Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's E3 Conference Displays Company Confidence
The tone from Microsoft tonight was one of celebration and anticipation, as they ran down their successes since the 360 launched and hyped their lineup between now and the end of the year. Peter Moore framed the discussing by recalling the blockbuster holiday season of 2004, which was driven by the Grand Theft Auto, Madden, and Halo franchises. Moore stated that 'the only place to play all three games' this year is the 360. In addition to showing off other heavyweight titles like Mass Effect (which is due in November), the company had a few new announcements: They'll be releasing a version of the movie trivia game Scene-It with a quartet of special controllers, for a standard game price. They've partnered with Walt Disney and its associated companies to bring their family of movies to the Xbox Live service, with many titles already available tonight. CliffyB officially revealed Gears of War for the PC; it'll have additional content as well as co-op gaming via Live for Windows. Resident Evil 5 will be coming to the system (the only game from their conference not releasing this year). The event was capped by a live-action short piece meant to show what a Halo movie might look like, the announcement of a Halo 3 special edition 360 sku set to launch alongside the game, and a new trailer showing a bunch of Halo 3 in-game footage. For further details on the event, click below for other sites' liveblog coverage.
Really surprised at how great COD4 looked, especially compared to the underwhelming Halo 3 footage. Everyone kind of assumed that Halo 3, being the biggest game for the 360, would end up being a graphical showcase, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be.
I watched it live, and I must say it was full of marketing drivel. Not one moment did I feel wonder at what was displayed, only felt like I was being sold something but a really slimy salesman. Which is fair enough right? No not really. I'm not interested in how they are going, or how many millions of dollars they will make, I just want innovation in games. All we got in this display was I bunch of dick waving.
I'm sick of all this "our console is better than the other's" crap, I want to see the best games on the right console at the right time. For all three competitors. Their products should speak for themselves.
"...it'll have additional content as well as co-op gaming via Live for Windows."
Oh goodie, as opposed to co-op gaming via the mother-fucking-internet.
I think Microsoft did an excellent job of showcasing what the new e3 is about. They presented themselves like they would to shareholders in a company. They talked about the current market and how they are standing up to the competition. (And when they showed the numbers they showed Nintendo right behind them and didnt hide it) They showed off their exclusive titles, new services to xbox live, and of course they showed us game play of new titles.
This is the new E3, no more crowded booths, no more distractions with booth babes, crazy music, and all that jazz. This is about showing off what you got against the competition.
Well of course it was! How many companies go to a big conference and put on a presentation and say "Hey! We suck!"?
Remember Sony's conference last year? Remember "Riiidge Racer!"? _They_ were certainly confident, but that didn't mean much in the long run. It's not whether they show confidence in themselves that matters, it's whether the media and the consumers also feel confident about them by the time the presentation is done.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
After the cinematic masterpiece that was DooM, I just can't wait for the Halo movie.
I hope they release it in blu-ray or HD-DVD, so I can watch it in all its HighDef glory.
I still wonder how many of those 10-million-plus 360s are from "repeat" buyers.
Amazing what you can do with $4billion to burn. The most amazing thing is that Sony still probably would have beaten them if they didn't get caught up in their own hubris and focus on things like blu-ray.
You know: if, if, if...
If Sony didn't focus on things like blu-ray, hd-dvd would've taken edge, and they'd lose a far more lucrative revenue source than gaming.
If Microsoft didn't burn so much money on sales at loss, maybe they'd still gain edge since XBOX260 was the first 3G console on the market, and with solid online service.
Last but not least, if Nintendo didn't screw Son with the CD players, PlayStation wouldn't exist in the first place.
But if or not if, the situation is like it is, and I pretty much believe there won't be PS4 ever. Sony plans to keep PS3 for something like 10-15 years, and with poor growth, exclusives and features like this, XBOX480 (or whatever) and WiiPeeDoo 2 will basically finish them completely.
Microsoft have confidence in the sector for a reason.
I kind of see your point, but the OP seemed to imply that hating Windows and liking the Microsoft gaming divison was sort of mutually exclusive which I don't agree with at all. If you dislike Microsoft due to illegal monopoly practices, that's one thing, but what is it with about hating Windows itself that makes it hypocritical to enjoy a 360? I think MS Office is a very good office suit that is certainly ahead of its competition, but using the same logic as before I should dislike that simply because I dislike Windows. That's what I don't buy.
I think the final sentence of the following portion of the summary is sad:
"The tone from Microsoft tonight was one of celebration and anticipation, as they ran down their successes since the 360 launched and hyped their lineup between now and the end of the year. Peter Moore framed the discussing by recalling the blockbuster holiday season of 2004, which was driven by the Grand Theft Auto, Madden, and Halo franchises. Moore stated that 'the only place to play all three games' this year is the 360."
The celebration is essentially over their monopoly. The deals are paying off; their role as gatekeeper and toll collector is going to make them a lot of money. The console has fewer capabilities than a comparably-priced personal computer these days, and it has only been the exclusive publication deals that have drawn people to buy the 360 at all. Although consumers are making free decisions, I think constructing consoles (or Verizon cell phones, or Sony media formats, or various batteries and light bulbs, etc) simply to lure people in to participating in ongoing exclusive transactions to eventually exploit both all remaining perceived value of the product and the reluctance of a person to turn away from a bad decision, is unethical.
The Atari 2600 console was created and sold at a time when a comparable personal computer was maybe 10X the cost.
The 360 is just a crippled personal computer created for the sole purpose of creating a value distortion effect that causes an unjustifiable amount of money eventually going to its creators and partners.
The creation of Microsoft's video formats, or the Flash video format, or Sony's Blue-Ray, or SMS, or Verizon's "Get It Now", or Sony's memory stick, etc, has nothing to do with creating value for the consumer or making an advance in technology. It's all about luring people in to habits that are difficult to break.
While I think it's shameful for Apple to not enable easy use of any audio file to be used as a "ring tone" when the iPhone receives a call, at least Apple INNOVATED and provided genuine value in the many other features of the software and hardware. Even Apple seems reluctant to turn down the totally unethical revenue gained by controlling how people associate audio clips with incoming calls, though! (May they prove me wrong some day soon!) However, their access to the Internet (e.g., YouTube) is completely neutral; only bandwidth with the carrier matters. Meanwhile, Verizon and some 3G device carriers wanted to use their monopolistic roles yet again by charging specifically for access to YouTube content. How do carriers add value to specific data streams? They don't!
Stockholders and board members should vote in some ethics-inspired procedures to prevent the exploitation of any monopoly-like conditions that their business units might happen to indirectly or directly create. For example, the charter of Verizon should have forbid having any control over the kinds of data carried on their networks, or controlling any data transferred to and from devices owned by customers. "Get It Now" should never have been possible. Costly SMS bills, beyond the reasonable cost of operating cell towers, etc, should never have become a big source of profit for carriers.
Microsoft and its partners may be way beyond the ability to adopt any sort of ethics-inspired corporate principles; the very creation of the 360 is evidence of that.
Maybe the ultimate solution to the problem of companies creating captive markets (because such companies are too lazy to actually innovate or create genuine value) is to spread information that makes it evident that a person is better off choosing products in true open markets.
After watching their press conference I'm a little mixed about it. I liked the fact that they didn't bother talking too much about what's coming out far off in 2008, but talked about what we could be expecting to see in time for the holidays. It's interesting to see what's in the pipes, but I liked that they highlighted the games showing up in the near future. I also think they did a good job pointing out some of the exclusives that they were going to have as well or what kind of exclusive features (GTA IV downloadable content) that would only be showing up on the Xbox 360.
I think that their efforts in terms of family games was a little on the week side. I can understand they want to get into the same marketspace as the Wii, but it seems as though it's an afterthought for them. I think that their initial core market is mature gamers who enjoy FPS games and such. The Scene It game just seemed kind of awkward for a console. I think the majority of Xbox 360 owners don't really care too much about these games. I would have rather seen more focus on their core.
I really could care less about their Live for Windows information as well, but I've never been much of a computer gamer. I've always liked E3 for the focus on the consoles.
One thing that really stuck out, and this always seems to happen at pretty much every conference, is that some celebrity or designer comes out to highlight a game and they come off sounding stiff and awkward. The lady talking during the Assassins Creed preview made me cringe. The Madden demo also felt forced. Please reherse or find some more genuine presenters. It makes everything look more professional. Last year Sony was horrible for this reason.
Overall, not a bad showing, but it didn't feel as though they were trying to generate a lot of buzz. Maybe that's just an effect of the new format of E3 though. Looking forward to both of the press conferences tomorrow and what Sony and Nintendo have in the works.
Why should they cut their price? The Elite version is still cheaper than a PS3. They're kicking ass in terms of media downloads (Disney is a huge win) and XBLA. They're getting exclusive games for the 360 and getting other companies to break their exclusivity (Resident Evil, Devil May Cry). Live subscriptions are way up, even if total console sales didn't quite hit the mark. They've even earned a fair amount of good will with their ring of death mea culpa and extended warranty. By all counts, the 360 is doing quite well and doesn't really warrant a price cut. The savings might be enough to start showing a profit on hardware at the current price, which would be great press for Microsoft and fantastic news for shareholders (it might even get the stock price back above $30).
That said, it's rumored that the new 65nm process will be up and running soon (Fall), which will reduce the build price of the console. It's quite possible that there still may be a price cut looming for the holiday if they can get the 65nm boxes out in time. Then again, they may be better off pocketing the savings rather than cutting prices so long as the cheapest PS3 is more expensive than the most expensive 360.
Nobody's expecting Nintendo to cut the price of the Wii to $200. Why should Microsoft cut the price of the 360 just because Sony did so with the PS3?
No I don't buy sony because of what sony did to Sega.
Yeah I hold my grudges till grim death.
"During this period, CD-ROM had been pioneered by Sony. Nintendo saw this opportunity and, along with Sony, began development on a CD-ROM drive for the SNES. Drawing on their clever naming skills, the 'Super Disc' would play Nintendo cartridge games and compact discs. But what Nintendo overlooked was that Sony would be deemed the "sole worldwide licenser" of this CD technology, according to the contract."
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
"Though they had to be running Windows"
Q TH
Come on man, you knew this, but in case you didn't
http://www.amazon.com/Macsoft-Halo-Mac/dp/B00006I
http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2003/11/halo/
Wait... Sony dropped the price of the PS3? At launch you could get one for $499 or $599, now on Amazon I see them listed for $499 and $599... Did they introduce a new SKU for $449 or $399 and I'm not seeing it?
What boggles my mind is that his 360 had only 200 hours of game play on it. 40 games, 5 hours a piece? yipes!
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
And all I kept hearing - between the lines - was that some games would ship on Microsoft that already were shipping on PS3 and Wii, and that other games would ship first of xBox360 and then ship on the Wii.
Take home message, other than a few games (Halo) that we already knew were xBox360 specific - not much behind the PR.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --