Slashdot Mirror
Xbox 360 Doesn't Want To Be Hardcore
An anonymous reader writes "CNET.com.au has just posted an interview with Microsoft Game Studio head Shane Kim. The head games exec for the Xbox 360 admits he wants the console to be more family friendly (read: more like Nintendo and Sony). From the article: 'The positioning of the platform is very different now. We were so paranoid that people knew the Xbox was a hardcore gaming machine in the first generation that we really alienated, or closed off, a lot of our opportunity.'"
Don't worry Microsoft - we never thought it was! (*snare roll**high hat*) Thank You! Thank you Slashdot! I'll be here all week.
My humor is probably your flamebait
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
-- .sig in every post!
Now with a full
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that somehow the Xbox demographic is beer-funneling fratboys and other associated types. (Playstation's for the family, and Nintendo's for people with good taste and who appreciate the finer things in life.) If this is the case re: the Xbox, then why? Is it Microsoft's marketing? Microsoft's ill design? Microsoft's history as the provider of all things crass, square, and ugly?
I'm not a hard-core gamer by any means. I bought my Xbox because I thought it was a user-friendly way to enjoy some casual gaming.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I thought this was Nintendo's strategy. Microsoft pushing for HD, and debuting at 400 bucks, and a huge focus on graphics seems to me 3 very blatant pushes for trying to capture the "hardcore" area.
Kent Simon Multitheft Auto
Xbox was an interesting lesson in a lot of ways.
It really did many things right; I think the controllers were the best from that generation, or at least after the "giant hands" oopsie got fixed.
And it was a terifically powerful system, and I'm so glad that they're landbreaking moves into online multiplayer didn't stop them from giving full-hearted 4 player support...Sony dropped the ball on both of those, with ad hoc per-game network support, and only 2 controller ports w/o a multitap.
On the other hand, even from the outset...the form factor was terrible. The sucker was a beast...one of the reasons why the GC is my "travel" system. The original controllers, though some people dig 'em, were also beastly, and didn't you need to buy a remote if you wanted to watch DVDs? That kind of sucked.
Despite generally having somewhat superior ports of the mainstream games, Xbox relied on its "Killer App" Halo more than the other systems. I enoyed odd PC ports like Crimson Skies and oddball one offs like Fuzion Frenzy...
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
...When mostly the Xbox 360 is made for things like High Definition Television, and many of the games are heavily geared towards older people.
Considering that Microsoft has generally made the XBox quite a bit about online play also furthers the distance from what's being said here.
Most parents don't want their younger kids doing things online without their supervision or at all, due to much media attention, so trying to make online play the main attraction of it (and making it cost money to do so) would seem to be leaning towards a more mature audience.
Now that is a sweet title. Although, I thought they usually called that "marketing" :)
If they are trying to be family friendly, they need to become more simple, put in the disk, and play. Seems to me like Microsoft is making yet another PR stunt to gain traction on the 360.
I've never owned a console, and my experience with computer games ranges from Super Breakout to Photoshop. But what you say confirms everything I've read about Nintendo's unique appeal to a creative, freethinking market. Am I right in extrapolating that Nintendo is the console of choice for architects and dilettantes? And that Xbox demand is driven largely by classless, ass-picking, beer-shotgunning fratboys? Who, then, comprises the Playstation's audience? And what of Sega?
Meh, the parents are probably both Fatty Fattersons and aren't too concerned about the health risks of inactivity.
The discussion was regarding Microsoft's announced intentions to make the Xbox 360 a "mainstream" system, not for "hardcore" gamers at all.
And yet - they have a $400 console, the games for the system so far are a lot of FPS games, then there's Condemned, and Dead or Alive 4 - all interesting games, but nothing that makes me want to sit down with my 4 year old son and 7 year old daughter and say "Hey, let's play some DOA4, kids! Watch Kasumi's bounce physics!"
We have started up a game of "Kingdom Heart 2", which we can all enjoy, or Mario 64 DS, or my daughter really likes "Animal Crossing" and wants her own DS someday for "Nintendogs" (which she can only get if she keeps her grades up and does well in her chess club), and my non-gamer wife likes Tetris on the new DS.
So far, I'd say that if Microsoft intends for the 360 to be a "non-hardcore" system, then so far they're doing a crappy job of it. Right now, it *defines* the hardcore console gamer.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
The Xbox 360 wants to be whatever is currently popular to try to sell units and games, especially now that they have come to realize the "hardcore" market is small and unable to produce the sales numbers they need to stay afloat with the massive costs of development.
Best of luck MS, except all of your marketing and design was geared toward the hardcore gamer. Not many family customers want a $400+ console that has a million confusing and over-reaching features and setup. Sure, Nintendo may have you running scared with the wide audience they are aiming at but trying to switch your entire focus now is just insane and not likely to work.
You dug your grave MS trying to outdo Sony and lost sight of the real goal, best of luck!
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
I'm not a 'sports nut' kind of guy. I can expound endlessly on the minutiae of systems administration, various languages and even the details of esoteric RFCs. But I couldn't tell you who is playing (or has played if it's over already) in the college basketball championships this year. I did run cross-country and track in junior and senior high school (many moons ago), but sports just don't interest me.
That, however, doesn't mean I don't encourage my kids to at least try them out, or stick with the ones they like. The subtle insinuation of your comment and the reply to it is that my wife and I are somehow lacking in our parenting skills, and more importantly have little concern for the welfare of our children. I forgive you for the implied insult, however, as I can understand why some leap to such conclusions, even lacking any evidence to support them.
-- .sig left intentionally blank.
This
Dear Microsoft,
In my opinion, and the opinion of many other gamers out there, the reason we came to the Xbox instead of the Playstation 2 was due to the fact that we were sick of children's consoles. We wanted something with more meat, something with more substance and that tracked with us as a growing gamer generation. Xbox did that superbly. And when the Xbox Live service came out, we were overjoyed! This is the type of thing that will separate the consoles and ensure that Microsoft has a legacy.
This is why you have a significant market share. This is why you have a fanbase and loyal consumers. You create high-end hardware that caters to the needs and desires of hardcore gamers, as well as lifelong gamers, in a way that Playstation (even the new one) will have to catch up to for a long time. You've made significant strides. Stop with the crap now. Stop saying you want to appeal to everyone. If you appeal to everyone, you appeal to no one.
I'll repeat that for you, so you can send this in a memo to everyone on the dev teams... If you appeal to everyone, you appeal to no one.
So, from one gamer who would like to stay loyal to the Xbox side of gaming (you know, when I can actually buy a 360...), stick to what you do best: Making quality hardware, consistently delivering a perspective in gaming that is not middlin-ground, but instead for the lifelong gamer, and most importantly, don't compare your product to other consoles. One is there because it was original first. Sony. Another is there because it caters to kids. Nintendo. You must find another niche. You build it, and we will come. People will come aboard when they see something they can't get anywhere else.
But if you get into a war of competing consoles all doing the same things, from the same perspective of "we develop for all ages, and all levels of gaming dedication" then you lose the hardcore. The hardcore are who do anything to get a console on launch day. The hardcore are who protect your bottom line when you produce crappy launch titles. The hardcore are those who will buy the system, knowing that something better will come down the pipe, once developers get used to the architecture of the system. Don't screw them or they'll screw you.
Thank you,
Dorkmaster
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Microsoft deciding to be more family friendly now means they completely missed their mark. By selling a hugely expensive game console, and targeting its audience with the same sort of FPS and sports games that make the original Xbox somewhat of a hit with hardcore gamers, they have no chance in heck of claiming the console a success for family markets.
Lets face the facts that Microsoft has missed:
1) With games like GTA being highly scrutinized for its adult content and inappropriate rating, there has been a large focus as of late for games that are excessively violent or mature rated. These are the games that hard core gamers want to buy, but legislation or litigation will eventually put an end to them one way or another. Microsoft will need to change focus, rather then being a platform where some GTA game could flourish, they want to avoid these games and put G rated titles on the shelves.
2) Wall-Mart apparently has some say in how games are designed, and their emphasis is on family oriented fair. While I don't believe that an individual game developer would be affected by Wall-Mart not selling their games, a game console maker wants to have ALL possible games sold at Wall-Mart to make their system sell well at Wall-Mart. Microsoft wants to suck up to Wall-Mart now.
3) Nintendo has long since banked on family/children titles for their success. While it may not make them the number one console maker, it still gives them strong sales to say in business. With the upcoming Revolution, Microsoft wants to ensure they are in a position to compete with Nintendo for family titles, which could put the Revolution into the number one position for a while (until the PS3 is released). Nintendo will gain a huge immediate market in Japan, where the Xbox is always done poorly, and even in North America and Europe, Xbox360 hasn't sold that well either, certainly within margins that Nintendo could approach.
That aside, Microsoft is playing catch up in the next generation console market they had hoped to define. With the poor roll out of the Xbox360, and still no real buying trend for them, even without ANY major competitor, Microsoft is still doing poorly. If they see that family titles are helping to define a console and increase sales, then they are going to have to figure out how to cater to that market.
But Nintendo already has a leg up by keeping the cost of their console and games lower. Microsoft will have to heavily discount the Xbox360 if they want to compete in the family market, and force game developers to sell their software for cheaper. This will mean a longer then expected loss of profit on the Xbox360 and possibly developer backlash that might force developers to abandon support for the platform.
If this is Microsoft's goal, to make the Xbox360 a successful family oriented game console, they have failed on ALL accounts. I think the Xbox360 is another Dreamcast, can't wait for it to hit $99 at Wall-mart, then again, who even wants it at $99.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
If you take inflation into account, and look at some of the prices that children's toys are going for today (some dolls are close to $100 by themselves, some board games go near $50 [heroscape], the xbox 360 isn't really expensive. Of course, the revolution is going to be less expensive, and this will work better for some families. IIRC the SNES was $199 when it came out what, 10 years ago? An extra $99 is a drop in the bucket.
I major reason I got an Xbox 360 because I wanted to listen to MP3s and to look at photos on my television. A device to do this is about $200, or for $400 you get the same thing and a new console. The Xbox 360 interfaces seamlessly over the lan between my PC (once you configure it), and it was super easy. I can listen to music from my PC in my office, with a remote control on the stereo in the living room, which is convienient.
I enjoyed playing games on my 8088 PC back in the day, so no matter what the difference between the next gen consoles are, they are gonna all have fun games to play. The question will be who offers the best secondary features. Xbox 360 is offering integration with your PC, and has Xbox Live Arcade (I enjoy the classic arcade games)... Sony is offering Blue-Ray, so audio/video buffs will be excited for that... It will all depend on secondary features to see who really is the winner, though.
If you can't get over the fact that there's a Pokemon game on your console, you have far bigger psychological issues than can be discussed here. Seek help immediately.
i told u i was hardcore
"They may not be games for 6 year olds, but I don't remember anything in Jak II that a 3rd or 4th grader couldn't handle. Nothing that I hadn't seen in Battletoads or Ninja Gaiden or Bionic Commando. Well, except boobs, but they're clothed,"
I'm pretty sure most people don't care about boobs in any way until after puberty. Considering that people are still breastfed as kids anyway, what's the big deal? Boobs are boobs. They're not going to fly planes into buildings, or shoot your mother.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I have to agree.
Honestly, when I bought my 360 I wasn't too excited about it because of the launch titles (though I do enjoy a few of them) but I was blown away at the sheer amount of extra things that I didn't think I cared about.
It's come to the point that Someone Who Isn't Me pirated a copy of Windows Media Centre just to get the streaming video to round out the features on his Furnace 360.
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
Does anyone know what the hell Microsoft is trying to do in the console market?
They are now the only company where you have to pay to play online. There entire online service as a revenue generating machine pretty much looks like a joke now that Sony and Nintendo are providing the same types of services for free.
They rushed the 360 hardware out the door but clearly still haven't nailed down the manufacturing process with the massive defect problems people are having.
They talked up the HD era but have no way of outputting 1080p.
They talked up what a safe long term bet the 360 is but managed to include disc storage that is actually smaller than the first Xbox.
They talked up the graphic power of the machine but those claims have become a joke.
And they talk about expanding out of their old demographic and their library of games is almost exactly the same as the first Xbox.
It's almost like they are actively trying to fuck up across the board in every area of console hardware and software. Every single thing they talk about looks to be the complete opposite in reality. Maybe E3 will turn things around.
as in, it's a rumour that's going to change at least half a dozen times before the release of the ps3
I don't understand these articles. I can't follow why someone making comments about trying to get a more 'family' image for the console & not mention the fact the the 360 actually has very good parental controls.
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
Xbox never had more than a few decent titles, and so far Xbox 2 doesn't have much to offer either. Not very hardcore if you ask me. Job done Microsoft. You can go home early today.
Buy your kid a bike and tell him to ride over to a friends house to play video games.
Then tell him he has to ride back every hour to check in.
Hmmm. OK, wait til he's 9 or 10.
A blog about stuff.
Get a beer hat:
http://engsoc.queensu.ca/events/Pictures/Cropped%
Ok on a broader level. Perhaps the XBox (v1 & 360) was/is popular due to it's unintentional target audience of older gamers. Would it not cheapen or loose market share by changing it's target audience?
Isn't that why the Nintendo GameCube is popular with some people? Due to the unintentional targeting of games for younger audiences?
I view the game market as being a spectrum, with the Xbox as the older audience, the Playstation as the mid range and the GameCube as being on the youngest end. Now there are games that I like on all three.
I get so fed up with companies attemting to capture/control the entire market. Pick a target audience and do the best that you can with that darn audience!
In the end the only reason I buy a game controller is if it is hackable so that I can run Linux/BSD and thereby a non susceptible browser (read no way IE). So that I can check out some ad I see on TV.