at tomorrow....

I can see tomorrow bringing downloadable movies (netflix via the net style)
I can see an online music service. The technology is there, in my living room, working
I can see downloading full games, and purchasing them online. No more go to the store and be sad if they're out. Just go browse, buy, download, play (steam for consoles..but without the suck)

Yes, bigger harddrives would be needed. Yes, dashboard updates would be needed. But MS has shown with the first xbox they can update live and add amazing functionality. And I'm thinking the removeable hard drive wasnt just a ploy to have two versions, but so that future use wouldnt be tied down to 20 gigs.

On top of all this, being out a year early allows the developers to play with it, so that even though the hardware may be lacking, it'll give the devs a head start on learning the tricks, so that MS can have second gen 360 games go against first Gen sony games. But honestly, playing the games, I really dont think graphics matter. Its about fun...Sony showed this by creaming the xbox with the PS2. I think that they're going to have to deliver on something more solid than just 'wow 9 cores'.

They need an online story to compete against live.
They need a living room story to compete against the media center extensability
And of course they need thier first party titles to sell.

Knowing Sony, they're up for this task. They know the living rooms of the world well, they've been there forever. But MS made sure they'd have thier challenge cut out for them.

Nintendo? ah...Nintendo. I think Big N is just going to kick back, have fun, do thier thing. IT wont be a 3 way fight. It'll be people will pick up thier PS3/360, and on the way out pick up that little revolution box for 'the kids' since its small, cute, cheap. The fact that that box may take over the living room later is just the trojan horse nature of how they work. In the end, they'll probably stand with higher sales numbers than the ohter two in units...but I think there are more 'behind the scene dollars' here to consider. (Online movie rentals, Live/sony online sales, downloadable games sales (though N may have this too), etc.

Just my opinion, noone elses, not my employers, any game companies, any game stores, my wifes, or my dogs. My opinion, FWIW

Re:Ok, lets take a new perspective

[justchris]

You make some valid points, but everything you mention, pcs have been doing for the past 2 or 3 years, in some cases better and more efficiently than 360, and in some cases more complicated.

Also, online, Everyone has been talking about Xbox Live Arcade. XBLA is the only part of the 360 that no one has had anything bad to say about it. It's a complete success, but it also leads people to wonder why they paid $400 for something they can get, for free in most cases, on a pc they already have (I suppose households without a pc might benefit, but I'm really, really having a hard time envisioning that particular scenario. I know it exists, I work in cable internet, but it floors me every time).

Everything you're talking about, Sony has promised, and those promises have gotten more robust as time passes. All that remains to be seen is whether they can make good on those promises.

Yes, it's a valid point that 360 is able to do it now, but if you weren't doing it before, how desperately important are these things that you can't wait a year for the PS3 to see if it does it better?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Sony's gonna be able to swing an online service that comes anywhere near Live out of the gate, but what they're offering is not something I'm impatiently awaiting either. I can afford to wait, and if Live proves to be better than HUB, then that's what I'll go with.

What I'm saying is, online delivery may be a killer app. Media Center extension may be the wave of the future. But it's something totally, entirely new, something that hasn't been a part of console game systems before, so it's not something people can live without yet, so it's not really going to affect the buying decision of the majority.

Of course, I buy systems based on games. At this point, I will not purchase an Xbox 360 until Lost Odyssey comes out. That's the system selling game for me. Unless they release something else I must own before then, which might persuade me to buy into it earlier. Otherwise, no go.

Similarly, I'll pick up a PS3 when a game comes out I've decided I have to have, which I can't play on any other system.

That's the main problem with the 360 for me. There is nothing on it that I want that I cannot get on either the PC, GC, PS2 or Xbox I already have. But that's just me. Other people buy for other reasons. I have a pc sitting in my living room for this kind of thing, and 2 pcs in my bedroom. I'm a geek, I tinker with pcs for this sort of thing without hardly thinking about it, so don't base the buying decisions of anyone else on what I would do.

As far as the Revolution is concerned, Nintendo has promised nothing but fun games and new ways to play them. If you care about something other than that, Revolution may not be the way to go.

Re:Ok, lets take a new perspective

[hwangeruk]

Finally, a sensible review of the 360. Its way more than a box, the Live service is large, and all encompassing. Its simple to get online with Xbox 360. Its not so simple getting online with PS2. And you can't get PS3 today. PS3 will just be another game console unless it has a comparible service to live, and my gut feeling is that they will not deliver. Its not surprising there is so much resentment about MS on Slashdot. PS2 owners don't like the fact also, that over the last year, _ALL_ game releases look better and run faster on Xbox. Xbox has had more game releases and more unique games that PS2. PS2 is dead, Xbox lives and 360 rules. Simple really. :)

Here we go again

[Awptimus Prime]

Here we go with the comparisons and "in depth analysis" between things on the market and things yet to be on the market. The headline is no more, or less, than trollbait for those who feel the desire to stroke their ego about hating Microsoft. Do it with elegance, and you might find yourself +5 Insightful!

In reality, nobody knows where the console market is going. The meat of the buyers will be those who thought one commercial or advertising campaign was better than the other. Much like how Sony was able to compete last time around with a very underpowered GPU due to Microsoft's total lack of PR/ad campaigns combined with a lower retail price.

Re:Who are they kidding?

[Emetophobe]

My minidisc player just died because of the blankdisc error [minidisc.ch] - an inevitable ribbon cable snap (which everyone will require eventually) due to opening/closing 'too many times'. An almost $400 'walkman' inevitably requiring a $100 fixed rate repair a few years later. The new mp3 walkman don't have backlit screens (what happens at night?), and they're bigger than cheaper 3rd party ones.

iPod suffers just as much if not more problems then your minidisc player (speaking from experience, my $400 iPod died last month after 1 year)

I tend to agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

And as a Nintendo fanatic, this is why I want Sony to fail miserably this time around. If already-fiscally-shaky Sony falters, Japanese gamers won't flock to MS - they'll flock to Nintendo.

Still.. fat chance.. :(

Wow.. you're soooo mature.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bow in awe of your awesome maturity.

Wait.. nevermind.

Lemme guess.. you're all-too-willing to blow shit up on your teevee, but too chickenshit to enlist when our armed forces are having recruiting difficulties.. right? :P

Re:Wow.. you're soooo mature.

[wheany]

What? Are you seriously asking if the GP poster is more willing to play a fun game than to get into a situation where he is in mortal danger?

Re:X-Box 360: Great Console looking for Great Titl

[justchris]

I don't believe Revolution is really a major factor in the current stage of the game-- not because I'm trying to knock Nintendo, but because some of Revolutions's concepts are so radical that it is not easy to "predict" what will happen. Revolution could be the next major breakthrough in gaming, but it could also be widely rejected by customers. Because of the uncertainty, I think most of Nintendo's competitors-- while wary about what the console could do-- are now focusing on their own core strengths instead of worrying about reacting to what Nintendo does.

I think you hit the mark with that comment. The main reason everyone at both companies is saying Nintendo is not in direct competition with Microsoft is because no one's entirely sure what's going to happen with Ninty's big gamble. M$ can make some contingency plans in case it takes off, but really, with an established system out in the wild, there is not much they can do, and no reason to spend money on something that might be a colossal flop.

Nintendo, on the other hand, can't be too concerned with what M$ & Sony are doing. They're not just trying to sell us a new game system, they're trying to sell a new paradigm. If they want that to fly, they have to poor everything into it. The Virtual Console, WiFi Connect, everything they're doing is not to compete with Xbox & Playstation, it's to provide a complete experience they can sell.

This doesn't mean they aren't going to be in direct competition in the future (say by the end of this year), but right now, they pretty much have to operate independently of each other.

I find that pretty laughable...

[YesIAmAScript]

DOA4 perfect?

It's as balanced as Killer Instinct. You must act first becuase combos are difficult to stop or break. And it has a bug that wipes out your save games!

Calling it perfect is laughable.

I was VERY disappointed in DOA4. It's the worst game I have for 360, and I own Kameo!

You are too generous

[dysonlu]

"I give credit where credit is due... the original xbox was released after the PS2, and now the xbox 360 beat the PS2 to market, by probably close to a year."

I can't believe you are actually giving credit to Microsoft for essential shortening the gaming console's life cycle! Besides, the 360 is far from being a revolutionary console -- it's simply an Xbox 2.0. So, releasing it that soon after the Xbox is far from being a great feat. Strictly in terms of technology, I'm sure Microsoft could release a new console every two or three years if they didn't mind the obvious serious consequences of doing so.

the more things change the more they stay the same

[tabby]

Here is how it's going to go down:

The same people who have an xbox now will probably get a 360 once something new comes out that they really want, like SC:Ghost, since they can play a lot of their old titles on it. This includes the Halo fans who will buy it simply to have Halo3 when it comes out. Lots of americans will buy it. Will sell really bad in asian countries. Girlfriends will play the arcade games on their boyfriends Live accounts.

The PS3 comes out. Japan will lap it up. It will be an anime/RPG wet-dream, FinalFantasy ad-nauseum.

The Revolution comes out at some point with its entourage of Zelda/Mario/Yoshi/Wario/Samus etc. Plus funky new controller & probably something cute like Nintendogs or something to pull in (female) non-gamer audience. Xbox & PS3 owners will dismiss it as being too kiddy & not a serious games machine. Nintendo will ignore this & continue to sell them by the truckload.

In summary: faster hardware, newer increments of existing games/genres, existing demographics will not change.

Most good games died with the SNES.

[fejta]

Get used to it.

Re:Most good games died with the SNES.

[ClamIAm]

Aww, has somebody realized their argument sucks, so they have to pull out tangentially related subjects? How cute.

Many explanations

[CarpetShark]

Of course the 360 is going nowhere in Japan at the moment! There aren't any RPGs for the platform, for crying out loud. DOA 4 alone isn't going to bring over Japanese gamers.

Actually, there are many possible reasons that the 360 might not be popular in Japan. Given that the original X-Box was also unpopular, we can assume it's something that isn't specific to one particular model, but rather encompasses the whole brand. Perhaps gamers there are more aware of Microsoft's use of money to worm their way into a market they've traditionally had no background in, for instance.

Actually, he created the entire series

[Nazmun]

I just researched into it with greater detail and it looks like he started with the very first final fantasy, not seven.

I knew i was forgetting something about him. I can't believe they lost THE man. God with the xenogears guys gone, hironobu sakaguchi (father of the final fantasy series) gone wtf does squenix have left?

Final fantasy 9 remake?!!??!

Re:Actually, he created the entire series

[Rydia]

Dragon Quest. That's all they'll ever need.

Re:Actually, he created the entire series

[NonSequor]

Overrated

Re:Yeah, here's why I think they're positioned bet

[easychord]

How long was PDZ in development and for how many different platforms? By your logic it must be one of the greatest games ever, the only game with a chance of beating it is Duke Nukem Forever.

Things that are in development for much longer than they were planned to be normally have major problems. Not saying that these games are always going to be bad but saying that games and consoles are only delayed for extra polishing time is disingenuous.

Waiting for X360 Media Center

[Werrismys]

The reason I and 3 of my friends bought X-Box 1 was XBMC. Sadly, XBox 1 lacks the power to render HDTV res DivX properly. 360 has the power, but first needs to be cracked, modded, customized, and the price for used unit has to drop to 100 or less.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Bollocks, you can't release hd b4 HDCP is set

[Anonymous Coward]

bollocks, even todays best video cards aren't hdcp compliant. and no flash update will fix that. adding a hddvd drive to the unit to drive up costs and be obsolete for films would have been incredibly stupid. the hdcp drm is still being worked out. and yes no flashing bios's is possible to fix this, it has to be coded with keys on manufacture.

and not enough space? who are you kidding. last i checked pc games have been running at "hd" resolution for a while with rather large textures and pc games still come on cd's for the most part. and all together they generally add up to less than 1 dvd, single layer at that. F.E.A.R is 4gb on my harddrive. a dvd is 9gb. its a lot of fuss about nothing. people seem to be talking out of their ass

remember the rootkit people, sony is not to be trusted

Nintendo's words were...

[YesIAmAScript]

"Infinitely backward compatible"

That pretty much says that yes, it will be compatible with all those older games. Will they be made available over N's service (as you point out you cannot just insert a cartridge), I dunno. But it is clear N intends to offer as many games as possible, not just a small selection.

Even if you go with just the N-publised games, that's a very broad variety of games. I would say broader than MS or Sony.

you forgot one more important thing...

[YesIAmAScript]

Xbox 360 cons:
Bust in Japan.

I don't mean to rub salt in MS' wounds, but this is a very critical thing, if it stays this way. The reason this is important is is means that no Japanese developer can afford to concentrate on primarily 360. And Japanese games are important even outside Japan.

It means that in ways that the 360 is better than PS3 and Revolution (Live? Voice chat?Controllers? ATI graphics?), no Japanese developer will use those features because it would preclude shipping the game on the console that is going to make them the most money.

It pretty much ensures that games like RPGs (big Japanese efforts) or Katamari Damacy (small japanese efforts) will come out on PS3 only or Revolution only. More normal-sized efforts will probabaly be targeted at the least common denominator and will come out on 360.

It just plan makes it near impossible for MS to be truly in the drivers seat.

MS very much has to turn this around, preferably before PS3 and Revolution come out.

I have bought every console since the SNES/TG16/Genesis and I have to say that you seem to have a good grasp on the market for someone who doesn't participate.

I wouldn't say Revolution is woefully underpowered. It's clearly in 3rd place, but it should be pretty good, especially since N supposedly is not going to even do HD. If you confine yourself to 640x480 (852x480 at worst) you don't need as much horsepower and bandwidth as if you want to do 1920x1080. As an advantage, Revolution will be small and unlike Xbox 360 and PS3 should not be incredibly loud and run very hot. And on top if that, it'll likely cost the least. These are pretty good mitigating factors in my book.

Re:X-Box 360: Great Console looking for Great Titl

[Anonymous Coward]

its not as if nintendo has a choice, they cant compete on any other aspect. just don't forget how many times they've failed. virtual boy? the little robot? power glove*not exactly but still. pc's have had 3d mice for years now. no game has utilized them because its just awkward. thats what i think the revolutions controller is, a gimic.

and yes, hd is going mainstream. its sold at costco for #%@ sake

SO much talent gone

[Nazmun]

They should just take the god damn squaresoft name off and call themselves Enix. I long for the squaresoft of 1989-1998. The guys who created gems like Xenogears, tactics, final fantasies 1-7. I just can't stand the art direction and character selection of new final fantasies. With the primary producer/director of the ff series gone, the xenogears/chrono trigger team gone, i dont' know wtf to look for. Nobuo's awesome music scores are not enough to buy a new rpg.

Rootkit bites MS Windows, not Playstation. (nt)

[Anonymous Coward]

Rootkit bites MS Windows, not Playstation.

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is 'rallying'

[News for nerds]

Microsoft never spread FUD behind a hidden identity. Oh wait...

HDTVs are standard on Xbox360 demo kiosks

[DeadScreenSky]

*One* HDTV setup won't give consumers any comparative idea of the relevative graphics 'quality' of the 3 systems.

Except this "*One* HDTV" isn't a rare situation. Every single X360 kiosk I've ever seen in person has a HDTV hooked up to it. Walmart has them, Best Buy has them (and my main Best Buy's huge HDTV demo with surround sound actually has the Xbox1 hooked up to it, bizarrely enough - the X360 is the standard HDTV kiosk you see in most retailers), Circuit City has them, EB/Gamestop has them, Fry's has them, Toys'R'Us has them, etc. This isn't some accident, this is exactly what MS planned for with their deal with Samsung. It's supposed to be completely standard. I'd be shocked if Sony doesn't do the same with the PS3. The difference in picture clarity is going to be obvious to most customers, though whether they will find it something to base a purchase off of is still up in the air. I personally think many of them will, though the games are generally going to look so much better regardless on the non-Revolution hardware that it might be a much easier decision if they want nice graphics.

(I'm not sure how parents are going to respond to the idea of a new console that features games that look almost identical to the Gamecube they already have. That should be interesting, though I suppose it is possible Nintendo is lying to third party devs about the hardware the final system will offer.)

And then there are several xbox 360 titles that aren't actually rendering 720p, they're rendering at 480p and then upscaling to 720p. And for xbox360 titles like *that* the xbox upscaling makes no difference at all because your HDTV will take the Revolution's native 480p and upscale to 720p/1080i as well. So then its just a question of which upscaler is higher quality. On an expensive TV, I'd bet on the TV. On a cheap TV, *maybe* the xbox will do the better job.)

This is not remotely true AFAIK. Care to name some of these Xbox360 titles? Some titles look like they are just upscaled because the devs did such a lazy job (like with most of Activision's stuff, for example), but those games don't look particularly good to begin with, and bigger publishers like EA and Ubisoft don't do that kind of thing. I doubt Activision will for much longer, either - seems more a symptom of rushed launch titles than anything else. But they are certainly not being internally rendered at 480p.

Re:HDTVs are standard on Xbox360 demo kiosks

[vux984]

Except this "*One* HDTV" isn't a rare situation. Every single X360 kiosk I've ever seen in person has a HDTV hooked up to it. /sigh

This is actually getting wearisome. Doesn't anybody read before posting? Seriously!

I didn't say ONLY ONE hdtv was a rare situation. In fact I said that most places would have ONLY ONE hdtv. The problem with having ONLY ONE hdtv is that it doesn't accomplishing anything in terms of letting consumers see the DIFFERENCE between the various systems.

Its self evident that you won't be able see the different between Mortal Kombat 34 on an xbox360 and ps3 or revolution if there is ONLY ONE large hdtv demo screen set up with one of the 3 consoles (right now, of course that one console is the new xbox360, for obvious reasons).

This is not remotely true AFAIK. Care to name some of these Xbox360 titles? [at 480p]

I've read on several gaming forums now that many of the launch titles didn't operate internally at 720p, couldn't use FSAA, and suffered other graphics degrading choices due to performance issues. I concede that I do not know how much truth there is to it, and doubt that anyone but the developer could know for sure.

Console Discussion on Slashdot

[Musc]

Why is it that on slashdot, when we discuss consoles, it always degenerates into talk about which will
'win'? The arguments are always about how the better hardware doesn't matter if the games aren't good,
or how one console will lose in the market because it is too expensive, or if the cell is too hard
to program.

Who cares whether you will personally buy it, and why?
Who cares whether it will fail or be a big splash.

This is slashdot. Home of nerds and people interested in technology for technologies sake.
Why do we never talk about how great the hardware is, on its own terms?

The games may suck, but technologically speaking, a console may have awesome graphics capabilities.
Why don't we talk about the relative pros and cons at a level appropriate for slashdot?

Let me try to get this started.
Could somebody with a good understanding of the hardware explain the true pros and cons of the various
consoles? If programmers get good at coding for the cell, what will it be good at?
I've never heard an any mention of anything about the revolution other than its controller.
What sort of hardware does it have under the hood?

You might argue that "who cares if it has twice the fill rate, its the games that matter".
My response to that is: This is slashdot. We aren't playing games. We are discussing technology.
Lets discuss the technology!

Re:X-Box 360: Great Console looking for Great Titl

[justchris]

I shouldn't even bother to respond to this, but I'll go ahead.

Nintendo could compete with Microsoft directly. They have better relations with many 3rd parties, large sums of liquid capital, and knowledge of how to build a system. They could make a system signficantly superior to the 360 for less money, and sell it for about the same price, or slightly lower. They could then spend some of their money to purchase exclusive titles away from Sony & Microsoft, simultaneously weakening their competiton and strenghtening themselves.

However, Nintendo doesn't want to do that, because it's a losing proposition. It'll increase their market share, but won't really make them money, and Nintendo prefers to make money.

As far as the gimmick issue. When Nintendo first announced the rumble pack, people laughed at them, called it a gimmick. So why is the rumble pack standard on every single controller in existence now? The same with the control pad, the analog stick, shoulder buttons. All these things are standards in the industry now. But you have to remember, Nintendo did not create any of these. Not a single one. All Nintendo did was perfect them, and put them on the market at a viable time. Considering how fantastically the DS is selling (for it's time on market, it's outsold the PS2 so far, as well as the GBA), it looks as if they've done the same thing with touchscreens, which they certainly didn't invent (since virtually every PDA ever has had one). A gimmick is only a gimmick until everyone is using it.

So sure, 3d mice exist, but Nintendo isn't making a 3d mouse. There's a reason they chose the current shape for the controller. Nintendo is experienced at taking a control scheme and perfecting it for gameplay. That's what they do, and that's what they've chosen to compete with this go around. They decided to work to their strengths instead of trying to one-up everyone else.

As far as the HD issue, I work for a cable company. I have a pretty damn good idea of how fast HD penetration is going. Things may change in the next few years, but right now, I have to say Nintendo knows what they're talking about.

Things may change, but the future is unknown

[WillAffleckUW]

Here is how it's going to go down:

The same people who have an xbox now will probably get a 360 once something new comes out that they really want, like SC:Ghost, since they can play a lot of their old titles on it. This includes the Halo fans who will buy it simply to have Halo3 when it comes out. Lots of americans will buy it. Will sell really bad in asian countries. Girlfriends will play the arcade games on their boyfriends Live accounts.

Except, I have an xBox and I'm not buying an xBox360. And a lot of people I know, here in MSFT center Seattle, aren't either. Most of us are underwhelmed.

The PS3 comes out. Japan will lap it up. It will be an anime/RPG wet-dream, FinalFantasy ad-nauseum.

I predict that, Blu-Ray disc aside, that they may do well in the US/Canada and Euro zone as well. Even tho their DRM attempts to install spyware are a royal pain.

The Revolution comes out at some point with its entourage of Zelda/Mario/Yoshi/Wario/Samus etc. Plus funky new controller & probably something cute like Nintendogs or something to pull in (female) non-gamer audience. Xbox & PS3 owners will dismiss it as being too kiddy & not a serious games machine. Nintendo will ignore this & continue to sell them by the truckload.

Yes, Nintendo will make a profit on it. They may even release a lot of new forms of games, that may not get a lot of media attention at first, but I have a gut feel they may do better than expected.

In summary: faster hardware, newer increments of existing games/genres, existing demographics will not change.

I don't know, unless they redo the xBox360 and do something different, I think we're looking at the revival of Nintendo in 2nd or 1st place, and the continuing dominance of PS3 by Sony.