Most hardcore gamers have more than just one system... and often all three. Most console fanboys can't be persuaded to try another system, no matter what you try to do. That leaves the rest of the population, which account for a LOT of money. Sometimes I have to remind fellow hardcore gamers that there's a reason why crappy games (Deer Hunter, Big Monster Trunks, bargain bin titles, etc.) exist... tons of people that don't know any better, buy them!
Re:about this potential X-Box failure...
on
XBOX 360=Dreamcast 2.0?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I remember hearing about MS stock being around $70 a share. Now it looks like it's trading at about $30 a share
Just a quick note... there was a stock split about two years ago, which might explain the jump from $70 -> $30. (It's actually around $25-26, and its been that way for a while)
Anyway, I work at MS and even I know the big cash cows are Office and the OS. Sure, some businesses here and there make money (MSN has been profitable recently, thanks to the huge boom in Internet advertising again; MGS has made money occasionally, when there are big releases like Halo 2), but no where does it compare to the "core businesses". It's a bit irritating actually (I work at MGS and sometimes I feel like we get no respect from those in other divisions).
If I had mod points (and were allowed to mod conversations where I've posted), I'd mod you up.:)
Yup, a lot of folks don't realize that even though Nintendo isn't considered top dog anymore (in terms of console market share, etc.), they still make a hefty profit, due to shrewd strategies like you mentioned above.
On the other hand, you've got Sony who almost seems to bully developers (a platform that's hard to design for, lack of documentation, etc.), simply because they know they have an enormous user base and can almost get away with anything.
I agree. It's really all about the games. Although Xbox (and now 360) will have vastly superior online services to the other consoles, I still find myself playing mostly PS2 titles because that's the only place where I can get my Squeenix fix (FF games, etc.). I think the Xbox Live Arcade service is cool, not because of its features, but because it gets me access to great casual games like Geometry Wars (which is amazingly cool, I call it "modern retro").
That said, though, how each company designs and markets its consoles DOES affect who develops for them. Granted, each of the big three can make great first party games (Mario, Halo, Gran Turismo)... but in the end, they rely on the Capcoms, Konamis, Nacmos, and Square-Enixes of the world to bring in the bulk of the audience.
If Nintendo isn't able to convince developers that the Revolution is worth making games for, then they have a problem. Unfortunately, it's already an issue with the GameCube. Yet, since they rule the handheld universe, they have no problem with the GBA or DS.
I think I see what you're getting at. All that happened in the past will forever taint present and future actions, no matter how "good and generous" it may be. I personally could never live that way... it'd be too depressing. (Although I know plenty of people that do hold grudges like that)
That's definately one way to look at it. I can see through your previous posts that you're no fan of MS and that *anything* they do should make everyone worry. That's fine, it's your own opinion. I highly doubt I can convince you otherwise, since to you, even giving to charity is something that could be dubious.
Sorry, I don't read that portion of the tech news, but I'll take your word for it. (Wouldn't surprise me anyway)
So, would you rate Gates not make any donations at all? Or I suppose just do it anonymously then? (Then again, I wonder how feasible it even is to give $258 million anonymously)
Yes, there could be some self-interest in his donation, in that it may indirectly benefit MS, but I think it's easier to invoke Occam's Razor. The main reason he's donating is probably because he's just genuinely charitable. You can also argue that, regardless the reason, the money is still very much welcome by those who need it. Why does good news need to be spun to become bad news?
If you read my bio, I'm obviously biased. We also just finished our annual company-wide Giving campaign, so it's hard to see so much criticism going towards folks who, regardless of reason, are spending time and money for those less fortunate.
There's also the motivation factor. Often Gates makes sure big gifts from the foundation go to places where Microsoft is pushing their software.
Okay, that's just silly. Microsoft, like it or not, pretty much sells their software all around the world. So, you're saying he shouldn't give to any place MS software can be bought? That's just stupid.
If anything, a lot of the money he sends goes to countries that aren't big buyers of software (like many African countries).
If the PS3 actually ships with everything that has been promised, then yes the price will be quite reasonable, if not a "steal". But seeing how we're at least 6 months away (at best) for a Japan launch, and realistically, a year away from a US one... I think its still too early for this type of conjecture. (Plus by then, the Xbox 360 will have reduced in price anyway)
I'm guessing the convenience charge is to cover the costs of Ticketmaster hosting the event on their servers. The event may have been cancelled, but someone still needs to pay Ticketmaster for the use of their service.
That said, I agree that its not fair for the end user to have to pay the cost. It should be the concert organizer. But if they aren't able to pay, for whatever reason, it should be good PR for Ticketmaster just to eat the cost. If there weren't that many sales to begin with, the amount of fees they took in couldn't have been THAT much. Better to keep customers happy, otherwise they'll just end up using another service.
No one in their right mind would buy a $300-400 console just to play games like Bejeweled and Diner Dash. However, you're right that it's a good incentive for kids to use. "Hey Mom, if you get me the 360, you can use it to play Diner Dash!" Same would apply for husbands convincing their wives, etc.
It's not a major selling point (nor should it be IMHO), but it doesn't take that much work for MS to add it in, since they've already got a games site that distributes these casual games anyway (MSN Games).
Rumors place the PS3 launch around Spring 2006. I doubt Halo 3 would really be ready by then, since Halo 2 was just released a couple months ago. But I'm also guessing Sony won't be ready for a Spring 06 launch, especially considering their hardware isn't quite finalized yet, and I don't think developers have gotten dev kits yet. (Otherwise, we might have seen some actual PS3 games on the E3 floor instead of just the videos from their press conference)
My guess is the PS3 launch will be in Fall 06, and that should give Bungie enough time to finish Halo 3 for the Xbox 360. (Maybe they'll even give us an ending this time! *smirk*)
I think the problem is that folks like Dvorak, who aren't gamers, find it hard to idealize how games can get "better", aside from improved graphics. That's probably all he ever sees... brief glimpses of his kids playing games, the latest screenshots from a press release, etc.
Those of us who are professed hard-core gamers can think of lots of things that can be improved upon. As folks have already mentioned: better physics, AI, story-line, control schemes, etc. So all this doomsaying of "once we get photo-realism, that's the end of the line!" seems pretty darn absurd to us.
Yeah, I agree that the DS is definately more innovative, but unfortunately that could end up killing it in the end. The whole touch-pad thing just seems gimmicky to me. A lot of the game reviews I've seen for DS games seem to say the same thing: "This seems more like a tech demo than a game". (Check GameSpot or GameSpy's recent DS reviews, like of the Pac-Man game)
At work, I played around with Tablet PCs when they first came out a few years ago. Was it innovative? Sure. The hand-writing recognition, touchpad features, etc. were all neat. But at the end of the day, I would never buy one. Too expensive, and the innovation wasn't really that useful in the end. I'd stick a conventional laptop anyday.
Anyone remember the Virtual Boy? That was unarguably innovative, but it was also a horrendous failure. It was too big, no one wanted to design for it, it caused headaches when played too long, etc.
"Bashing" really isn't a bad thing, especially if you know you've got something up your sleeve to prove your point.
Anyway, do a Google search for Iwata/Revolution/Nintendo and read some of the articles. Here's one: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar 2005/tc20050314_2243_tc121.htm. There's a link to many more articles here: http://www.ferrago.com/portal/cluster/110052
There was one article I remember reading a while back from some Nintendo rep (don't know if it was Iwata) that chastised Microsoft for starting the next-gen wave too early, etc.
"A format harder to pirate" is not exactly against the grain, when you consider that's what Nintendo has ALWAYS been trying to do with their consoles. That's a big part why they lost the N64/PS1 generation, because developers didn't want to be stuck in cart-land anymore.
Looking at the responses so far, it seems to be mostly "the controller is better". Personally I'm not a fan of the GC controller (or any consoles' for that matter), but I'll give you that.
If I'd have to pick the biggest innovation for this generation of consoles, it'd have to be X-Box Live! Granted not everyone likes the notion of it being a paid service and requiring broadband, but you still have to admit that it's developed quite a mindshare.
That's true, but Microsoft isn't the one that's hyping their next box to be "revolutionary". Nintendo's been bashing Sony and Nintendo for not being creative enough, not taking gaming to the next level (aside from better graphics), etc. They can say that, but they'd better deliver.
I never really understood why backwards compatibility was such a key feature. If I really wanted to play PS1 games not long after the PS2 launch, I still had my PS1 available to do so. Nowadays, few people care about PS1 games anymore, so it's a non-issue the older a system gets.
Bungie's made a few other games actually. Myth, Marathon, and Oni to name a few. Halo's obviously the big money-maker out of all of them.
Bungie is technically one of the studios in the Microsoft Game Studios. So yes, they are all MS employees. However, I can tell you that they're allowed to be very independent-minded, since are one of the few studios to bring profit to the whole MGS group.
What did you expect them to say? "You can check out the leak and post about it here, but be sure to put *SPOILER* in your subject line!"
This is a post on their OFFICIAL forums. Of course they're going to seem arrogant! This is a game they've been working hard on for a few years now. They're trying to prevent folks from ruining the experiences of others by posting spoilers, screenshots, etc. of the game on THEIR official boards. Undoubtedly there are lots of Bungie/MS haters who would love nothing more to piss off Halo fans by doing those type of things.
You can opt to link your Passport with your gamertag. You can do it at www.xbox.com and probably other MS sites as well. This basically enables you to see who's online from a web site, and possible a few other features.
The threat of banning your gamertag is for those who post leak information (where to get it, H2 spoilers, etc.) in the Bungie.net forums. You have the ability to link your gamertag to your Bungie.net account.
I agree that paying $20 for a bunch of retro games doesn't seem right, but most folks are forgetting that the bulk of the games on Live Arcade are going to be all the newer downloadable games that can be found on MSN, Yahoo, Pogo, etc. Those games are all priced around $20 bucks.
Most of these games have free versions you can play on the web, but they have fewer features and are loaded with ads.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of these downloadable games, but undoubtedly they must make a lot money, for them to be around at so many sites. If $20 turns out to be too high for the XBox Live Arcade audience, then I'm sure MS will tweak the price a bit.
True, you don't get to try out new mods and such, but there's a lot of folks who don't really care for that type of stuff.
Generally I agree that consoles are horrible for FPS games (bad control scheme, lack of mods, etc.), but one thing they have is the ability to get a bunch of people in a room quickly, and to have a ton of fun playing the game. A few years ago, Goldeneye on the N64 was all the rage. I hated using the controller, but I didn't matter. It was such a blast to get everyone together in one room. Nowadays, Halo seems to be the console FPS of choice in college dorm rooms everywhere.
Yes, I know you can sort of achieve the same effect with LAN parties, but it's a pain lugging computers around, getting everyone setup, making sure there's enough wiring, etc. It's not spontaneous, and certainly not something you can do every night.
Actually, I think it's because the Xbox is doing so well that we are seeing in-house titles from MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) being cancelled left and right. Why bother making mediocre titles to fill genres, when you can get 3rd party developers to do it for you, and better? Who needs NFL Fever Live, when you've got Madden Live now?
I'll gladly see fewer titles like Azurik and Blinx, and more Halo 2 and Fable (assuming those games are as good as claimed).
The parent pointed out mainly FPS games, which yes generally find themselves on the PC (for good reason, since the mouse+keyboard combo will always be king, IMHO). However, it's probably important to note that none of those games will at least show up on other consoles.
Anyway, the Xbox exclusive games I'm looking forward to are:
Jade Empire
Dragon Age
Fable
KotOR II
(okay that'll probably be on the PC as well)
Those games should keep me busy for a while. (As you can see, I prefer RPGs) Microsoft still needs someone like Square that can churn out more traditional console RPGs like Final Fantasy. Heck, it'd be great to see something like Disgaea or Phantom Brave even. I'm guessing that won't happen with this generation, but with the next Xbox.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone please mod the parent up. :)
... and often all three. Most console fanboys can't be persuaded to try another system, no matter what you try to do. That leaves the rest of the population, which account for a LOT of money. Sometimes I have to remind fellow hardcore gamers that there's a reason why crappy games (Deer Hunter, Big Monster Trunks, bargain bin titles, etc.) exist ... tons of people that don't know any better, buy them!
Most hardcore gamers have more than just one system
Just a quick note
Anyway, I work at MS and even I know the big cash cows are Office and the OS. Sure, some businesses here and there make money (MSN has been profitable recently, thanks to the huge boom in Internet advertising again; MGS has made money occasionally, when there are big releases like Halo 2), but no where does it compare to the "core businesses". It's a bit irritating actually (I work at MGS and sometimes I feel like we get no respect from those in other divisions).
If I had mod points (and were allowed to mod conversations where I've posted), I'd mod you up. :)
Yup, a lot of folks don't realize that even though Nintendo isn't considered top dog anymore (in terms of console market share, etc.), they still make a hefty profit, due to shrewd strategies like you mentioned above.
On the other hand, you've got Sony who almost seems to bully developers (a platform that's hard to design for, lack of documentation, etc.), simply because they know they have an enormous user base and can almost get away with anything.
I agree. It's really all about the games. Although Xbox (and now 360) will have vastly superior online services to the other consoles, I still find myself playing mostly PS2 titles because that's the only place where I can get my Squeenix fix (FF games, etc.). I think the Xbox Live Arcade service is cool, not because of its features, but because it gets me access to great casual games like Geometry Wars (which is amazingly cool, I call it "modern retro").
... but in the end, they rely on the Capcoms, Konamis, Nacmos, and Square-Enixes of the world to bring in the bulk of the audience.
That said, though, how each company designs and markets its consoles DOES affect who develops for them. Granted, each of the big three can make great first party games (Mario, Halo, Gran Turismo)
If Nintendo isn't able to convince developers that the Revolution is worth making games for, then they have a problem. Unfortunately, it's already an issue with the GameCube. Yet, since they rule the handheld universe, they have no problem with the GBA or DS.
I think I see what you're getting at. All that happened in the past will forever taint present and future actions, no matter how "good and generous" it may be. I personally could never live that way ... it'd be too depressing. (Although I know plenty of people that do hold grudges like that)
That's definately one way to look at it. I can see through your previous posts that you're no fan of MS and that *anything* they do should make everyone worry. That's fine, it's your own opinion. I highly doubt I can convince you otherwise, since to you, even giving to charity is something that could be dubious.
Sorry, I don't read that portion of the tech news, but I'll take your word for it. (Wouldn't surprise me anyway)
So, would you rate Gates not make any donations at all? Or I suppose just do it anonymously then? (Then again, I wonder how feasible it even is to give $258 million anonymously)
Yes, there could be some self-interest in his donation, in that it may indirectly benefit MS, but I think it's easier to invoke Occam's Razor. The main reason he's donating is probably because he's just genuinely charitable. You can also argue that, regardless the reason, the money is still very much welcome by those who need it. Why does good news need to be spun to become bad news?
If you read my bio, I'm obviously biased. We also just finished our annual company-wide Giving campaign, so it's hard to see so much criticism going towards folks who, regardless of reason, are spending time and money for those less fortunate.
Okay, that's just silly. Microsoft, like it or not, pretty much sells their software all around the world. So, you're saying he shouldn't give to any place MS software can be bought? That's just stupid.
If anything, a lot of the money he sends goes to countries that aren't big buyers of software (like many African countries).
If the PS3 actually ships with everything that has been promised, then yes the price will be quite reasonable, if not a "steal". But seeing how we're at least 6 months away (at best) for a Japan launch, and realistically, a year away from a US one ... I think its still too early for this type of conjecture. (Plus by then, the Xbox 360 will have reduced in price anyway)
I'm guessing the convenience charge is to cover the costs of Ticketmaster hosting the event on their servers. The event may have been cancelled, but someone still needs to pay Ticketmaster for the use of their service.
That said, I agree that its not fair for the end user to have to pay the cost. It should be the concert organizer. But if they aren't able to pay, for whatever reason, it should be good PR for Ticketmaster just to eat the cost. If there weren't that many sales to begin with, the amount of fees they took in couldn't have been THAT much. Better to keep customers happy, otherwise they'll just end up using another service.
No one in their right mind would buy a $300-400 console just to play games like Bejeweled and Diner Dash. However, you're right that it's a good incentive for kids to use. "Hey Mom, if you get me the 360, you can use it to play Diner Dash!" Same would apply for husbands convincing their wives, etc.
It's not a major selling point (nor should it be IMHO), but it doesn't take that much work for MS to add it in, since they've already got a games site that distributes these casual games anyway (MSN Games).
According to BillG, Halo 3 won't be ready for the Xbox 360 launch but will be present when Sony tries to debut the PS3. You can read about it here: http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/15/news_61245 92.html?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6124592
Rumors place the PS3 launch around Spring 2006. I doubt Halo 3 would really be ready by then, since Halo 2 was just released a couple months ago. But I'm also guessing Sony won't be ready for a Spring 06 launch, especially considering their hardware isn't quite finalized yet, and I don't think developers have gotten dev kits yet. (Otherwise, we might have seen some actual PS3 games on the E3 floor instead of just the videos from their press conference)
My guess is the PS3 launch will be in Fall 06, and that should give Bungie enough time to finish Halo 3 for the Xbox 360. (Maybe they'll even give us an ending this time! *smirk*)
I think the problem is that folks like Dvorak, who aren't gamers, find it hard to idealize how games can get "better", aside from improved graphics. That's probably all he ever sees ... brief glimpses of his kids playing games, the latest screenshots from a press release, etc.
Those of us who are professed hard-core gamers can think of lots of things that can be improved upon. As folks have already mentioned: better physics, AI, story-line, control schemes, etc. So all this doomsaying of "once we get photo-realism, that's the end of the line!" seems pretty darn absurd to us.
Yeah, I agree that the DS is definately more innovative, but unfortunately that could end up killing it in the end. The whole touch-pad thing just seems gimmicky to me. A lot of the game reviews I've seen for DS games seem to say the same thing: "This seems more like a tech demo than a game". (Check GameSpot or GameSpy's recent DS reviews, like of the Pac-Man game)
At work, I played around with Tablet PCs when they first came out a few years ago. Was it innovative? Sure. The hand-writing recognition, touchpad features, etc. were all neat. But at the end of the day, I would never buy one. Too expensive, and the innovation wasn't really that useful in the end. I'd stick a conventional laptop anyday.
Anyone remember the Virtual Boy? That was unarguably innovative, but it was also a horrendous failure. It was too big, no one wanted to design for it, it caused headaches when played too long, etc.
"Bashing" really isn't a bad thing, especially if you know you've got something up your sleeve to prove your point.
r 2005/tc20050314_2243_tc121.htm. There's a link to many more articles here: http://www.ferrago.com/portal/cluster/110052
Anyway, do a Google search for Iwata/Revolution/Nintendo and read some of the articles. Here's one: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/ma
There was one article I remember reading a while back from some Nintendo rep (don't know if it was Iwata) that chastised Microsoft for starting the next-gen wave too early, etc.
"A format harder to pirate" is not exactly against the grain, when you consider that's what Nintendo has ALWAYS been trying to do with their consoles. That's a big part why they lost the N64/PS1 generation, because developers didn't want to be stuck in cart-land anymore.
Looking at the responses so far, it seems to be mostly "the controller is better". Personally I'm not a fan of the GC controller (or any consoles' for that matter), but I'll give you that.
If I'd have to pick the biggest innovation for this generation of consoles, it'd have to be X-Box Live! Granted not everyone likes the notion of it being a paid service and requiring broadband, but you still have to admit that it's developed quite a mindshare.
That's true, but Microsoft isn't the one that's hyping their next box to be "revolutionary". Nintendo's been bashing Sony and Nintendo for not being creative enough, not taking gaming to the next level (aside from better graphics), etc. They can say that, but they'd better deliver.
I never really understood why backwards compatibility was such a key feature. If I really wanted to play PS1 games not long after the PS2 launch, I still had my PS1 available to do so. Nowadays, few people care about PS1 games anymore, so it's a non-issue the older a system gets.
Bungie's made a few other games actually. Myth, Marathon, and Oni to name a few. Halo's obviously the big money-maker out of all of them.
Bungie is technically one of the studios in the Microsoft Game Studios. So yes, they are all MS employees. However, I can tell you that they're allowed to be very independent-minded, since are one of the few studios to bring profit to the whole MGS group.
What did you expect them to say? "You can check out the leak and post about it here, but be sure to put *SPOILER* in your subject line!"
This is a post on their OFFICIAL forums. Of course they're going to seem arrogant! This is a game they've been working hard on for a few years now. They're trying to prevent folks from ruining the experiences of others by posting spoilers, screenshots, etc. of the game on THEIR official boards. Undoubtedly there are lots of Bungie/MS haters who would love nothing more to piss off Halo fans by doing those type of things.
You can opt to link your Passport with your gamertag. You can do it at www.xbox.com and probably other MS sites as well. This basically enables you to see who's online from a web site, and possible a few other features.
The threat of banning your gamertag is for those who post leak information (where to get it, H2 spoilers, etc.) in the Bungie.net forums. You have the ability to link your gamertag to your Bungie.net account.
I agree that paying $20 for a bunch of retro games doesn't seem right, but most folks are forgetting that the bulk of the games on Live Arcade are going to be all the newer downloadable games that can be found on MSN, Yahoo, Pogo, etc. Those games are all priced around $20 bucks.
t e=pogo
See the following sites:
http://zone.msn.com/en/root/downloads.htm
http://www.gamehouse.com/
http://www.pogo.com/togo/tg-topgames.jsp?sls=2&si
Most of these games have free versions you can play on the web, but they have fewer features and are loaded with ads.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of these downloadable games, but undoubtedly they must make a lot money, for them to be around at so many sites. If $20 turns out to be too high for the XBox Live Arcade audience, then I'm sure MS will tweak the price a bit.
True, you don't get to try out new mods and such, but there's a lot of folks who don't really care for that type of stuff.
Generally I agree that consoles are horrible for FPS games (bad control scheme, lack of mods, etc.), but one thing they have is the ability to get a bunch of people in a room quickly, and to have a ton of fun playing the game. A few years ago, Goldeneye on the N64 was all the rage. I hated using the controller, but I didn't matter. It was such a blast to get everyone together in one room. Nowadays, Halo seems to be the console FPS of choice in college dorm rooms everywhere.
Yes, I know you can sort of achieve the same effect with LAN parties, but it's a pain lugging computers around, getting everyone setup, making sure there's enough wiring, etc. It's not spontaneous, and certainly not something you can do every night.
Actually, I think it's because the Xbox is doing so well that we are seeing in-house titles from MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) being cancelled left and right. Why bother making mediocre titles to fill genres, when you can get 3rd party developers to do it for you, and better? Who needs NFL Fever Live, when you've got Madden Live now?
I'll gladly see fewer titles like Azurik and Blinx, and more Halo 2 and Fable (assuming those games are as good as claimed).
Anyway, the Xbox exclusive games I'm looking forward to are:
Those games should keep me busy for a while. (As you can see, I prefer RPGs) Microsoft still needs someone like Square that can churn out more traditional console RPGs like Final Fantasy. Heck, it'd be great to see something like Disgaea or Phantom Brave even. I'm guessing that won't happen with this generation, but with the next Xbox.