You don't need to. Read the other comments, and generally the official features of each console. XBox 360 will have a well-thought-out centralized online service. PS3 plans to provide no online service of its own. PS3 plans to have a separate friends list for every game you own. XBox 360 plans to have a single friends list that works across all games.
Perhaps you have a group of friends that plays all the same games online you do. I don't. Having a unified friend list, and having to pay for it, is hardly a feature that appeals to me. Nor do continuous micropayments for content.
For instance, the PSP has online support for just about every game. It does not need a centralized service, and it works just fine. Some games, like WipeOut Pure, have large amounts of downloadable content (new track packs, etc.), and it does not nickel-and-dime me to do so.
The DS is launching its wifi support with Mario Kart DS, and it works great. It does not require a pay service to do so. My friends don't need a unified friend list to play against each other.
The reason the XBOX had more online support was simple. It came with builtin ethernet; the PS2 and GameCube did not. Considering the PS2's card was addon hardware, something generally unsuccessful, it did pretty well despite.
Next generation, everyone has networking builtin. Let's wait and see how things play out on the new playing field before we declare XBOX Live the end-all winner.
Sony chief technical officer Masami Chatani was also present at the PlayStation meeting. He disclosed that Nvidia, maker of the PS3's RSX graphics processor, is currently working on a lineup of programmable shader tools for the console. These include a CG compiler, which is a standard for PC graphics that's oriented toward C language; an FX composer, which is a program for creating shaders of various textures, such as skin and hair; PerfHUD and ShaderPerf, which are evaluation tools to optimize the quality of the shaders; and Melody, which lets normal maps be used to drop polygon volumes without lowering graphics quality.
Chatani reconfirmed that the PS3 will support Open GL/ES as its standard API, and he also revealed support for Collada, an open-interchange file format for the interactive 3D industry.
In terms of supporting developers in their use of the Cell processor, Sony is forming an alliance with chipmaker Transmeta Corporation, a company renowned for its software emulation technology and its x86-compatible, software-based microprocessors. Transmeta will be offering an SPE optimizer and software that will let developers effectively program for the Cell processor and its seven SPEs. The tools will allow statistical process control (SPC) simulation on PCs and will also let programmers debug and tune their programs with runtime info. Transmeta's tools will be shipped to developers in Q4 2005.
Do you consider OpenGL and other standard toolkits to "cause permanent brain-damage [sic]"? Do you work for Microsoft?
Oh my god! A 5-year lifecycle! It's not like Nintendo has ever had a lifecycle that short.
You misread. November 15th, 2001 was the XBOX released. November 29th, 2005 the XBOX360 is released. That is 4 years from launch to launch; previous "successful" systems (NES, SNES, GB, GBC, GBA, PSX, PS2, even the N64) had 5+ year spans usually with an additional 3-5 years after that. The PSX was launched in 1994. You can still buy them new today, 11 years later. That was Sony's first console. The NES launched in 1983, and the Super Famicom wasn't even released until 1991; the NES was still going strong in 1993. That was Nintendo's first console.
Microsoft's first console has lasted barely 4 years.
As for the library, XBOX had a number of notable exclusives, and with Rare onboard it appears that the 360 will have a number of notable exclusives as well.
Like... Halo? And what? Fable? What has Rare done since 2002 for the XBOX? Let's see: Grabbed by the Ghoulies, and Conker: Live and Reloaded. Yeah. I bet the 360's going to have lots of Rare games. Nintendo sold their stake for a reason.
Don't believe Sony's crapola. Most developers have said that the XBOX 360 is roughly equal to the PS3 in terms of graphical muscle. The ATI GPU in the 360 is no pushover, no matter what Sony would have you believe.
"Most developers"? Which developers are these? Microsoft developers? They don't count, you know. Being "roughly equal" is not a good position for a console whose predecessor sold almost exclusively on technical superiority.
And I wouldn't call over 200 games "meager" in terms of backwards compatibility.
And there are interesting games now. Lots of Rare fans like myself have been waiting for another Perfect Dark, there's PGR3, DOA4, and, of course, all the 3rd party sports and racing games.
Keep waiting. Racing and sports are nice; some of us like a little more variety.
As for DVD, who gives a crap? DVD-9 holds more than 9 gigabytes of data - it's certainly enough for any PC game out there, and I fail to realize why it's a serious issue for the 360.
Your failure, Microsoft's failure, not anyone else's. 9 gigs isn't much anymore. High-res textures, geometry, and video eat up lots of space really quick.
There are multi-DVD PS2 games; next-gen consoles will support far larger textures and geometries. Space is a must.
You're assuming that Blue-Ray is the format of the future. And that backwards-compatibility is going to be 100% - hell, even newer PS2 revs are having trouble maintaining full backwards-compatibility.
The PS2 isn't 100% backward-compatible with the PS1... but it's really damn good, and doesn't require downloading binaries or developer interaction. Most people are fine with that.
The Revolution isn't even competitive in this area. Nintendo has segmented themselves into a different market segment through the odd controller, late launch, different pricepoint, and different hardware specs.
...then you say:
Oh, and I don't see you crapping on Nintendo for choosing DVD-9 for Revolution.
Go back and read the previous paragraph you wrote for why. Nintendo is on an entirely different playing field of their own making.
You don't get it, do you? The 360 isn't about improved hardware, it's about improved software. Downloadable demos & movies. Independant games. Intelligent matchmaking. Integrated VoIP. Connectivity with XP Media ce
Re:PS3? No thanks, Sony; you screwed the pooch
on
Bad Day To Be Sony
·
· Score: 5, Funny
They're associated well enough to have the name "SONY" branded on them. Good enough for me.
Ah yes, broad generalization and stubborn ignorance, that'll solve the problem. Isn't that why they want DRM in the first place?
I don't own a console so almost everything you listed is irrelevant to me.
The fact you don't own a console means what I said is more relevant to you. You don't already have a PS2, or a PS1, or a cube, n64, snes, nes, gba, etc. When you pick a console, you can either have a few 360 and xbox games, or you can have the entire PS2 and PS1 lineup, or the entire Nintendo history to choose from.
It has or will offer everything I am looking for... HD support, media 'hub' capabilities, and very, very solid technology for release games as well as games that will be released in the future.
"Very, very solid techology for release games as well as games that will be released in the future"? What does that mean? That sounds like marketspeak for "it's got a 3D card and a CPU" or "it's built out of solids, not liquids". As for the rest, the PS3 will have a HDD, and if you want a media "hub", go build a MythTV box. Much cheaper.
Some want to pick it up, most are going to wait and see what the PS3 is like, and in general there seems to be a collective shrug about the thing. Is it lack of Halo 3, or some really huge A-list title?
My perception of the PS1 is that it started slowly, uninterestingly, and eventually picked up steam with better and better titles, really taking off with FF7, and finally ending its career at a ripe old age where it can still be bought in micro form with a huge game library available. I still see new copies of some Greatest Hits on the shelves at Best Buy.
Enter the PS2. The Playstation has a track record of a platform with a ton of top titles, offers better graphics, backward compatibility, a higher capacity format and DVD movie playing capabilities. Any suprise people wanted this one?
Contrast this with the XBOX. It started off with lots of hype, never really went anywhere with its library, instead relying on technical superiority, and they're already coming out with the next console before this one has had five years.
Enter the XBOX360. Now, the XBOX didn't have a great library, and so there's not much track record there. It's got slightly improved graphics (but probably not as good as the competition will have), some backward compatibility (but to a meager library), and the same old DVD format. People say "there are interesting games on the horizon," but honestly, I want to know: what are they?
Contrast this to the competition. The PS3 promises what the PS2 promised (and delivered on): highly improved graphics, full backward compatibility, a higher capacity format and the ability to play next-gen movies. It's sitting on a vast library of 2 generations of games, and all indications point to the next generation being just as big.
The Revolution promises full backward compatibility to everything Nintendo owns (although details are fuzzy), a new form of controller that could really make console shooters something else (as well as open up new types of games), and most importantly, all the Nintendo franchise games.
I can see why someone would want a PS3. I can see why someone would want a Nintendo Revolution. But why would someone want an XBOX360?
Unfortunately, people like you are in the minority, and cannot support an entire industry for very long.
Maybe, but the "videogame generation" who grew up on the NES is now in their 20s and 30s, probably don't have a family to support, and are willing to buy 2-3 consoles. We have money, and we are the gamers.
As for me, I will likely pick up a Revolution after the first round of price cuts (probably a year after release). I do not see a 260 or PS3 in my future.
You are not the sort who supports the industry; you are the "later buyers" who support sales in the 3rd and 4th generation, after the large chunk of the market has adopted, and keep playing the last-gen consoles well after the next gen has launched. Do not think that most people are like you. The market is already well-defined by the time you buy in.
Please save your PSP persecution complexes for someone else. I happen to own more than 50 movies on UMD and I love them all.
No need to tell me... I'm happy with almost every PSP game I have bought (the only exception being Rengoku, ugh), and that's most of them. After seeing movies for like $7-10 at Fry's, I'm reconsidering the possibility for success of these as well.
Like the PlayStation or GameCube are any better: Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2, Dynasty Warriors 5, Romance of the Three Kingdoms X, Final Fantasy XII, Mario Party 7, Dragon Quest VIII, Soul Calibur III, and even We Love Katamari (remember the original, the game that was supposed to rid us of derivative games? It has a sequel).
We're also talking a console launch, not its 5th year, here. Once you're working on an Nth-generation of a console, you can expect a lot of sequels---hopefully you have some successful franchises and the like. But this is a launch... maybe there are some new games? Ones that aren't simply replacing old data with new (i.e. Sports Game 2005) and maybe some improved graphics?
Cripe, and people were complaining about the PSP launch. It at least had original stuff: Lumines, Darkstalkers, Untold Legends. Even where there were franchises, we got new stuff (Metal Gear Acid, THUG2:Remix, Wipeout:Pure, Twisted Metal: Head On). The one exception to this was probably Ape Escape, which was basically upgraded graphics.
But don't complain about the PSP and then laud the 360 on its wonderful launch.
You have utterly missed the point. Like so many people, you have bought into the notion that a corporation is a person, a single entity of one mind which decides on every action it takes.
It's not. Despite any legal status, corporations are made up of many groups; in Sony's case, many different companies! It's utterly silly to say "I'm not buying a PS3 from SCEA because Sony BGM did something really stupid". It's akin to having nothing to do with someone because their brother did something you don't like.
Now, don't get me wrong, Sony isn't exactly the innocent type. Even if they are separate divisions, each one will still look out for its own best interest. But the notion that a corporation is a single mind is wrong in form; I'm suprised so many people here seem to hold onto the idea.
Shadow is a 10/10 in my book, and easily the best gaming experience the end of the year has to offer.
I think this proves, once and for all, that the editors don't read the articles on slashdot: even the ones they're in the middle of writing.:-)
(This is a joke, I have nothing against slashdot editors. This is actually a fairly decent review, and I'm glad it's not nearly as gushy and ridiculous as, say, IGN's.)
How about some actual reporting, the last half of that summary was totally unneccessary.
Seriously. What's with the XBOX-fanboy Sony-hating articles (or moderators, posters)? With "difficulty of development" we have to look at two different, but relavent points:
The PS2 was hard to code for. Harder, possibly, than any other platform, historically. It also has the largest library of high-quality games. So, being hard to code for doesn't mean much. It's not like the whiny gamers who moan about difficulty of development are actually doing development. Smart developers (which excludes Tim Sweeney) say things like "The PS2 is hard. But look at the cool things we're doing with it."
Sony is also not stupid or deaf. The PS2 required a lot of low-level programming right on the metal. Why? Because they listened to PS1 developers who said that's what they wanted. They are also aware of the PS2 difficulties out the door (which was later remedied by numerous devkits), so this time they've gotnumerousdifferentkits.
How's that for some actual (factual) reporting? (Unfortunately, I can't find the link to the chart that shows how many orders of magnitude bigger the PS3 SDK is in terms of support libraries than the PS2/PS1. If someone can find this, please post.)
The only thing I'd add to what you said, with which I agree very much, is that old consoles don't magically stop working when you get a new one... presumably the people who owned these games have a console to play them on.
Pfft, go turn off the lights and play Silent Hill (2 or 3) in the dark by yourself. Or Fatal Frame 1-2. People these days think stuff jumping out at you in the dark or sneaking up behind is "scary". That's not scary. Scary is when you don't want to continue the game because of what might be behind the next door. Scary is when you get up from playing and are afraid to open the door to your room, lest you find it a twisted hellworld version of what it should be.
I have thought about this recently and I've determined we're willing to give Sony the benefit of the doubt, simply because they have delivered with their consoles recently. The PSX had a massive library. The PS2 started out very very slowly, but now it has a massive library. The PS3 already has a ton of games lined up.
Contrast this with recent Nintendo; I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. Not because I don't like Nintendo. I love Nintendo. I have a Gamecube, a GBA SP, original GBA, an N64, a SNES, and a NES. But recently, starting with the N64, they simply haven't delivered the killer lineup they should be. So they will have to build it before I buy into it.
However, I haven't bought into the PSP with no games; I've been playing far too much THUG2: Remix, HSG2, and Metal Gear: Acid recently. Maybe these aren't your cup of tea; maybe none of the games are. That's too bad: there are some good ones. But if you don't like them, and you don't want the video/music features, don't buy one.
But while we're listing current and upcoming games, let's try the following, to name a few:
Four of those are RPGs, the only thing the PSP has been really lacking to this point. There are some interesting things; I'm curious as to what you're after if none of these or any other titles are to your liking.
Do you really think Google needs 5000 computers to serve a website?
Um, yes? Google is probably the most-visited site on the internet. Millions of requests per second would be reasonable. I'd be suprised if they were only running off 5000 boxes.
NO--- a signifigant number of those computers are for data crunching-- what are people viewing now, what advertisements should we show them?
Actually, I attended a Google presentation awhile back that gave some general information on how requests are handled. Apparently, for each search a user makes, it's processed by around 100 boxes for search results alone.
Now don't get me wrong, Google collects processes advertising data without question. It's just they also process a huge amount of other data, too. We're not talking about an advertisement company that happens to let you search the web.
They've got a technologically inferior console that's the sequel to a console whose only redeeming feature was technological superiority.
They're releasing a console without any significant original titles, and the only significantly-planned title is... Halo 3.
They're trying to get this out the door early.
So in essence, they're delivering a time-crunched crappy box that doesn't run anything... even existing XBOX games. Even the Dreamcast had (at worst estimation) a decent lineup. And it was touted as being technologically superior.
People buy consoles for games, or at least the surety of games down the line. We can buy a PS3 and rest assured that we'll have a ton of games. We can buy a Revolution because it'll have all the Nintendo franchises we love. This is the reason tons of people bought the NES, the SNES, the GB/GBA, the PSX, the PS2.
Geez, all this whining about proprietary half-assed IM networks. Show people how to use irc! They can use it with GAIM or any other variousGUIclient. (Or text if they prefer.) It's been around for decades, anyone can run a server, there are a multitude of clients on every platform, and it's entirely open. You can transfer files, and even have stupid graphical smileys and sounds if you want (or filter them if you don't).
Seriously, if people want an "open IM network", fire up an irc server, give everyone GAIM or Google Messanger, and be done with the AOL angst.
Slashdot Mirror
Catching up to Nintendo, then? ;-)
Perhaps you have a group of friends that plays all the same games online you do. I don't. Having a unified friend list, and having to pay for it, is hardly a feature that appeals to me. Nor do continuous micropayments for content.
For instance, the PSP has online support for just about every game. It does not need a centralized service, and it works just fine. Some games, like WipeOut Pure, have large amounts of downloadable content (new track packs, etc.), and it does not nickel-and-dime me to do so.
The DS is launching its wifi support with Mario Kart DS, and it works great. It does not require a pay service to do so. My friends don't need a unified friend list to play against each other.
The reason the XBOX had more online support was simple. It came with builtin ethernet; the PS2 and GameCube did not. Considering the PS2's card was addon hardware, something generally unsuccessful, it did pretty well despite.
Next generation, everyone has networking builtin. Let's wait and see how things play out on the new playing field before we declare XBOX Live the end-all winner.
Ah, the pathetic myths people perpetuate. Try again please, thanks. Plenty to go around.
Gamespot has a good summary of the PS3 SDK. A choice quote:
Do you consider OpenGL and other standard toolkits to "cause permanent brain-damage [sic]"? Do you work for Microsoft?
And you've played them all to know, I'm sure.
"Journalists show hallmarks of sensationalistic idiots."
You misread. November 15th, 2001 was the XBOX released. November 29th, 2005 the XBOX360 is released. That is 4 years from launch to launch; previous "successful" systems (NES, SNES, GB, GBC, GBA, PSX, PS2, even the N64) had 5+ year spans usually with an additional 3-5 years after that. The PSX was launched in 1994. You can still buy them new today, 11 years later. That was Sony's first console. The NES launched in 1983, and the Super Famicom wasn't even released until 1991; the NES was still going strong in 1993. That was Nintendo's first console.
Microsoft's first console has lasted barely 4 years.
Like... Halo? And what? Fable? What has Rare done since 2002 for the XBOX? Let's see: Grabbed by the Ghoulies, and Conker: Live and Reloaded. Yeah. I bet the 360's going to have lots of Rare games. Nintendo sold their stake for a reason.
"Most developers"? Which developers are these? Microsoft developers? They don't count, you know. Being "roughly equal" is not a good position for a console whose predecessor sold almost exclusively on technical superiority.
Compared to 1500 PS2 titles and 1400 PS1 titles, it's pretty meager.
Keep waiting. Racing and sports are nice; some of us like a little more variety.
Your failure, Microsoft's failure, not anyone else's. 9 gigs isn't much anymore. High-res textures, geometry, and video eat up lots of space really quick.
There are multi-DVD PS2 games; next-gen consoles will support far larger textures and geometries. Space is a must.
The PS2 isn't 100% backward-compatible with the PS1... but it's really damn good, and doesn't require downloading binaries or developer interaction. Most people are fine with that.
...then you say:
Go back and read the previous paragraph you wrote for why. Nintendo is on an entirely different playing field of their own making.
Ah yes, broad generalization and stubborn ignorance, that'll solve the problem. Isn't that why they want DRM in the first place?
The fact you don't own a console means what I said is more relevant to you. You don't already have a PS2, or a PS1, or a cube, n64, snes, nes, gba, etc. When you pick a console, you can either have a few 360 and xbox games, or you can have the entire PS2 and PS1 lineup, or the entire Nintendo history to choose from.
"Very, very solid techology for release games as well as games that will be released in the future"? What does that mean? That sounds like marketspeak for "it's got a 3D card and a CPU" or "it's built out of solids, not liquids". As for the rest, the PS3 will have a HDD, and if you want a media "hub", go build a MythTV box. Much cheaper.
Besides all the games?
My perception of the PS1 is that it started slowly, uninterestingly, and eventually picked up steam with better and better titles, really taking off with FF7, and finally ending its career at a ripe old age where it can still be bought in micro form with a huge game library available. I still see new copies of some Greatest Hits on the shelves at Best Buy.
Enter the PS2. The Playstation has a track record of a platform with a ton of top titles, offers better graphics, backward compatibility, a higher capacity format and DVD movie playing capabilities. Any suprise people wanted this one?
Contrast this with the XBOX. It started off with lots of hype, never really went anywhere with its library, instead relying on technical superiority, and they're already coming out with the next console before this one has had five years.
Enter the XBOX360. Now, the XBOX didn't have a great library, and so there's not much track record there. It's got slightly improved graphics (but probably not as good as the competition will have), some backward compatibility (but to a meager library), and the same old DVD format. People say "there are interesting games on the horizon," but honestly, I want to know: what are they?
Contrast this to the competition. The PS3 promises what the PS2 promised (and delivered on): highly improved graphics, full backward compatibility, a higher capacity format and the ability to play next-gen movies. It's sitting on a vast library of 2 generations of games, and all indications point to the next generation being just as big.
The Revolution promises full backward compatibility to everything Nintendo owns (although details are fuzzy), a new form of controller that could really make console shooters something else (as well as open up new types of games), and most importantly, all the Nintendo franchise games.
I can see why someone would want a PS3. I can see why someone would want a Nintendo Revolution. But why would someone want an XBOX360?
Well then, that settles it.
Maybe, but the "videogame generation" who grew up on the NES is now in their 20s and 30s, probably don't have a family to support, and are willing to buy 2-3 consoles. We have money, and we are the gamers.
You are not the sort who supports the industry; you are the "later buyers" who support sales in the 3rd and 4th generation, after the large chunk of the market has adopted, and keep playing the last-gen consoles well after the next gen has launched. Do not think that most people are like you. The market is already well-defined by the time you buy in.
I actually have no idea what you mean by this. :-)
No need to tell me... I'm happy with almost every PSP game I have bought (the only exception being Rengoku, ugh), and that's most of them. After seeing movies for like $7-10 at Fry's, I'm reconsidering the possibility for success of these as well.
We're also talking a console launch, not its 5th year, here. Once you're working on an Nth-generation of a console, you can expect a lot of sequels---hopefully you have some successful franchises and the like. But this is a launch... maybe there are some new games? Ones that aren't simply replacing old data with new (i.e. Sports Game 2005) and maybe some improved graphics?
Cripe, and people were complaining about the PSP launch. It at least had original stuff: Lumines, Darkstalkers, Untold Legends. Even where there were franchises, we got new stuff (Metal Gear Acid, THUG2:Remix, Wipeout:Pure, Twisted Metal: Head On). The one exception to this was probably Ape Escape, which was basically upgraded graphics.
But don't complain about the PSP and then laud the 360 on its wonderful launch.
You have utterly missed the point. Like so many people, you have bought into the notion that a corporation is a person, a single entity of one mind which decides on every action it takes.
It's not. Despite any legal status, corporations are made up of many groups; in Sony's case, many different companies! It's utterly silly to say "I'm not buying a PS3 from SCEA because Sony BGM did something really stupid". It's akin to having nothing to do with someone because their brother did something you don't like.
Now, don't get me wrong, Sony isn't exactly the innocent type. Even if they are separate divisions, each one will still look out for its own best interest. But the notion that a corporation is a single mind is wrong in form; I'm suprised so many people here seem to hold onto the idea.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, manage. Those who can't manage are journalists.
I think this proves, once and for all, that the editors don't read the articles on slashdot: even the ones they're in the middle of writing. :-)
(This is a joke, I have nothing against slashdot editors. This is actually a fairly decent review, and I'm glad it's not nearly as gushy and ridiculous as, say, IGN's.)
Seriously. What's with the XBOX-fanboy Sony-hating articles (or moderators, posters)? With "difficulty of development" we have to look at two different, but relavent points:
How's that for some actual (factual) reporting? (Unfortunately, I can't find the link to the chart that shows how many orders of magnitude bigger the PS3 SDK is in terms of support libraries than the PS2/PS1. If someone can find this, please post.)
Which, of course, is a good reason to keep us in a constant state of war.
Pfft, go turn off the lights and play Silent Hill (2 or 3) in the dark by yourself. Or Fatal Frame 1-2. People these days think stuff jumping out at you in the dark or sneaking up behind is "scary". That's not scary. Scary is when you don't want to continue the game because of what might be behind the next door. Scary is when you get up from playing and are afraid to open the door to your room, lest you find it a twisted hellworld version of what it should be.
I have thought about this recently and I've determined we're willing to give Sony the benefit of the doubt, simply because they have delivered with their consoles recently. The PSX had a massive library. The PS2 started out very very slowly, but now it has a massive library. The PS3 already has a ton of games lined up.
Contrast this with recent Nintendo; I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. Not because I don't like Nintendo. I love Nintendo. I have a Gamecube, a GBA SP, original GBA, an N64, a SNES, and a NES. But recently, starting with the N64, they simply haven't delivered the killer lineup they should be. So they will have to build it before I buy into it.
However, I haven't bought into the PSP with no games; I've been playing far too much THUG2: Remix, HSG2, and Metal Gear: Acid recently. Maybe these aren't your cup of tea; maybe none of the games are. That's too bad: there are some good ones. But if you don't like them, and you don't want the video/music features, don't buy one.
But while we're listing current and upcoming games, let's try the following, to name a few:
Four of those are RPGs, the only thing the PSP has been really lacking to this point. There are some interesting things; I'm curious as to what you're after if none of these or any other titles are to your liking.
Um, yes? Google is probably the most-visited site on the internet. Millions of requests per second would be reasonable. I'd be suprised if they were only running off 5000 boxes.
Actually, I attended a Google presentation awhile back that gave some general information on how requests are handled. Apparently, for each search a user makes, it's processed by around 100 boxes for search results alone.
Now don't get me wrong, Google collects processes advertising data without question. It's just they also process a huge amount of other data, too. We're not talking about an advertisement company that happens to let you search the web.
So, let's see where Microsoft is at:
So in essence, they're delivering a time-crunched crappy box that doesn't run anything... even existing XBOX games. Even the Dreamcast had (at worst estimation) a decent lineup. And it was touted as being technologically superior.
People buy consoles for games, or at least the surety of games down the line. We can buy a PS3 and rest assured that we'll have a ton of games. We can buy a Revolution because it'll have all the Nintendo franchises we love. This is the reason tons of people bought the NES, the SNES, the GB/GBA, the PSX, the PS2.
The 360, simply, gives no reason to buy.
...or that the lightbulbs heat significantly (what if it's an LED?). This isn't really a math/logic problem.
Geez, all this whining about proprietary half-assed IM networks. Show people how to use irc! They can use it with GAIM or any other various GUI client. (Or text if they prefer.) It's been around for decades, anyone can run a server, there are a multitude of clients on every platform, and it's entirely open. You can transfer files, and even have stupid graphical smileys and sounds if you want (or filter them if you don't).
Seriously, if people want an "open IM network", fire up an irc server, give everyone GAIM or Google Messanger, and be done with the AOL angst.