X-Box is finally complete
getting kevin j
------
Xbox hardware done >> 12:41 PM - Marcus Yam
Straight from Executive Producer of Xbox Development Jeff Henshaw, via the Xbox
website, is word that the hardware is done. The box is solid.
Up until this point, all the Xbox demos you have been seeing were running on close
facsimiles of the final hardware spec. Of course, that probably wasn't very difficult,
given Xbox very close ties to the PC architecture. Finally, the real Xbox hardware was
completed, and is now making its rounds to all developers.
For some time, we've been promising to get the first hardware into
developers' hands before the Electronics Entertainment Expo (E3) in May ...
Two of our brightest engineers, David and Sakphong, drove over to the team
meeting with me, each carrying one of the very first Xbox console units.
We took two so that we'd have a backup. Damn good thing, too.
We hooked up both units before the rest of the team poured into the huge
auditorium. Since there was about an hour's worth of agenda before we had
the chance to show the goods, it was iffy at best that they'd still be running
when it came time to show them in action. Sure enough, an hour later the
first preproduction box had croaked. It hadn't started a fire or anything, so
that was good. The second box was still alive - the demo running
flawlessly. It was the first time that an audience of more than a handful of
engineers had seen actual code running on a real Xbox console. It marked
another of those defining points in the project.
Jeff will continue to bring us updates on the developments of the Xbox in the coming
weeks. Hopefully we'll be able to see all the latest at E3 in just a short couple of weeks
to bring you all the details.
------
So the X-box is finally complete. Everything we've been shown has been
running on beta hardware or simulations. Yeah, I know a PC can be
configured similar to an X-box but we know of MS's track record here.
One of the X-box's died with in an hour. I guess that's what you can a
'finished' product from MS. How many bugs were in Win2K? I guess it
doesnt hurt to leave a few hardware bugs in the X-box either. IMHO this
should still be considered BETA hardware, though a very late beta.
MS is really the big bully. They've sunk some major $$$ to make the
Matrix game exclusive (which I'll admit is normal for the console world)
but you'd think MS would push something more innovative. I guess they'll
continue to buy out game companies *cough* Bungie *cough* until they own
the entire industry. MS doesnt care about the gamer or games. They're
only in it for the money.
----
Kevin G
gett...@washburn.edu
Scythe
"getting kevin j" <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.33.010503...@accsp2.wuacc.edu...
Oracle
<snip article>
> So the X-box is finally complete. Everything we've been shown has been
> running on beta hardware or simulations. Yeah, I know a PC can be
> configured similar to an X-box but we know of MS's track record here.
It's not all bad. Microsoft has made some seriously great peripherals,
so it's not as if MS has a totally bad rap in hardware at all.
> One of the X-box's died with in an hour. I guess that's what you can a
> 'finished' product from MS. How many bugs were in Win2K? I guess it
> doesnt hurt to leave a few hardware bugs in the X-box either. IMHO this
> should still be considered BETA hardware, though a very late beta.
Beta? That should be considered proto. It's not production at any rate.
I think it's better that prototypes die, the resulting autopsy will likely
increase the reliability quite a bit.
> MS is really the big bully. They've sunk some major $$$ to make the
> Matrix game exclusive (which I'll admit is normal for the console world)
> but you'd think MS would push something more innovative. I guess they'll
> continue to buy out game companies *cough* Bungie *cough* until they own
> the entire industry. MS doesnt care about the gamer or games. They're
> only in it for the money.
Well, videogames are a luxury item. Of *course* MS is in it for the money,
but so is everybody else. You make it sound like being in it for the money
is a bad thing. It's motivation, and motivation is good, especially since
the people with the money motivating everything are the GAMERS.
The arcades are an old bastion of gaming, and the way for a game to get the
quarters and pay it's keep was simple: it had to make the gamers happy.
If it didn't make the gamers happy, then it made little or no money and was
rapidly replaced with a better performing unit. Consoles really aren't any
different.
The X-box is going to live or die on third-party softs anyway, so whether
Microsoft cares is moot. Microsoft is just playing a big Sugar Daddy to
third parties with the X-box, and third parties are pretty well in tune
to what gamers will buy (mainly because if they aren't they'll go under).
All imho
--
This message sent with the spirit of the Nine Muses,
Calliope, Clio, Polyhymnia, Euterpe, Terpsichore,
Erato, Melpomene, Thalia and Urania.
diritol
V. Equinox
In article <IaoI6.10588$2_.38...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Scythe"
<scyt...@home.com.no.spam> wrote:
>Amem Mirco$oft is SATAN!
>
>"getting kevin j" <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.A41.4.33.010503...@accsp2.wuacc.edu...
>> This from the Firing Squad (http://firingsquad.gamers.com/news/)
>>
>> ------
>>
>> Xbox hardware done >> 12:41 PM - Marcus Yam
>>
>> Straight from Executive Producer of Xbox Development Jeff Henshaw, via the
>Xbox
>> website, is word that the hardware is done. The box is solid.
>>
>> Up until this point, all the Xbox demos you have been seeing were running
>on close
>> facsimiles of the final hardware spec. Of course, that probably wasn't
>very difficult,
>> given Xbox very close ties to the PC architecture. Finally, the real Xbox
>hardware was
>> completed, and is now making its rounds to all developers.
>>
>> For some time, we've been promising to get the first hardware into
>> developers' hands before the Electronics Entertainment Expo (E3) in May
>....
oogabooga
<gett...@washburn.edu> wrote:
SNIP
>MS is really the big bully. They've sunk some major $$$ to make the
>Matrix game exclusive (which I'll admit is normal for the console world)
>but you'd think MS would push something more innovative. I guess they'll
>continue to buy out game companies *cough* Bungie *cough* until they own
>the entire industry. MS doesnt care about the gamer or games. They're
>only in it for the money.
>
Err, then what's Sony? At least MS has a gaming history. Sony's just
an electronics company who jumped into the gaming market after a
botched deal with Nintendo.
>Kevin G
>gett...@washburn.edu
>
oogabooga
wrote:
>Amem Mirco$oft is SATAN!
Then what's Sony?
Ðr. Worm
oogabooga <ooga...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:3af28f07...@news1.hitter.net...
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 02:08:40 GMT, "Scythe" <scyt...@home.com.no.spam>
> wrote:
>
> >Amem Mirco$oft is SATAN!
>
> Then what's Sony?
Sadam Hussein :o)
getting kevin j
> getting kevin j wrote:
>
> > So the X-box is finally complete. Everything we've been shown has been
> > running on beta hardware or simulations. Yeah, I know a PC can be
> > configured similar to an X-box but we know of MS's track record here.
>
> It's not all bad. Microsoft has made some seriously great peripherals,
> so it's not as if MS has a totally bad rap in hardware at all.
I'll admit some of their Sidewinders are pretty nice joy sticks. Other
than joy sticks, a few game pads, and mice, what hardware does MS make?
Speaking of input devices, have you noticed how the X-Box controller
hybrid of the Game Cube/Dreamcast controller?
> > One of the X-box's died with in an hour. I guess that's what you can a
> > 'finished' product from MS. How many bugs were in Win2K? I guess it
> > doesnt hurt to leave a few hardware bugs in the X-box either. IMHO this
> > should still be considered BETA hardware, though a very late beta.
>
> Beta? That should be considered proto. It's not production at any rate.
> I think it's better that prototypes die, the resulting autopsy will likely
> increase the reliability quite a bit.
I have a feeling MS is rushing themselves alot with the X-Box. They want
the system out in time for X-Mas 2001. That's about 7 months away.
Their's very little time to debug the hardware, seed out final hardware to
developers and have them finish up the games for launch. How can we
expect a quality product from MS, especially with such self imposed time
constrants?
> > MS is really the big bully. They've sunk some major $$$ to make the
> > Matrix game exclusive (which I'll admit is normal for the console world)
> > but you'd think MS would push something more innovative. I guess they'll
> > continue to buy out game companies *cough* Bungie *cough* until they own
> > the entire industry. MS doesnt care about the gamer or games. They're
> > only in it for the money.
>
> Well, videogames are a luxury item. Of *course* MS is in it for the money,
> but so is everybody else. You make it sound like being in it for the money
> is a bad thing. It's motivation, and motivation is good, especially since
> the people with the money motivating everything are the GAMERS.
MS is in for it to keep their PC dominance alive. Their dominance in the
PC is their source of revenue. Sony's plans for the PS2 would have sliced
the PC industry in Japan into and office niche market. No one would have
a PC at home in Japan. This trend probably would continue throughout most
of Asia. If can get a machine at home that can get you on the net, play
games, and do a few reports on (note: nothing has ever been released as
far as a word processor type program, just you can plug in a USB
keyboard). That's 90% of what home PC's do and for significantly less
$$$. The X-Box is MS's response to Sony's success. MS didnt enter the
console market to win the hardcore gamers money, but to maintain their
dominance in the PC market by assuring the PC's survival.
> The arcades are an old bastion of gaming, and the way for a game to get the
> quarters and pay it's keep was simple: it had to make the gamers happy.
> If it didn't make the gamers happy, then it made little or no money and was
> rapidly replaced with a better performing unit. Consoles really aren't any
> different.
Yes they are. With one set of hardware you can get many games that can
make you satisfied. Or not. The gamers satisfaction has nothing to do
with hardware other than the games availible and their quality. With an
arcade, you have the software and hardware tied together. If one side
fails the other, they both lose. If you get a crap game for a console, so
what? You dont have to throw out the hardware, just get another game to
play.
This goes back to MS's idea to enter the console market. Sony has plans
to make the PS2 more than just a gaming machine. If your not satisfied
with its games, you can still use it as a DVD player, or eventually be
able to surf the web with it. MS is proclaiming the X-box as a gamers
machine. If you dont like the game your playing, go get another game.
Sony's giving out a few more options here.
Either way, the best selling hardware of 2001 and 2002 will not be the
PS2, X-box or Game Cube but the Gameboy Advance.
> The X-box is going to live or die on third-party softs anyway, so whether
> Microsoft cares is moot. Microsoft is just playing a big Sugar Daddy to
> third parties with the X-box, and third parties are pretty well in tune
> to what gamers will buy (mainly because if they aren't they'll go under).
In other words, MS is going to buy talent for their system. We all know
how MS gets its innovations, it goes to a bank to get money to buy them
from some one else.
Some developers used to make games for a specific system because it
provided the resources to acheive the developers vision. This does not
mean exclusivity by contract but rather by ability. Look at what Capcom did
with Dino Crisis. The PSX pretty much had that game exclusive for awhile
since it was the only system alive that could handle it (note the N64's
use of carts). When the DC came out, Capcom made a rather good DC
version. MS seems to be locking out companies from this option. If more
than one system can handle a games design then expect MS at your door step
with an exclusive contract. Or you could have MS buy you out right.
> All imho
Ditto
----
Kevin G
gett...@washburn.edu
Kyle...just Kyle
One could argue that Sony's gaming history started in 1983 with the MSX.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet fall down go boom
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Deplae
<gett...@washburn.edu> wrote:
>I'll admit some of their Sidewinders are pretty nice joy sticks. Other
>than joy sticks, a few game pads, and mice, what hardware does MS make?
>
>Speaking of input devices, have you noticed how the X-Box controller
>hybrid of the Game Cube/Dreamcast controller?
About 2 years ago they were pushing some USB speaker system. It
didn't work very well. 6 months later they won't even acknowledge
that they even existed.
That's my one big concern with the X-Box. If it doesn't work out
right away, are they going to drop it and then deny that it even
existed?
__
Brian Deplae
"Volitar Prime" for online games
(or some shorter form of it)
Clan [WYD] for Q3 (both DC and PC)
Ryan John Cousineau
>Sadam Hussein :o)
Sony and Microsoft are in bed with each other?
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcou...@sfu.ca, www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
"Perl 7 will be the last major revision. In fact, Perl 7 will be so
perfect, it will need no revision at all. Perl 6 is merely the prototype
for Perl 7. :-)" -Larry Wall on Perl 6.
Ryan John Cousineau
>On Fri, 4 May 2001 08:54:32 -0500, getting kevin j
><gett...@washburn.edu> wrote:
>>I'll admit some of their Sidewinders are pretty nice joy sticks. Other
>>than joy sticks, a few game pads, and mice, what hardware does MS make?
>>
>>Speaking of input devices, have you noticed how the X-Box controller
>>hybrid of the Game Cube/Dreamcast controller?
>About 2 years ago they were pushing some USB speaker system. It
>didn't work very well. 6 months later they won't even acknowledge
>that they even existed.
>That's my one big concern with the X-Box. If it doesn't work out
>right away, are they going to drop it and then deny that it even
>existed?
They have dropped big projects before (Microsoft Bob, the original
Microsoft Network), but XBox is by now a big deal even for Microsoft. They
could abandon ship without hurting the company too much, but a $500M
promotional budget does ensure they'd feel it somewhat.
Since the XBox's main purpose is to mess up the console market (I know MS
is now making a serious tactical run at the market, but their original
strategic reason for entry was to prevent the PS2 from becoming an
unchallenged set-top box/game machine/home computer on the TV. That last
(especially when combined with Sony's broadband plans) was what drove MS to
market.
Of course, right now all these concerns look pretty silly, since Sony is
still working on establishing it as a game machine, and the broadband plans
are completely invisible (first no flying cars in 2000, now no PS2
broadband in 2001! That's it, I'm going to live with the Jetsons. They have
a way cooler future).
reastlack
news:3af3c6d3.7907605@news...
> On Fri, 4 May 2001 08:54:32 -0500, getting kevin j
> <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote:
>
> >I'll admit some of their Sidewinders are pretty nice joy sticks. Other
> >than joy sticks, a few game pads, and mice, what hardware does MS make?
> >
> >Speaking of input devices, have you noticed how the X-Box controller
> >hybrid of the Game Cube/Dreamcast controller?
>
> About 2 years ago they were pushing some USB speaker system. It
> didn't work very well. 6 months later they won't even acknowledge
> that they even existed.
>
> That's my one big concern with the X-Box. If it doesn't work out
> right away, are they going to drop it and then deny that it even
> existed?
I doubt that's even an option - you're talking about huge early losses, half
a billion in advertising, and what, another half a billion or more in
subsidized sales? You don't just "drop" your product after that. If they
lose a lot of money they might not stay in the console arena in the next
generation, but you can bet that they'll stick with the XBox as long as it
is generating income.
Brian Deplae
wrote:
>I doubt that's even an option - you're talking about huge early losses, half
>a billion in advertising, and what, another half a billion or more in
>subsidized sales? You don't just "drop" your product after that. If they
>lose a lot of money they might not stay in the console arena in the next
>generation, but you can bet that they'll stick with the XBox as long as it
>is generating income.
What if it doesn't generate income? How long is MS willing to wait
for it to make back all this money they are investing in it before it
turns a profit?
Raymond McKeithen II
"reastlack" <reas...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9cun4a$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Probably. However, Microsoft Bob had a rather large marketing push too, and
it was quickly dropped when it didn't go anywhere.
If anything, products like "Bob" prove that MS doesn't always know what it's
doing when it tries to enter a new market.
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email
getting kevin j
Sounds like some one need to watch the South Park movie again.
----
Kevin G
gett...@washburn.edu
Raymond McKeithen II
> <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote:
>
> >I'll admit some of their Sidewinders are pretty nice joy sticks. Other
> >than joy sticks, a few game pads, and mice, what hardware does MS make?
> >
> >Speaking of input devices, have you noticed how the X-Box controller
> >hybrid of the Game Cube/Dreamcast controller?
>
> About 2 years ago they were pushing some USB speaker system. It
> didn't work very well. 6 months later they won't even acknowledge
> that they even existed.
I owned these; they were crap. When they came out they were ~$200 or more
(don't exactly remember), then they were about $100 with a $50 rebate. They
got some decent magazine reviews so I figured they were worth the $50 risk.
Of course they really cost me $100 since I never got a rebate (yes I sent it
in on the last day, but it was on time and should have been honored).
There was at least one "technology" problem and one "cheap $hi+" problem.
They had a circuit to shut them off when not used and they went off too
quickly and wouldn't come on with quiet sounds. They also crackled and cut
in and out because the wiring and/or jacks were poorly made and you had to
jiggle the junk around.
If nothing else, this shows that quality of one piece of hardware (MS mice
for instance, most of which are made in Mexico) has no bearing on something
else of theirs made somewhere else. Since Xbox is being made in Hungary by
someone that to my knowledge MS has never worked with before who knows how
well or badly they'll be made?
The optical mice work OK but that "nice" silver paint starts peeling off in
a few months, which looks so beautiful...
> That's my one big concern with the X-Box. If it doesn't work out
> right away, are they going to drop it and then deny that it even
> existed?
Wouldn't be the first or second time...remember Microsoft Bob? their USB
telephone?
mganai
getting kevin j wrote:
>
> This goes back to MS's idea to enter the console market. Sony has plans
> to make the PS2 more than just a gaming machine. If your not satisfied
> with its games, you can still use it as a DVD player, or eventually be
> able to surf the web with it. MS is proclaiming the X-box as a gamers
> machine. If you dont like the game your playing, go get another game.
> Sony's giving out a few more options here.
>
But Sony needs the game sales, because like any other console company,
they're losing money for every PS2 sold.
getting kevin j
> On Fri, 4 May 2001 08:54:32 -0500, getting kevin j
> <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote:
>
> >I'll admit some of their Sidewinders are pretty nice joy sticks. Other
> >than joy sticks, a few game pads, and mice, what hardware does MS make?
>
> About 2 years ago they were pushing some USB speaker system. It
> didn't work very well. 6 months later they won't even acknowledge
> that they even existed.
Really? Who actually designed the speaker system? The only other USB
speakers that I've seen off hand are Apple's. Those were designed by
Harmon Kardom (sp?) and sound pretty decent.
> That's my one big concern with the X-Box. If it doesn't work out
> right away, are they going to drop it and then deny that it even
> existed?
Does MS still support Win 3.1 or Win 95 for that matter? How only do you
think support for Win 98 will last? You gotta figure MS has ME and Win2K
out now with XP and Win 2k2 around the corner.
Here's another twist, can you buy MS software for you PC that can run on
one of the older versions of Windows like 3.1 or 95?
----
Kevin G
gett...@washburn.edu
getting kevin j
> nos...@home.com (Brian Deplae) writes:
>
> >On Fri, 4 May 2001 08:54:32 -0500, getting kevin j
> ><gett...@washburn.edu> wrote:
>
> > >I'll admit some of their Sidewinders are pretty nice joy sticks. Other
> > >than joy sticks, a few game pads, and mice, what hardware does MS make?
> >
> >About 2 years ago they were pushing some USB speaker system. It
> >didn't work very well. 6 months later they won't even acknowledge
> >that they even existed.
> >
> >That's my one big concern with the X-Box. If it doesn't work out
> >right away, are they going to drop it and then deny that it even
> >existed?
>
> They have dropped big projects before (Microsoft Bob, the original
> Microsoft Network), but XBox is by now a big deal even for Microsoft. They
> could abandon ship without hurting the company too much, but a $500M
> promotional budget does ensure they'd feel it somewhat.
They'd feel it alright. The question however would the X-Box be enough to
detour Sony's multimedia plans for the PS2? Sony's internet plans would
basically kill of the home PC in Japan (probably all of Asia). After the
X-box came and gone, would those plans still be intact or damaged by the
X-boxes presence in the market?
> Since the XBox's main purpose is to mess up the console market (I know MS
> is now making a serious tactical run at the market, but their original
> strategic reason for entry was to prevent the PS2 from becoming an
> unchallenged set-top box/game machine/home computer on the TV. That last
> (especially when combined with Sony's broadband plans) was what drove MS to
> market.
>
> Of course, right now all these concerns look pretty silly, since Sony is
> still working on establishing it as a game machine, and the broadband plans
> are completely invisible (first no flying cars in 2000, now no PS2
> broadband in 2001! That's it, I'm going to live with the Jetsons. They have
> a way cooler future).
Sony is not trying to make the PS2 a game machine, they are trying to stop
the drop in hype around the system. I swear on PS2 launch day you could
find people how thought this machine would make them toast, automate their
home ect, just like in the Jetsons. Now you have the PS2, over hyped
system that can play DVD and a few decent games. Sony wants to get that
hype level back up, especially now that they can produce more systems.
The games that will get people to desire the system en mass are on their
way still (GT3, MGS2, FF10).
If the X-Box came from another company whose roots came from gaming, say
Capcom or even Atari, I'd probably be more open minded about it. MS only
cares about its bottom line. That is why we have the X-Box.
----
Kevin G
gett...@washburn.edu
Joe Ottoson
> > right away, are they going to drop it and then deny that it even
> > existed?
>
> I doubt that's even an option - you're talking about huge early losses,
half
> a billion in advertising, and what, another half a billion or more in
> subsidized sales? You don't just "drop" your product after that. If they
> lose a lot of money they might not stay in the console arena in the next
> generation, but you can bet that they'll stick with the XBox as long as it
> is generating income.
That'll take MS at least two years to accomplish.
Oracle
>
> On Thu, 3 May 2001, Oracle wrote:
>
> > getting kevin j wrote:
> >
> > > So the X-box is finally complete. Everything we've been shown has been
> > > running on beta hardware or simulations. Yeah, I know a PC can be
> > > configured similar to an X-box but we know of MS's track record here.
> >
> > It's not all bad. Microsoft has made some seriously great peripherals,
> > so it's not as if MS has a totally bad rap in hardware at all.
>
> I'll admit some of their Sidewinders are pretty nice joy sticks. Other
> than joy sticks, a few game pads, and mice, what hardware does MS make?
>
> Speaking of input devices, have you noticed how the X-Box controller
> hybrid of the Game Cube/Dreamcast controller?
The buttons seem more vertically oriented than either one for the right thumb.
I really don't think that controller design is going to evolve much more,
simply because it's a design based upon human physiology. It's like shoes,
a shoe is gonna look like a shoe mostly because it's made to go on your foot.
You're not likely to be seeing a whole lot of evolution in game controllers so
far as design goes. Data gloves, motion sensors and other gimmicks usually
meet their ill fates early.
Give MS some credit. They're the ones that came up with the "scroll wheel",
and Sega even used it on the Dreamcast mouse. That was a great idea, even
though Microsoft didn't invent the mouse themselves. Microsoft is a lot
better at taking good inventions and improving on them than they are with
being inventors themselves. That's not a bad thing. Videogames weren't
invented in Japan either, but Japan sure could take a good thing and run
with it. I don't think that the X-box is going to be so much an innovation
as it is taking a good thing and running with it.
> > > One of the X-box's died with in an hour. I guess that's what you can a
> > > 'finished' product from MS. How many bugs were in Win2K? I guess it
> > > doesnt hurt to leave a few hardware bugs in the X-box either. IMHO this
> > > should still be considered BETA hardware, though a very late beta.
> >
> > Beta? That should be considered proto. It's not production at any rate.
> > I think it's better that prototypes die, the resulting autopsy will likely
> > increase the reliability quite a bit.
>
> I have a feeling MS is rushing themselves alot with the X-Box. They want
> the system out in time for X-Mas 2001. That's about 7 months away.
> Their's very little time to debug the hardware, seed out final hardware to
> developers and have them finish up the games for launch. How can we
> expect a quality product from MS, especially with such self imposed time
> constrants?
X-box was announced at E3 a year ago. This isn't a rush crunch, they've
been taking their time. Besides, MS isn't really making it. It's their
design, but like my Microsoft Data-Link wristwatch made by Timex, they're
farming the nuts and bolts out to experts. They're just running with an
idea, and Microsoft is very good at that. So good, it's scary.
> > > MS is really the big bully. They've sunk some major $$$ to make the
> > > Matrix game exclusive (which I'll admit is normal for the console world)
> > > but you'd think MS would push something more innovative. I guess they'll
> > > continue to buy out game companies *cough* Bungie *cough* until they own
> > > the entire industry. MS doesnt care about the gamer or games. They're
> > > only in it for the money.
> >
> > Well, videogames are a luxury item. Of *course* MS is in it for the money,
> > but so is everybody else. You make it sound like being in it for the money
> > is a bad thing. It's motivation, and motivation is good, especially since
> > the people with the money motivating everything are the GAMERS.
>
> MS is in for it to keep their PC dominance alive. Their dominance in the
> PC is their source of revenue. Sony's plans for the PS2 would have sliced
> the PC industry in Japan into and office niche market. No one would have
> a PC at home in Japan. This trend probably would continue throughout most
> of Asia. If can get a machine at home that can get you on the net, play
> games, and do a few reports on (note: nothing has ever been released as
> far as a word processor type program, just you can plug in a USB
> keyboard). That's 90% of what home PC's do and for significantly less
> $$$. The X-Box is MS's response to Sony's success. MS didnt enter the
> console market to win the hardcore gamers money, but to maintain their
> dominance in the PC market by assuring the PC's survival.
Excuse me? The PC needs to be assured of survival? How in the heck is
Microsoft going to accomplish that by making an alternative console?
They're making a limited-purpose videogame machine, not a PC. I don't
see how making a competitor to PC's helps maintain PC dominance.
The X-box is not a PC. It's got a lot in common with one, but so does
a Dreamcast outfitted with a keyboard and mouse.
> > The arcades are an old bastion of gaming, and the way for a game to get the
> > quarters and pay it's keep was simple: it had to make the gamers happy.
> > If it didn't make the gamers happy, then it made little or no money and was
> > rapidly replaced with a better performing unit. Consoles really aren't any
> > different.
>
> Yes they are. With one set of hardware you can get many games that can
> make you satisfied. Or not. The gamers satisfaction has nothing to do
> with hardware other than the games availible and their quality. With an
> arcade, you have the software and hardware tied together. If one side
> fails the other, they both lose. If you get a crap game for a console, so
> what? You dont have to throw out the hardware, just get another game to
> play.
I can get many games that can make me satisfied with one set of hardware?
You mean my Game.com isn't really crap? Wow, the owners of such 'wonderful'
systems like the CD-i and Pioneer LaserActive must be really pleased ;)
Hardware begets games. It's not just a consumer's market, the hardware has
to support development efforts as well. That's what cost the Sega Saturn
early on, it was seriously hurt by it's very complicated multiprocessor
design. Atari Jaguar had a similar problem. The hardware has to be friendly
in both directions, development and consumption.
> This goes back to MS's idea to enter the console market. Sony has plans
> to make the PS2 more than just a gaming machine. If your not satisfied
> with its games, you can still use it as a DVD player, or eventually be
> able to surf the web with it. MS is proclaiming the X-box as a gamers
> machine. If you dont like the game your playing, go get another game.
> Sony's giving out a few more options here.
Hardware is going to live and die by third-party. Nintendo nearly choked
on the N64 and probably owes Acclaim that system's very life. Dreamcast
croaked because Sega put out so many A-list games that third parties didn't
have a real chance at the machine. Sony is in trouble because their PS2 is
a bitch for third parties to code for.
Microsoft is throwing out a welcome mat for third parties.
> Either way, the best selling hardware of 2001 and 2002 will not be the
> PS2, X-box or Game Cube but the Gameboy Advance.
I've already got one of those. It's a great little machine, but it's got
it's own problems concerning the pre-existing library (Mario Golf GBC looks
gorgeous on it!) and the costs of the up to 512 Mbit cartridges. The
Gameboy crowd has gotten used to $20 games, and I really think that's going
to bite GBA in the butt when the GBA carts cost twice as much and look like
they're physically half the size.
> > The X-box is going to live or die on third-party softs anyway, so whether
> > Microsoft cares is moot. Microsoft is just playing a big Sugar Daddy to
> > third parties with the X-box, and third parties are pretty well in tune
> > to what gamers will buy (mainly because if they aren't they'll go under).
>
> In other words, MS is going to buy talent for their system. We all know
> how MS gets its innovations, it goes to a bank to get money to buy them
> from some one else.
Microsoft *is* a bank, they aren't borrowing cash. There's nothing wrong
with buying talent. Almost every decent movie made is an example of talent
being bought and paid for, and that's just fine. Buying talent isn't wrong;
it's a very common business practice.
> Some developers used to make games for a specific system because it
> provided the resources to acheive the developers vision. This does not
> mean exclusivity by contract but rather by ability. Look at what Capcom did
> with Dino Crisis. The PSX pretty much had that game exclusive for awhile
> since it was the only system alive that could handle it (note the N64's
> use of carts). When the DC came out, Capcom made a rather good DC
> version. MS seems to be locking out companies from this option. If more
> than one system can handle a games design then expect MS at your door step
> with an exclusive contract. Or you could have MS buy you out right.
Some developers used a practice called "banging the metal" or going outside
of the dev kits and straight to machine code in order to make their *own*
resources for their vision. It's amazing what a machine can do given the
developers' abilities. The Atari 2600 was a good example. Activision
got a lot more work out of that machine than Atari ever did, simply by
banging the metal.
Capcom isn't a great example of metal bangers. Konami, Rare and Sega are.
Metal banging companies are the ones who pull more out of a system than
anyone thought it ever had. Capcom, good as they are, ain't one of those.
The most amazing thing Capcom did (imho) was Street Fighter Alpha 3 on PSX.
They almost actually got all of the animations spot-on. It's not a game
that seems to push the PSX beyond anything ever seen, though.
James Adams
"rrevved" <edb...@nope.com> wrote in message
news:djb5ftk4dbb0i3j39...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:22:38 GMT, vequ...@mail.earthlink.net (V. Equinox)
wrote:
>
> >From: vequ...@mail.earthlink.net (V. Equinox)
> >Subject: Re: X-Box is finally complete
> >X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01
> >Message-ID: <i8qI6.858$2k5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
> >Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:22:38 GMT
> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.26.73.142
> >
> >I think Satan would be very upset with you for comparing him to
Microsoft.
> >
>
> your News Xpress newsreader, loser?
Because it's the best available - not good, but better than the
alternatives.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>> That's my one big concern with the X-Box. If it doesn't work out
>> right away, are they going to drop it and then deny that it even
>> existed?
>
>Does MS still support Win 3.1 or Win 95 for that matter? How only do you
>think support for Win 98 will last? You gotta figure MS has ME and Win2K
>out now with XP and Win 2k2 around the corner.
They've put a lot of effort into making sure old DOS apps run, and
kept the Win32 API fairly consistent such that the first apps written for
95 and NT still run. Of course, that sort of backwards compatibility is a
key part of their dominance.
--
Wow, a baseball made out of Secretariat!
-- Bart gazes upon the Spend Zone, "You Only Move Twice"
Raymond McKeithen II
"getting kevin j" <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.33.010504...@accsp2.wuacc.edu...
> On Fri, 4 May 2001, Brian Deplae wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 May 2001 08:54:32 -0500, getting kevin j
> > <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >I'll admit some of their Sidewinders are pretty nice joy sticks. Other
> > >than joy sticks, a few game pads, and mice, what hardware does MS make?
> >
> > About 2 years ago they were pushing some USB speaker system. It
> > didn't work very well. 6 months later they won't even acknowledge
> > that they even existed.
>
> Really? Who actually designed the speaker system? The only other USB
> speakers that I've seen off hand are Apple's. Those were designed by
> Harmon Kardom (sp?) and sound pretty decent.
It used "Philips WOOX Technology" for the "subwoofer" but beyond that I
don't think they made it clear who made or designed it. Perhaps it was all
Philips; it was released around the same time as some Philips USB speakers.
The MS speakers sounded OK for what they were and what they cost (like all
PC speakers no comparison to a high-quality stereo system); it was their
build quality and the problem with the "power save" circuit that was the
real problem.
> > That's my one big concern with the X-Box. If it doesn't work out
> > right away, are they going to drop it and then deny that it even
> > existed?
>
> Does MS still support Win 3.1 or Win 95 for that matter? How only do you
> think support for Win 98 will last? You gotta figure MS has ME and Win2K
> out now with XP and Win 2k2 around the corner.
I read recently somewhere (can't recall, somewhere like CNet or PCMag) that
MS was soon to discontinue support for Win 95 (first version, anyway).
They're actually pretty good about supporting stuff like that that's
successful.
> Here's another twist, can you buy MS software for you PC that can run on
> one of the older versions of Windows like 3.1 or 95?
I don't think MS, or anyone else, still sells much if any software that runs
on "pre 32-bit" Windows. Most 32-bit software isn't compatible with the old
Win32s either, so basically there's no 3.1-compatible software now. Recent
versions of a lot of stuff no longer work on 95, but that's a pretty recent
development.
Eric Pobirs
is why everything is 1.1 now. Power management is one of the primary parts
of the improved spec. Several other companies marketed USB speaker sets
including Yamaha and Labtec. I have the Labtec set and they work perfectly
with the built-in support under Win2K and XP Beta.
The desirability of USB speakers was driven by where analysts thought
the market was going at the time. Two major items of emphasis were low cost
and legacy-free sealed box systems. At the same time CPU power was growing
much faster than any mainstream application other than games could take
great advantage, so running a software codec saved the cost of dedicated
hardware and turned the addition of audio into a no brainer just plug it in
option. The market for such systems, other than in limited corporate
adoptions, never took off.
People keep raising the old MS Bob, as if this was some monumental
debacle. It was just one of a zillion products in that category. Anybody
remember Commodore's Magic Desk? Ick. They made an effort to do something
for absolutely non-technical types and it was inevitably reviewed by the
very opposite kind of person. This is like asking a Unix command line zealot
to review GUI environments. Another problem was that Bob tried to do too
much with the systems of the day. Hardly anyone seems to have noticed that
most of the elements in Bob have become commonplace on systems today.
The USB phone? So what, they tried and the market wasn't there. They
weren't alone in this. Keep in mind this was one of the earliest intended
applications when USB was still being developed. The very first USB demo of
any kind I ever saw was in 1997 in the Mitel booth at CT Expo. The device in
the demo was, you guessed it, a USB phone. The idea was that an inexpensive
PC would take most of the work of a PBX in the SOHO market. That approach
hasn't taken off in that end of the market so far, thus no market for USB
phones. Even folks using stuff like Net2Phone are more likely to go with an
arrangement that connects their existing phones over conventional pairs.
If you do any research into ECM (Electronics Contract Manufacturing)
you'll find that Flextronics is a very well established and well regarded
company in this field. Trade publications like Electronics Buyers News
(http://www.ebnonline.com) treated the announcement of their getting the
Xbox job as unsurprising. I have every confidence that as long as the
foundries deliver the chips Flextronics will deliver a very steady flow of
machines.
Some people think that the time remaining prior to delivery is terribly
but nothing could farther from the truth. Compared to many successful
products in the past the Xbox schedule isn't even cutting it close. In this
case developers have the advantage of being able to use off the shelf
hardware to do most of their work. Many first generation games will simply
be GeForce2 based rather than taking full advantage of the additional power
of the XGPU. However, they'll have the freedom to push the GeForce2 spec
much harder than they could on the highly variable PC platform, so first
generation Xbox games will still have great visuals. Just not what the
machine is fully capable of doing, as later software generations will
demonstrate. The same has been true of every console ever produced.
"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:UNBI6.6641$Uu6.6...@monger.newsread.com...
Eric Pobirs
"Kyle...just Kyle" <ky...@digital-ages.com> wrote in message
news:HrzI6.350$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Err, then what's Sony? At least MS has a gaming history. Sony's just
> > an electronics company who jumped into the gaming market after a
> > botched deal with Nintendo.
>
> One could argue that Sony's gaming history started in 1983 with the MSX.
A system Microsoft was involved in designing with partner ASCII. It was
an attempt to have the equivalent of the PC standard for the home market.
The unifying software element was MS Basic rather than DOS. (The same off
the shelf chipset as a ColecoVision.) Sony only slapped their label on a
generic machine. I can't any distinguishing features of their MSX entry,
especially compared to others like the Yamaha that had spectacular audio for
the era.
reastlack
> On 04 May 2001 16:58:50 GMT, "reastlack" <reas...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I doubt that's even an option - you're talking about huge early losses,
half
> >a billion in advertising, and what, another half a billion or more in
> >subsidized sales? You don't just "drop" your product after that. If
they
> >lose a lot of money they might not stay in the console arena in the next
> >generation, but you can bet that they'll stick with the XBox as long as
it
> >is generating income.
>
> What if it doesn't generate income? How long is MS willing to wait
> for it to make back all this money they are investing in it before it
> turns a profit?
Well, they already plan on losing a ton of money in the first couple of
years (Gates has already started warning the shareholders about this) so
they will continue to support it strongly throughout that period. After
that, it's likely that they will be able to turn an operating profit even if
they system is hopelessly in the red and will never turn a profit overall,
so they would continue to support it. Having seen what happened with Sega
and how much they suffered from dropping support of a machine, I think it's
likely that MS will stick it out as long as necessary, whether the machine
is profitable or not. They won't want to cut off their future options,
which a Sega type withdrawal would certainly do.
reastlack
MS dropping Bob was basically the equivalent of McDonalds dropping the Arch
Deluxe. A stupid idea that was meant to expand a core product to appeal to
a slightly different market. MS getting into the console business is not
the same thing. If you want an equivalent, it would be like MS pushing into
the server market (NT) or into the SQL database market (MS-SQL) and quitting
after the first try when it didn't work. Which, of course, is exactly the
opposite of what really happened. The difference is that there really IS a
market for the XBox (and the other products I mentioned) whereas the markets
for Bob and the Arch Deluxe don't exist.
reastlack
news:9cv16m$frd8p$1...@ID-80475.news.dfncis.de...
Which is exactly what they are telling their shareholders. Expect two years
of losses before the money starts flowing in the opposite direction.
Eric Pobirs
"getting kevin j" <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.33.010503...@accsp2.wuacc.edu...
> So the X-box is finally complete. Everything we've been shown has been
> running on beta hardware or simulations. Yeah, I know a PC can be
> configured similar to an X-box but we know of MS's track record here.
>
> One of the X-box's died with in an hour. I guess that's what you can a
> 'finished' product from MS. How many bugs were in Win2K? I guess it
> doesnt hurt to leave a few hardware bugs in the X-box either. IMHO this
> should still be considered BETA hardware, though a very late beta.
Your ignorance is working overtime, son. Nothing that happened is at all
out of the ordinary for product development for any company. Of course it's
Beta, by definition it would have to be. Do you think they can go into full
production without first making successively larger batches to bash on and
find the weak spots? It will be months still before the production line goes
full tilt to make retail product. At the current rate they're doing much
better than Sony and Sega were at the same stage in the PS2 and Dreamcast
development. Sony was plagued with horribly expenisive low yields from their
chip foundry well after production had begun. The Dreamcast shipped to the
Japanese market with serious heat issues.
These are the plain facts of life when you're developing a product
intended to lead the market. High specs require high effort.
>
> MS is really the big bully. They've sunk some major $$$ to make the
> Matrix game exclusive (which I'll admit is normal for the console world)
> but you'd think MS would push something more innovative. I guess they'll
> continue to buy out game companies *cough* Bungie *cough* until they own
> the entire industry. MS doesnt care about the gamer or games. They're
> only in it for the money.
Who isn't in it for the money? Not any successful company. Money is the
sole reason to do business. Making a good game translates into high sales
and, tada, money! It's the purest most unambiguous motivator in all human
history. Do you think any of big name designers would devote their lives to
making the best products if there wasn't a reward?
What bizarre universe do you live in that you think that the boards of
directors at Sony, Nintendo, and Sega have deep gushy feeling for gamers?
The head guy of Nintendo, arguably the most touchy feely of the big
platforms, doesn't play electronic games, at all. He tried a version of Go
on the NES once and didn't like it. It comes down to money. If you make a
product that people enjoy and find desirable those consumers express this by
giving you money for the product. Or stealing it but that's another issue.
How is Microsoft a bully other than in your cliche addled head?
Interplay was on the verge of bankruptcy in spite of having several
prominent titles current and future. Microsoft threw them a life preserver
in exchange for what Interplay had to offer. There was no humanitarian
concern on either side, just a deal with ample mutual benefits. This is
called business.
Your comment on innovation has no basis. You're talking about a product
of which hardly a single detail has been revealed to the public. Do you
really think Microsoft made this deal without any more info than that the
game would be derived from the movie? They apparently liked what they saw
and having an exclusive on this title when the sequel is still in the
theaters is a good bit of marketing. If the game is good it works out well
for everyone: MS, Interplay, and gamers. If not, very few people will be
genuinely harmed.
It amazes me how inane people get when the Microsoft name appears in an
article. Did you throw a hissy fit when Sony made its Tomb Raider deal with
Eidos or when Sony bought Psygnosis? If you examine the history of developer
acquisitions in this industry Microsoft is nowhere near the lead. Companies
like Electronic Arts, UbiSoft, and Infogrames have each swallowed many more
developers and publishers.
Raymond McKeithen II
>
> MS dropping Bob was basically the equivalent of McDonalds dropping the
Arch
> Deluxe. A stupid idea that was meant to expand a core product to appeal
to
> a slightly different market. MS getting into the console business is not
> the same thing. If you want an equivalent, it would be like MS pushing
into
> the server market (NT) or into the SQL database market (MS-SQL) and
quitting
> after the first try when it didn't work. Which, of course, is exactly the
> opposite of what really happened. The difference is that there really IS
a
> market for the XBox (and the other products I mentioned) whereas the
markets
> for Bob and the Arch Deluxe don't exist.
And you know that there "IS a market for Xbox" exactly how? Just because
you're all hot to buy one doesn't count...
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email.
reastlack
news:Pine.A41.4.33.010504...@accsp2.wuacc.edu...
Sony is no different, and I have a hard time seeing how somebody could
believe otherwise. Even Nintendo & Sega are heavily focused on
profitability, even if their corporate cultures make them more gaming
oriented. And why are they more gaming oriented? Could it be because they
derive almost 100% of their income from game related products?
Andrew Ryan Chang
>And you know that there "IS a market for Xbox" exactly how? Just because
>you're all hot to buy one doesn't count...
Because there's a market for PS2s and Gamecubes. The console
market might be more differentiated than the car market, but it's not _so_
differentiated that XBox-only buyers are a distinct class from PS2-only
buyers or whatever.
--
"The Canadian and American governments asserted that the best way to bring up
the issue of human rights with China was to make a lot of money from the evil
empire first, then mention the slavery and killing and repression later."
-Dave Watson
Raymond McKeithen II
"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:9cvas3$bi7$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >And you know that there "IS a market for Xbox" exactly how? Just because
> >you're all hot to buy one doesn't count...
>
> Because there's a market for PS2s and Gamecubes. The console
> market might be more differentiated than the car market, but it's not _so_
> differentiated that XBox-only buyers are a distinct class from PS2-only
> buyers or whatever.
How do we know that there is a market for *three* consoles? There never has
been before, why would there be now? Anyone think Xbox is going to unseat
PS2's or Gamecube's position?
The previous poster stated emphatically that this market exists, and I say
there's no proof, historical or otherwise. Certainly MS believes there's a
market or they wouldn't be trying. They believed there was a market for Bob
too or they wouldn't have tried that. Nintendo believed there was a market
for the Virtual Boy too.
Ryan John Cousineau
>On 04 May 2001 16:58:50 GMT, "reastlack" <reas...@prodigy.net>
>wrote:
>>I doubt that's even an option - you're talking about huge early losses, half
>>a billion in advertising, and what, another half a billion or more in
>>subsidized sales? You don't just "drop" your product after that. If they
>>lose a lot of money they might not stay in the console arena in the next
>>generation, but you can bet that they'll stick with the XBox as long as it
>>is generating income.
>What if it doesn't generate income? How long is MS willing to wait
>for it to make back all this money they are investing in it before it
>turns a profit?
1) MS's pockets are absurdly deep. They could safely eat $1B losses on the
XBox for several years if they really wanted to. Probably wouldn't even
move their stock price much.
2) They're more or less guaranteed to lose a lot of money on the XBox for
one or two fiscal quarters. But if they really hemorrhage money, and XBox
turns out to be the next Bally Astrocade (look it up, kids), then they
probably would bail out pretty quickly.
3) Microsoft is an unpredictable company. They may just decide that the
action is really in TiVo-type set-top-boxes with web content, and drop the
XBox. But they're not insane, so don't bet this way.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>> market might be more differentiated than the car market, but it's not _so_
>> differentiated that XBox-only buyers are a distinct class from PS2-only
>> buyers or whatever.
>
>How do we know that there is a market for *three* consoles? There never has
>been before, why would there be now?
Cause the market's been growing?
--
We are so close to the world of work that we can't see what it does to us.
We have to rely on outside observers from other times or other cultures to
appreciate the extremity and the pathology of our present position.
-- "THE ABOLITION OF WORK" by Bob Black
V. Equinox
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:22:38 GMT, vequ...@mail.earthlink.net (V. Equinox)
> wrote:
>
>>From: vequ...@mail.earthlink.net (V. Equinox)
>>Subject: Re: X-Box is finally complete
>>X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01
>>Message-ID: <i8qI6.858$2k5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>>Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:22:38 GMT
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.26.73.142
>>
>>I think Satan would be very upset with you for comparing him to Microsoft.
>>
>
>Then why are you using a Satanic operating system to run
>your News Xpress newsreader, loser?
>
Actually, I'm looking forward to the Xbox and I hope it does well.
-----------------------------
"People love to criticize. It's their favorite thing,
not counting sex or eating."
- Scott Adams
V. Equinox
>
><snip article>
>
>> So the X-box is finally complete. Everything we've been shown has been
>> running on beta hardware or simulations. Yeah, I know a PC can be
>> configured similar to an X-box but we know of MS's track record here.
>
>so it's not as if MS has a totally bad rap in hardware at all.
>
Sony had when they were developing the PlayStation. They're hardware
experience consisted of what, TVs, Walkmans.
Besides, you can hire people with experience. Producing the hardware is
hardly the biggest hurdle in launching a successful console.
V. Equinox
doing.
Kyle...just Kyle
"Eric Pobirs" <epo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:DqFI6.121$xZ1.1...@news.pacbell.net...
Yes, while Microsoft was instrumental in the MSX software, they themselves
never actually released a MSX hardware variant. Of course, you could make a
case either way, depending on what you consider "getting into the market".
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet fall down go boom
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle...just Kyle
"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:7EGI6.6699$Uu6.6...@monger.newsread.com...
The console market exists, and Xbox is trying to tap into that. There can be
room for three consoles, with varying degrees of success. It's happened
before.
Joe Ottoson
> MS dropping Bob was basically the equivalent of McDonalds dropping the
Arch
> Deluxe. A stupid idea that was meant to expand a core product to appeal
to
> a slightly different market. MS getting into the console business is not
> the same thing.
Why? Cause you say so?
If you want an equivalent, it would be like MS pushing into
> the server market (NT) or into the SQL database market (MS-SQL) and
quitting
> after the first try when it didn't work. Which, of course, is exactly the
> opposite of what really happened. The difference is that there really IS
a
> market for the XBox (and the other products I mentioned) whereas the
markets
> for Bob and the Arch Deluxe don't exist.
Mrph!
Joe Ottoson
Well, by then, it should be clear that the system's sinking fast.
Ðr. Worm
Ryan John Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:9cuivi$o0d$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> "r. Worm" <dr.worm[doesnotlikespam]@ihug.com.au> writes:
>
>
> >oogabooga <ooga...@usa.net> wrote in message
> >> On Fri, 04 May 2001 02:08:40 GMT, "Scythe" <scyt...@home.com.no.spam>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Amem Mirco$oft is SATAN!
> >>
> >> Then what's Sony?
>
> >Sadam Hussein :o)
>
> Sony and Microsoft are in bed with each other?
Just you wait
Jordan Lund
> it was quickly dropped when it didn't go anywhere.
>
> If anything, products like "Bob" prove that MS doesn't always know what it's
> doing when it tries to enter a new market.
The thing is, MS Bob was pretty much universally slammed as being an
incredibly bad idea. "Hey, I know, let's add ANOTHER layer of interface
between the user and the computer! And then, and then, and then, let's see
if we can't cause it to make the system even slower to use!"
The only reason MS tried Bob is because companies like HP, PB and Tandy were
creating their own interfaces like that. The problem was MS didn't notice
that when someone bought an HP, PB or Tandy computer that interface was the
first thing ripped out.
- Jordan
lu...@earthlink.net
********************************************************************
* "Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky, they *
* are people who say: 'This is my community, and it's my *
* responsibility to make it better.'" *
* - Tom McCall, Oregon Governor 1967 - 1974 *
********************************************************************
Eric Pobirs
>
>
> The console market exists, and Xbox is trying to tap into that. There can
be
> room for three consoles, with varying degrees of success. It's happened
> before.
Yes, the long held 'rule of three' has been arbitrarily accepted without
much thought. The reasons for various machine's failure is almost always
more complex than 'too many for the market.' Oversimplify history and you'll
have little chance of correctly estimating the future.
There was a time when NEC seemed invincible. The PC Engine was taking
the Japanese market by storm, they had CD-ROM technology in development long
before any competitors, and strong support from developers in Japan. So why
didn't the take the rest of the world markets? Was it merely because they
were the third player? No, it was because Nintendo's exclusivity clause in
it's publishing contracts prevented NEC from receiving comparable third
party support in the US and adding insult to injury, a terrible marketing.
Like the Dreamcast it had a strong dedicated base of owners but they hadn't
the numbers needed to make it profitable.
There is always more to the story.
Eric Pobirs
Nintendo defined the business model that has been used by every success
since the NES. Microsoft has made it abundantly clear that they're paying to
what worked and what failed in the past. It's notable that early on they
approached publishers to see if they would be interested in a royalty free
PC-style approach and the answer was a resounding no. The shared pain/shared
gain approach has mutual advantage for the platform owner and third parties.
Microsoft made much effort to see if the people whose support they needed
wanted anything new brought to the market in terms of structure. They didn't
and Microsoft went with the standard Nintendo model. The company leading the
market may change but this is a well established industry.
This will be an interesting struggle. Every one of the three platform
companies have both major advantages and significant disadvantages. They
might all prosper, even the company in third place, if they do the right
things. One or two could crash and burn for a generation if they stumble and
never find their balance again. I can point out plenty of pluses and minuses
but predicting a real winner or loser at this point is very premature.
"V. Equinox" <vequ...@mail.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:euII6.849$Ur6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Eric Pobirs
>
> Yes, while Microsoft was instrumental in the MSX software, they themselves
> never actually released a MSX hardware variant. Of course, you could make
a
> case either way, depending on what you consider "getting into the market".
Of course, they were trying to have another partnership like the one
with Intel. At the time, Microsoft and Intel weren't joined at the hip in
planning the PC roadmap. IBM was still the bulk of the PC market, clones
included. It wasn't until they tried to take back absolute control of the
market with the combination of MicroChannel and OS/2 that control really
passed to Wintel. MicroChannel was horribly bungled and IBM made some
terrible decisions about the early versions of OS/2. They mainly wanted
something that would make the PC more attractive as a client to IBM's bigger
systems, while MS felt the need was for something like the Mac but designed
for the mass market Apple was then turning away by placing margins over
volume.
So anyways, at the time Microsoft was doing very well from partnering
with IBM and sought other partner for different markets. ASCII seemed to
have the right idea for home computers. Neither company put their name on
any machine. They instead sought to go directly to having a clone market
without the equivalent of IBM for MSX. It might been interesting if
Microsoft could have partnered with Commodore and showed them how to make
the Amiga platform huge by letting anybody buy the chips and build their
version of the system.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>wanted anything new brought to the market in terms of structure. They didn't
>and Microsoft went with the standard Nintendo model. The company leading the
>market may change but this is a well established industry.
If MS's license royalties are significantly below Sony's (as
reported in the Interplay/Matrix article on Gamespot), won't they need to
make it up in volume just to reach break even?
--
ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED
AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS
BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN
SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!! -Patrick J. Lopresti
Ryan E
wrote:
>
>The only reason MS tried Bob is because companies like HP, PB and Tandy were
>creating their own interfaces like that. The problem was MS didn't notice
>that when someone bought an HP, PB or Tandy computer that interface was the
>first thing ripped out.
Yeah, true. Another that springs to mind is Tabworks from Compaq.
Ryan E
Ryan E
wrote:
>Anybody
>remember Commodore's Magic Desk? Ick. They made an effort to do something
>for absolutely non-technical types and it was inevitably reviewed by the
>very opposite kind of person.
I was pretty young when this came out. But I do remember my father
using it.
http://www.zock.com/64er/8407/0014.html has a picture of the desktop.
I always thought it was kind of cool.
Richard Hutnik
<3AF2F95E...@scf.usc.edu> :
>
>
>getting kevin j wrote:
>>
>> This goes back to MS's idea to enter the console market. Sony has plans
>> to make the PS2 more than just a gaming machine. If your not satisfied
>> with its games, you can still use it as a DVD player, or eventually be
>> able to surf the web with it. MS is proclaiming the X-box as a gamers
>> machine. If you dont like the game your playing, go get another game.
>> Sony's giving out a few more options here.
>>
>But Sony needs the game sales, because like any other console company,
>they're losing money for every PS2 sold.
And this might explain partly why trying to turn videogame consoles into
something else besides a gaming console fails. The maker of the console only
gets kickbacks from licensed software running on their boxes. And the large
bulk of these are games. The licensing fees are how they make the bucks, not
the consoles, which is part of the reason Sega dropped out, as their
management refused to tolerate a few more year of losses on the console
in order to get it to make a profit.
One has to be very wary of Sony thinking they are going to own every Tom,
Nick and Larry with the PS2 as the ubiquious brains behind home entertainment
centers. It really is too large of a gamble. But, needless to say, just
about every company that gets to be successful, outside of Nintendo, starts
to get these delusional dreams that they are going to become the de-facto
standard for home entertainment. Even Sega had this at the high point of the
Genesis (if anyone remembers the Wired Magazine issue that had Sonic on the
cover, you know what I am talking about).
- Richard Hutnik
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
Richard Hutnik
>you're all hot to buy one doesn't count...
If the X-Box doesn't have a market for it, than the PS2 and Gamecube don't
either. Microsoft is competing for the same market as these products.
Whether they succeed or not will depend largely on the third-party support
they get (aka they have titles people want), how well they market it, and its
price. Oh, I forgot about the other factor, economic conditions. It is
possible that we going to remain in a recession for awhile, which will quite
possibly cause another crash to occur. The crash will be marked by all the
companies continuing to bleed red. The diversity of Sony and Microsoft may
be their downfall here, as they end up being forced by internal management to
abandon the console market, write it off as a bad decision in this time
period due to consumer interest changing, leaving Nintendo alone making a
small profit.
Richard Hutnik
<9cvg30$f4q$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca> :
>>been before, why would there be now?
>
> Cause the market's been growing?
The problem is that the market is NOT growing now, and actually shrunk. The
PC gaming market grew some, but profitability in the console business has
shrunk. Using American markets as an example, movies only became really
profitable at home when there was one standard: VHS. PCs are the same way.
In the console business, two has been the most the market has been able to
successfully sustain. MAYBE there will be room for 3, but betting odds are
against it. By the way, the press is saying the market is declining because
people are "eagerly awaiting the next generation consoles" to come out. Maybe
perhaps the real reason is oversaturation at this moment, with companies being
forced to drop their prices of new release titles, and used game sales eating
up even more sales. Maybe people don't care that much now that you are
getting N more polygons at this moment.
Yes, I am being a harbinger of doom here. The things are in place at this
minute to have another crash take place. There is dumping of crap titles
at low prices out there (the used game bin), the economy is slowing down
as a fullblown recession is being entered. And so on. Fortunately, videogames
are much more entrenched in people's lives now that the crash of the early
80s is not likely. There will likely be a shakeout, as consumer confidence
does wane some, but I don't think people will question the validity of
videogames as an entertainment medium. There will likely be drops outs,
consolidations and companies completely folding up though.
Benjamin Autin
"getting kevin j" <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.33.0105040...@accsp2.wuacc.edu...
> Either way, the best selling hardware of 2001 and 2002 will not be the
> PS2, X-box or Game Cube but the Gameboy Advance.
> ----
> Kevin G
> gett...@washburn.edu
>
Amen brother Kevin. There's a nice slice of reality. The best thing about
the GameBoy Advance is that I'm assured of getting one on launch day
(provided they are not sold out) because the launch date falls right next to
my birthday and I have been very very clear to my wife about what would make
me happy this year. (GBA and Castlevania: Circle of the Moon) Even if my
wife doesn't get me a GBA for my birthday, I'll go out and buy it anyway.
Ha. Looks like I'll be hanging around some 24hr. retailer June 12th waiting
for midnight. That reminds me, Wal-Mart is actually taking pre-orders for
this thing....
reastlack
<37GI6.6697$Uu6.6...@monger.newsread.com>...
>>
>> MS dropping Bob was basically the equivalent of McDonalds dropping the
>Arch
>> Deluxe. A stupid idea that was meant to expand a core product to appeal
>to
>> a slightly different market. MS getting into the console business is not
>into
>> the server market (NT) or into the SQL database market (MS-SQL) and
>quitting
>> after the first try when it didn't work. Which, of course, is exactly
the
>> opposite of what really happened. The difference is that there really IS
>a
>> market for the XBox (and the other products I mentioned) whereas the
>markets
>> for Bob and the Arch Deluxe don't exist.
>
>you're all hot to buy one doesn't count...
Because there have been hundreds of millions of gaming machines sold in the
last 10 years? Duh!!
I Am Not Omar
>market for the XBox (
The XBox's market takes a smidgen of the PS2 market and about half of the PC
market. There's really not much of a market there unfortunately.
I Am Not Omar
>something else besides a gaming console fails.
The PS2 didn't fail, moron.
reastlack
>> >And you know that there "IS a market for Xbox" exactly how? Just because
>> >you're all hot to buy one doesn't count...
>>
>> market might be more differentiated than the car market, but it's not
_so_
>> differentiated that XBox-only buyers are a distinct class from PS2-only
>> buyers or whatever.
>
>PS2's or Gamecube's position?
>
>The previous poster stated emphatically that this market exists, and I say
>there's no proof, historical or otherwise. Certainly MS believes there's a
>market or they wouldn't be trying. They believed there was a market for Bob
>too or they wouldn't have tried that. Nintendo believed there was a market
>for the Virtual Boy too.
I don't think you understand. The console market exists, and it is a huge
one. The XBox might or might not be successful, but the market it is going
after is certainly a big one. It's also been designed not much differently
from consoles that have been successful in this market. OTOH, the market
for Bob was one that either MS imagined existed or that it decided it was
going to create. The Virtual Boy - well, the Virtual Boy just sucked, and
that's why it failed. I still remember laughing my ass off at the demo unit
when I first saw it in Blockbusters.
I Am Not Omar
>better than Sony and Sega were at the same stage in the PS2 and Dreamcast
>development.
Please don't lie so unconvincingly. It only makes you look like a total moron.
reastlack
Is this just an assumption on your part?
Raymond McKeithen II
"reastlack" <reas...@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:pWXI6.186$QO4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Master System, Atari Lynx, etc.? DUH!
Take off the Microsoft-colored glasses...
Raymond McKeithen II
fans that think there's no way on earth it can possibly fail.
Raymond McKeithen II
I understand quite well but it doesn't seem you do.
> The console market exists, and it is a huge one.
Doesn't mean a market for the Xbox exists. Just like there's a market for
(supposedly) easy-to-use "home software" for PCs, but that didn't mean a
market for Bob existed either.
> The XBox might or might not be successful, but the market it is going
> after is certainly a big one.
If it's not successful then there was no market for it, so you apparently
agree with what I said.
> It's also been designed not much differently
> from consoles that have been successful in this market.
As was 3DO, Saturn, ... I see no relevance to that statement anyway.
> OTOH, the market
> for Bob was one that either MS imagined existed or that it decided it was
> going to create.
BS. There's no difference. Just because in hindsight you can claim they
"imagined" this market has nothing to do with the reality at the time.
> The Virtual Boy - well, the Virtual Boy just sucked, and
> that's why it failed.
Puahaha, I don't think so. We might think it sucked, but would you like a
list of things that are huge successes and popular with the masses that
suck?
The general public really hasn't shown any discriminating sense of taste for
gaming consoles or any other product or media....hmmm, maybe that means the
Xbox will be a big success after all.
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email
Eric Pobirs
> Eric Pobirs <epo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >wanted anything new brought to the market in terms of structure. They
didn't
> >and Microsoft went with the standard Nintendo model. The company leading
the
> >market may change but this is a well established industry.
>
> If MS's license royalties are significantly below Sony's (as
> reported in the Interplay/Matrix article on Gamespot), won't they need to
> make it up in volume just to reach break even?
So? It's called a trade-off. If you create a structure that draws more
developers to your platform, the additional range of titles (making no
assumptions of the individual quality) increases the desirability of the
platform and in turn the potential for volume sales. It's the risk you take
for the potential you gain.
Another direction Microsoft could go to seriously pump up volume would
be lower pricing. Game pricing currently is based on low volumes in which
sell through of half a million units at full price is considered a success.
With prices running $40-50 this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. What if a
platform company sought to bring prices in line with the average full price
DVD, around $25?
The model for profitability is plain to see from the film industry. A
typical major production costs many times more than all but a handful of
game produced to date, yet the primary venues are much lower in cost to the
viewer, with accordingly less resistance. You could combine the cost of
watching a movie in the theater, on pay per view or HBO, and buy the DVD but
still invest at least $10 less than in a new game. The reason, of course, is
volume.
Starting about a year ago we began to see PS1 games released at
substantially lower prices. $30, $20, even a substantial number of games
with $10 as their full price. These were 'B' titles on a system in it's
decline but also a system with an immense installed base and continuing to
grow thanks to compatibility with the PS2. Given the appropriate royalty and
manufacturing price chart from Sony these impulse purchase games are making
a good profit for publishers and retailers.
If you were launching a new system with full confidence (or at least
intent) of creating an installed base of a certain size, you can make
profits at lower retail prices while driving up system sales. Offering
better value can thus turn into a self-perpetuating effect but somebody has
to have the cajones to do it first.
Eric Pobirs
name can be had cheap now?) One of the really nasty things it would do is
make the Win3.1 shell appear on Win95 systems unrequested.
Some others included the DeskMate software in ROM on several Tandy
machines. I wanted to fly to Texas and strangle this idiot Tandy tech rep
who insisted that it shouldn't affect memory usage. At the time we were
determining the memory requirements for the PC version of 'Rocket Ranger.'
The Tandy version was expected to need more memory due to the 16-color mode
(copied from the PC Jr.) their hardware supported but were running into
memory usage that was completely out of proportion with the graphics. A
difference of just 64K could substantially decrease your potential market
back then.
It turned out that DeskMate was always consuming 48K for its buffer
regardless of whether it was being use. Even if you switched it off in the
BIOS it only meant that it wouldn't appear at boot up. It was still lurking
around eating up memory. The Tandy rep flat out lied about this until
confronted with our test results.
Packard Bell had a front end, which I think may have been called
Navigator in those pre-Netscape days. Its sole purpose seemed to be
preventing crashes by making it impossible to launch any useful software.
"Ryan E" <tron...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lnj7ft4omglp0ekcb...@4ax.com...
Todd Jones
>> Matrix game exclusive (which I'll admit is normal for the console world)
>> but you'd think MS would push something more innovative. I guess they'll
>> continue to buy out game companies *cough* Bungie *cough* until they own
>> the entire industry.
Naughty Dog was allegedly planning an Xbox game. Then Sony bought them
outright to prevent it. I suppose you have no problem with that?
Eric Pobirs
Barely more than a month away and most stores have no promotional material
in sight. The continuing strength of the Game Boy Color and the complete
lack of competition in the handheld category appears to eliminate the need
for expensive marketing. A gradual shift in sales volume as the GBA library
builds up is a nice luxury for Nintendo.
The GBA is going to be strong but I don't see it part of the issue when
discussing settop consoles. A huge number of Game Boys have been sold to
people who don't own consoles and vice versa. Nintendo sees the success of
the handheld as something that can be leveraged to make their settop more
attractive. A lot of their plans depend on the market not seeing one as a
substitute for the other.
"Benjamin Autin" <toas...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:YTXI6.835$tF5....@news2.atl...
Todd Jones
>>
>> Then what's Sony?
>
>Sadam Hussein :o)
Just as f'd up, but less powerful?
Todd Jones
>than joy sticks, a few game pads, and mice, what hardware does MS make?
>
>Speaking of input devices, have you noticed how the X-Box controller
>hybrid of the Game Cube/Dreamcast controller?
The original PSX controller was a blatant ripoff of the SNES controller.
Later, Sony added analog sticks to ape Nintendo. Nintendo returned the favor
by making their GC controller a Dual Shock clone. What's your point?
Joe Ottoson
Can't sustain a console without Japanese support. Guess what MS is trying to
do? Create a market niche that doesn't currently exist. That's generally a
bad thing historically.
Todd Jones
>> >Matrix game exclusive (which I'll admit is normal for the console world)
>> >but you'd think MS would push something more innovative. I guess they'll
>> >continue to buy out game companies *cough* Bungie *cough* until they own
>> >only in it for the money.
>> >
>>
>> Err, then what's Sony? At least MS has a gaming history. Sony's just
>> an electronics company who jumped into the gaming market after a
>> botched deal with Nintendo.
>
>One could argue that Sony's gaming history started in 1983 with the MSX.
And what games did Sony develope for it, pray tell? That's like saying that
IBM has a storied gaming history because their PC platform went on to host
many, many games.
Todd Jones
>> >you're all hot to buy one doesn't count...
>>
>> Because there's a market for PS2s and Gamecubes. The console
>> market might be more differentiated than the car market, but it's not _so_
>> differentiated that XBox-only buyers are a distinct class from PS2-only
>> buyers or whatever.
>
>How do we know that there is a market for *three* consoles? There never has
>been before, why would there be now? Anyone think Xbox is going to unseat
>PS2's or Gamecube's position?
PS2 is the runt in this litter. But they have a head start, and mindshare to
burn. So, who knows?
Joe Ottoson
Eric Pobirs <epo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ClYI6.202$Hm2....@news.pacbell.net...
>
> "Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:9d0eh3$771$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> > Eric Pobirs <epo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >wanted anything new brought to the market in terms of structure. They
> didn't
> > >and Microsoft went with the standard Nintendo model. The company
leading
> the
> > >market may change but this is a well established industry.
> >
> > If MS's license royalties are significantly below Sony's (as
> > reported in the Interplay/Matrix article on Gamespot), won't they need
to
> > make it up in volume just to reach break even?
>
> So? It's called a trade-off. If you create a structure that draws more
> developers to your platform, the additional range of titles (making no
> assumptions of the individual quality) increases the desirability of the
> platform and in turn the potential for volume sales. It's the risk you
take
> for the potential you gain.
You also risk dilluting the game base enough that none of the projects ever
break even.
> The model for profitability is plain to see from the film industry. A
> typical major production costs many times more than all but a handful of
> game produced to date, yet the primary venues are much lower in cost to
the
> viewer, with accordingly less resistance. You could combine the cost of
> watching a movie in the theater, on pay per view or HBO, and buy the DVD
but
> still invest at least $10 less than in a new game. The reason, of course,
is
> volume.
What you're missing here is that movies already have a broad distribution
base. For $6, the prospective movie viewer can walk into almost any theater
in the US and watch the movie. A video or HBO showing doesn't really require
much more commitment since they're likely to already have a TV and VCR/DVD.
Microsoft's system at best will have an installed base of .5-1 million
systems for the first year or so. In that pahse, the maximum amount of games
that they can expect to sell is at most, the installed base. There is no
other means of distribution which means flooding the market with cheap games
isn't anywhere near as likely to reclaim costs as a movie will be able to.
People don't have to buy a theater before they can watch a film. OTOH, they
will have to buy an Xbox.
> Starting about a year ago we began to see PS1 games released at
> substantially lower prices. $30, $20, even a substantial number of games
> with $10 as their full price. These were 'B' titles on a system in it's
> decline but also a system with an immense installed base and continuing to
> grow thanks to compatibility with the PS2. Given the appropriate royalty
and
> manufacturing price chart from Sony these impulse purchase games are
making
> a good profit for publishers and retailers.
Only because they have a large installed base after five years on the
market.
Darien Allen
<donot...@interbulletin.bogus> we were graced with this statement:
>One has to be very wary of Sony thinking they are going to own every Tom,
>Nick and Larry with the PS2 as the ubiquious brains behind home entertainment
>centers. It really is too large of a gamble. But, needless to say, just
Sony apparently isn't the only one thinking this way though. Nintendo
at this point seems to be the only company thinking that a console
should ONLY play games...and even in that apparently their partner
Matsushita disagrees.
------------------------
Darien Allen
ICQ-2927081/AOL-Dezign369
"There is no fear in this Dojo!"
Eric Pobirs
"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:1cYI6.6818$Uu6.6...@monger.newsread.com...
> > Because there have been hundreds of millions of gaming machines sold in
> the
> > last 10 years? Duh!!
> >
> Just like how there "WAS a market" for the 3DO, Virtual Boy, Jaguar, Sega
> Master System, Atari Lynx, etc.? DUH!
>
> Take off the Microsoft-colored glasses...
>
>
Are you being purposely dim? Yes, there was a potential market for all
of those products. They failed in execution but competitors thrived. The
existence of a market is just that. It doesn't dictate which brands will
succeed, only that there is a great deal of money to be had by the best
entry in a given era. Note this doesn't mean the best possible, just
whatever is perceived as better than the competition. The money is there
regardless, much in the same way the Oscars are awarded every year even
though it may not have been a good year for movies in general.
Microsoft sees a market driven by many of the things they're already
successful at doing. It would be a huge wasted opportunity not to take a
shot at it. So far they're doing a very good job. The biggest obstacles they
face are beyond their control and as such not worth effort for them to worry
about.
If it is only possible for two profitable consoles to exist (something I
do not find any real non-circumstantial evidence for) we won't know until
well into 2003. All of the companies involved have too many resources to
draw upon and there is little doubt both Nintendo and Microsoft will have
strong launches. Microsoft is lining up possibly the largest launch library
ever and while Nintendo will have much fewer titles, if one of them is a new
Miyamoto Mario title this alone will get a lot of machines into homes. Early
adopter will absorb several million units of both consoles before the real
challenge of winning the mainstream commences.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>"reastlack" <reas...@noplace.com> wrote in message
>> >you're all hot to buy one doesn't count...
>>
>> Because there have been hundreds of millions of gaming machines sold in the
>> last 10 years? Duh!!
>>
>Just like how there "WAS a market" for the 3DO, Virtual Boy, Jaguar, Sega
>Master System, Atari Lynx, etc.? DUH!
I think it's obvious that the 3DO and VB were bad ideas that the
XBox has not adapted. Is the XBox insanely expensive by console standards
and unsupported by license revenue? Is it a craptacular binocular
monochromatic machine whose video can only be viewed by a single person?
Can you really argue that the XBox's niche is as different from the PS2/GC
as the 3DO or VB were from its competitors?
The Lynx IIRC was cool but pricey and had a very limited battery
life. The Jaguar... dunno for sure. With the SMS, Nintendo's iron grip on
third parties really hurt it. I don't think these flaws are in the XBox
either. Pick something historical with actual relevance.
--
Skinner: Oh, relax, kids, I've got a _gut_ feeling Uter is around here
somewhere. [chuckles] After all, isn't there a little _Uter_ in all
of us? [chuckles] In fact, you might even say we just _ate_ Uter and
he's in our _stomachs_ right now! [laughs] Wait...scratch that one.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>> >> of losses before the money starts flowing in the opposite direction.
>> >
>> >Well, by then, it should be clear that the system's sinking fast.
>>
>> Is this just an assumption on your part?
>>
>Just as good as, if not better than, the assumption of all the blinded-by-MS
>fans that think there's no way on earth it can possibly fail.
I don't think anyone's saying MS can't possibly fail with the XBox,
so drop your strawman argument.
We're saying that MS is making decent moves. I may or may not
revise my expectations after E3, which should outline where the industry's
going for the next six months or so.
Kyle...just Kyle
> The GBA is going to be strong but I don't see it part of the issue
when
> discussing settop consoles. A huge number of Game Boys have been sold to
> people who don't own consoles and vice versa. Nintendo sees the success of
> the handheld as something that can be leveraged to make their settop more
> attractive. A lot of their plans depend on the market not seeing one as a
> substitute for the other.
They're not substitutes. There's very little overlap between portable and
non-portable consoles. So you are right, it's not part of the issue when
discussiong set top consoles. The GB having phenomenal sales over the last
ten years has no real impact on console ( normally defined as non-portable
consoles ) wars, except to give Nintendo extra funds to fight with.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet fall down go boom
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle...just Kyle
"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:9jYI6.6820$Uu6.6...@monger.newsread.com...
> > The console market exists, and it is a huge one.
>
> Doesn't mean a market for the Xbox exists. Just like there's a market for
> (supposedly) easy-to-use "home software" for PCs, but that didn't mean a
> market for Bob existed either.
The market for the Xbox is the console market. The market for Prego exists
becasue the market for canned sphagetti sauce exists.
Kyle...just Kyle
> > Because there have been hundreds of millions of gaming machines sold in
> the
> > last 10 years? Duh!!
> >
> Just like how there "WAS a market" for the 3DO, Virtual Boy, Jaguar, Sega
> Master System, Atari Lynx, etc.? DUH!
>
> Take off the Microsoft-colored glasses...
There was a market for those systems to grab a piece of. For one reason or
another these systems failed to grab that pice of the market ( that
exists ).
The 3DO console was vastly overpriced, because the manufacturers wanted to
make a profit from it right away. Hence few people bought it.
The Virtual Boy was released with little support or advertising from
Nintendo. It was a gimmicky portable that couldn't be played on the go,
which basically invalidated the purpose of its portability.
The Jaguar failed due to a lack of third party support and poor management.
Its five processor architecture with a 68000 as the "core" processor didn't
help either.
The SMS failed because Sega couldn't get enough third party support.
Nintendo hogged it all.
The Lynx made a go of it, but had the same management as the Jaguar, and was
competing against the Gameboy from a position of weakness.
All these systems had a potential market, they just failed to tap into it. A
product that has zero market would be the proverbial ice in the eskimo
community.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>"Eric Pobirs" <epo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> discussing settop consoles. A huge number of Game Boys have been sold to
>> people who don't own consoles and vice versa. Nintendo sees the success of
>> the handheld as something that can be leveraged to make their settop more
>> attractive. A lot of their plans depend on the market not seeing one as a
>> substitute for the other.
>
>They're not substitutes. There's very little overlap between portable and
>non-portable consoles. So you are right, it's not part of the issue when
>discussiong set top consoles. The GB having phenomenal sales over the last
>ten years has no real impact on console ( normally defined as non-portable
>consoles ) wars, except to give Nintendo extra funds to fight with.
I don't think of them as substitutes, but the GBA's impact is
likely going to be more than just money in the pocket; I think Nintendo
will _really_ be pushing GC/GBA link-ups. It'd be like Sega's VMU or
Sony's Pocketstation, but on a much larger scale.
Nintendo's N64/GB Pokemon link-ups show that they're smart about
using their strength (GB Pokemon) to encourage sales of their other
machine. It's not just the franchise showing up on another platform, it's
actual use of the same savegame data, encouraging players to own both and
interlinking their products.
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >"reastlack" <reas...@noplace.com> wrote in message
> >> >And you know that there "IS a market for Xbox" exactly how? Just
because
> >> >you're all hot to buy one doesn't count...
> >>
> >> Because there have been hundreds of millions of gaming machines sold in
the
> >> last 10 years? Duh!!
> >>
> >Just like how there "WAS a market" for the 3DO, Virtual Boy, Jaguar, Sega
> >Master System, Atari Lynx, etc.? DUH!
>
> I think it's obvious that the 3DO and VB were bad ideas that the
> XBox has not adapted.
Was this obvious *before* they were released, or just hindsight?
> Is the XBox insanely expensive by console standards
> and unsupported by license revenue?
It remains to be seen if MS's supposedly lower license fees are enough to
support it...
> Is it a craptacular binocular
> monochromatic machine whose video can only be viewed by a single person?
> Can you really argue that the XBox's niche is as different from the PS2/GC
> as the 3DO or VB were from its competitors?
How about the Dreamcast? How is it's niche so different from the PS2, yet
was unsuccessful.
> The Lynx IIRC was cool but pricey and had a very limited battery
> life. The Jaguar... dunno for sure. With the SMS, Nintendo's iron grip
on
> third parties really hurt it. I don't think these flaws are in the XBox
> either.
> Pick something historical with actual relevance.
Hard to do when you'll find some excuse to "except" anything I might argue.
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email.
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >> >> Which is exactly what they are telling their shareholders. Expect
two years
> >> >> of losses before the money starts flowing in the opposite direction.
> >> >
> >> >Well, by then, it should be clear that the system's sinking fast.
> >>
> >> Is this just an assumption on your part?
> >>
> >Just as good as, if not better than, the assumption of all the
blinded-by-MS
> >fans that think there's no way on earth it can possibly fail.
>
> I don't think anyone's saying MS can't possibly fail with the XBox,
I suggest you go back and reread the troll* I initially responded to who
unequivocally stated that the Xbox positively has a share of the
marketplace.
> so drop your strawman argument
Yes, attack my viewpoint since you can't counter it...
> We're saying that MS is making decent moves.
And I say they aren't.
Where's any Japanese console developer that matters? (If Sega titles didn't
sell DC how are they going to sell Xbox?) Where's any US developers outside
of the PC realm? Why are MS's own "Xbox evangelists" coming across as
offensive and arrogant assholes?
For that matter, what have they done at all that you consider a decent move?
> I may or may not
> revise my expectations after E3, which should outline where the industry's
> going for the next six months or so.
I maintain it's going nowhere at all.
*Note: If blind Xbox advocacy in every newsgroup _except_ an Xbox one (if
there is such a thing) isn't trolling, I don't know what is.
Kyle...just Kyle
"I Am Not Omar" <iamno...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010505145316...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> > The difference is that there really IS a
> >market for the XBox (
>
PC
> market. There's really not much of a market there unfortunately.
How can you predict how much of the console market the XBox will occupy
before it's released? And why would it affect the PC market? PC gamers
aren't going to suddenly turn console.
Kyle...just Kyle
"Todd Jones" <todd...@nethere.net> wrote in message
news:tf8mged...@corp.supernews.com...
Yes, which is why the sentence goes "One could argue...".
I'm not arguing it, but one could.
Kyle...just Kyle
"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:rx_I6.6867$Uu6.6...@monger.newsread.com...
> > I think it's obvious that the 3DO and VB were bad ideas that the
> > XBox has not adapted.
>
> Was this obvious *before* they were released, or just hindsight?
I can't speak for anyone else, but it was obvious to me before they were
released.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>> as the 3DO or VB were from its competitors?
>
>How about the Dreamcast? How is it's niche so different from the PS2, yet
>was unsuccessful.
The DC is the closest parallel precisely because it went after the
same niche. Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps I have Sega-tinted
glasses on, but I really feel that if they'd had the marketing muscle, they
could have competed and held on for at least second place. Now, I think
that MS _does_ have the necessary marketing muscle to compete. IOW, I'm
not convinced that the XBox shares that particular weakness of the DC.
The other DC weakness IMO was third-party wariness... a vicious
circle of noncommitment. I'll grant that this certainly seems to plague
the XBox right now. And maybe I'm oversimplifying, but getting Square
onboard for simultaneous releases would be enough to break that IMO.
Hmm, come to think of it, I'm betting at least one of Sony or MS
will announce a blockbuster exclusive deal at E3.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>
>I suggest you go back and reread the troll* I initially responded to who
>unequivocally stated that the Xbox positively has a share of the
>marketplace.
Yeah, so? Sega had market share. That's not equivalent to saying
it can't fail.
>> We're saying that MS is making decent moves.
>
>And I say they aren't.
>
>Where's any Japanese console developer that matters? (If Sega titles didn't
>sell DC how are they going to sell Xbox?) Where's any US developers outside
>of the PC realm? Why are MS's own "Xbox evangelists" coming across as
>offensive and arrogant assholes?
1) Konami, Square (FF11), Capcom, Sega, Tecmo.
2) Oddworld, Visual Concepts, Neversoft, BioWare, plus the US
publishers EA, Hasbro, Midway, and Activision. You might not
-like- any of these developers or publishers, but they do know the
console market.
3) I dunno, I haven't really read much arrogance (or much anything)
from these guys. Are they worse than Phil Harrison?
>> I may or may not
>> revise my expectations after E3, which should outline where the industry's
>> going for the next six months or so.
>
>I maintain it's going nowhere at all.
Ryan John Cousineau
>"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
>news:rx_I6.6867$Uu6.6...@monger.newsread.com...
>> > I think it's obvious that the 3DO and VB were bad ideas that the
>> > XBox has not adapted.
>>
>> Was this obvious *before* they were released, or just hindsight?
>I can't speak for anyone else, but it was obvious to me before they were
>released.
Ditto. The 3DO was criticised from the day it was released for its high
price, and it never sold well. Nobody here knows what the XBox release
price will be (or they're NDA'd), so "foresight" will begin the day we hear
a hard number from MS, and make our predictions. Confirmation will begin
once good numbers about XBox sales roll out.
If the XBox sells for US $500 (which it will not) you _will_ hear howls of
derision as people stay away. Might even happen if it costs $400 (which it
probably won't) Coming out at $300, the same as the PS2's release price,
would be considered reasonable. Anything less would be shockingly good,
anything more might be hard to swallow.
The Virtual Boy dropped like a turd from the sky, and was treated as such
by all who saw it.
As Andrew mentions, the XBox is a very conservatively-designed console: no
new ground in the internal hardware aside from some funky graphics chip
possibilities (but not like the PS2's rather radical architecture), a
controller that looks like a pastiche of its competitors, and the same
CD/DVD/memory card game delivery of everyone else. The broadband is new,
but at the same time as every other new console has a broadband strategy.
Some examples of radical consoles:
3DO (price, CD-ROM), Virtual Boy (ack!), Vectrex (integrated vector screen),
Intellivision (controller), NES (controller, but already familiar from
Nintendo handheld games)
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcou...@sfu.ca, www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
"Perl 7 will be the last major revision. In fact, Perl 7 will be so
perfect, it will need no revision at all. Perl 6 is merely the prototype
for Perl 7. :-)" -Larry Wall on Perl 6.
Ryan John Cousineau
>Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
>>"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>>> I don't think anyone's saying MS can't possibly fail with the XBox,
>>
>>I suggest you go back and reread the troll* I initially responded to who
>>unequivocally stated that the Xbox positively has a share of the
>>marketplace.
> Yeah, so? Sega had market share. That's not equivalent to saying
>it can't fail.
One presumes that "enough market share not to lose money on being in the
console business" is implied. This
>>> We're saying that MS is making decent moves.
>>
>>And I say they aren't.
>>
>>Where's any Japanese console developer that matters? (If Sega titles didn't
>>sell DC how are they going to sell Xbox?) Where's any US developers outside
>>of the PC realm? Why are MS's own "Xbox evangelists" coming across as
>>offensive and arrogant assholes?
> 1) Konami, Square (FF11), Capcom, Sega, Tecmo.
> 2) Oddworld, Visual Concepts, Neversoft, BioWare, plus the US
> publishers EA, Hasbro, Midway, and Activision. You might not
> -like- any of these developers or publishers, but they do know the
> console market.
> 3) I dunno, I haven't really read much arrogance (or much anything)
> from these guys. Are they worse than Phil Harrison?
>>I maintain it's going nowhere at all.
I maintain it's too soon to tell, because I'm conservative about these
things. The DC came out at a good price and was clearly the best console
when it was released, and even sold well in the US. But the Japanese
ignored it, and it didn't make money for Sega. The PS2 came out when it was
only slightly better than the DC (for more money), but it has sold well
since day one, and has a sufficient installed base to assure Sony that it
will be a profitable product. I guess this tells us that DVD playback is
the killer app for consoles.
Joe Ottoson
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> >> I don't think anyone's saying MS can't possibly fail with the XBox,
> >
> >I suggest you go back and reread the troll* I initially responded to who
> >unequivocally stated that the Xbox positively has a share of the
> >marketplace.
>
> Yeah, so? Sega had market share. That's not equivalent to saying
> it can't fail.
Ed Bain automatically assumes that the Xbox will capture sufficient
marketshare to break a profit in two years. That implies a secure
marketshare that's performing at about comparable levels to the PSx back in
1996-7 or so which is not assured by any means.
> >> We're saying that MS is making decent moves.
> >
> >And I say they aren't.
> >
> >Where's any Japanese console developer that matters? (If Sega titles
didn't
> >sell DC how are they going to sell Xbox?) Where's any US developers
outside
> >of the PC realm? Why are MS's own "Xbox evangelists" coming across as
> >offensive and arrogant assholes?
>
> 1) Konami, Square (FF11), Capcom, Sega, Tecmo.
Square's not onboard with the Xbox. They are not actually bringing any FF
titles to the Xbox. This has been stated several times by Square after their
initial announcement.
Tecmo has commited one game and has stated that that's about it.
Has Capcom announced anything other than reservations about the Xbox's
potential?
Really, MS has Sega and a reluctant support of Konami. There's nothing else
solid out there.
> 2) Oddworld, Visual Concepts, Neversoft, BioWare, plus the US
> publishers EA, Hasbro, Midway, and Activision. You might not
> -like- any of these developers or publishers, but they do know the
> console market.
Of those, there's *one* Xbox exclusive developer.
Joe Ottoson
Kyle...just Kyle <ky...@digital-ages.com> wrote in message
news:v%_I6.25$2k5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
> news:rx_I6.6867$Uu6.6...@monger.newsread.com...
> > > I think it's obvious that the 3DO and VB were bad ideas that the
> > > XBox has not adapted.
> >
> > Was this obvious *before* they were released, or just hindsight?
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but it was obvious to me before they were
> released.
The VB was an obvious flop to everyone. It was universally panned by the
press. Even Nintendo Power seemed at a loss. ;)
The main people that thought 3DO had a chance were older types who thought
games needed to be more mature and PClike vs the typical console fighting
and sidescroller game fare.
Raymond McKeithen II
> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
> >"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> >> I don't think anyone's saying MS can't possibly fail with the XBox,
> >
> >I suggest you go back and reread the troll* I initially responded to who
> >unequivocally stated that the Xbox positively has a share of the
> >marketplace.
>
> Yeah, so? Sega had market share. That's not equivalent to saying
> it can't fail.
Go back to the beginning of this piece of the discussion. It was about how
MS has in the past abandoned things that were not successful without much if
any support (Bob being an example). The troll I responded to stated this
could *not* happen since the Xbox will according to him have sufficient
market share to succeed.
If it fails they may stop supporting it (surprise) which is the whole point.
What part of that don't you understand?
> >> We're saying that MS is making decent moves.
> >
> >And I say they aren't.
> >
> >Where's any Japanese console developer that matters? (If Sega titles
didn't
> >sell DC how are they going to sell Xbox?) Where's any US developers
outside
> >of the PC realm? Why are MS's own "Xbox evangelists" coming across as
> >offensive and arrogant assholes?
>
> 1) Konami, Square (FF11), Capcom, Sega, Tecmo.
Square? Huh? Where's any official announcement from Square? Capcom? All
Capcom has said that I'm aware of is that they have no idea what market MS
is targeting so they don't know what to think.
Tecmo is making *one* game and has officially stated that Xbox is third in
their list of priorities:
http://www.coremagazine.com/news/4152.php3
I acknowledged Sega above. While I didn't mention it I acknowledge Tecmo
too; I don't see either as selling systems. If Sega games can't sell DCs why
can they suddenly sell Xbox, especially if the games aren't exclusive?
> 2) Oddworld, Visual Concepts, Neversoft, BioWare, plus the US
> publishers EA, Hasbro, Midway, and Activision. You might not
> -like- any of these developers or publishers, but they do know the
> console market.
> 3) I dunno, I haven't really read much arrogance (or much anything)
> from these guys. Are they worse than Phil Harrison?
I'm not sure...did Phil Harrison make public speeches at game shows and
conferences filled with expletives, or less important try to pretend to be
part of some "hip crowd" by "dressing cool" and other such nonsense? There's
something to be said for the people running the show to present a
businesslike attitude and appearance, even if they do just talk like
politicians (i.e. Howard Lincoln, Bellfield, etc.). Those guys might not say
what you want to hear, but they don't insult your intelligence by being
phony either.
More than that, I've heard nothing out of the mouths of Allard, Fries, etc.
that indicates they know *anything* about the game market or its consumers.
I really loved the statement that they were targeting "hardcore gamers" and
then go on to define that as those who have to buy the newest greatest
hardware and want great graphics etc. (IOW "graphics whores"). Not *once*
did they say anything about actual game content or gameplay. Of course,
that's just my view; the general public are graphics whores so it may go
over well. Their comments about the "research" they did on controller design
were ridiculous too.
Ryan E
<rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
>
>"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>news:9d1v8f$bsc$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>> Raymond McKeithen II <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote:
>> >"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>> >> I don't think anyone's saying MS can't possibly fail with the XBox,
>> >
>> >I suggest you go back and reread the troll* I initially responded to who
>> >unequivocally stated that the Xbox positively has a share of the
>> >marketplace.
>>
>> Yeah, so? Sega had market share. That's not equivalent to saying
>> it can't fail.
>
>Go back to the beginning of this piece of the discussion. It was about how
>MS has in the past abandoned things that were not successful without much if
>any support (Bob being an example).
For which no doubt, Bob to begin with has got to be the weakest
argument of all relating to Xbox, the console market, or video games
in general.
Doug Johnson
>I maintain it's too soon to tell, because I'm conservative about these
>things. The DC came out at a good price and was clearly the best console
>when it was released,
That's highly debatable. It definitely had the best graphics, but the PSX was
still going strong in fall of 99. There were several AAA PSX titles released
around then or just on the horizon. The DC, on the other hand, had pretty much
the same problem at launch as the PS2. There were a couple of AAA DC titles,
and the rest of the launch lineup was pretty mediocre. After the dust settled
from
the DC launch, people sat there with Soul Calibur and NFL2k and said, "Okay,
now what?"
>and even sold well in the US. But the Japanese
>ignored it, and it didn't make money for Sega. The PS2 came out when it was
>only slightly better than the DC (for more money), but it has sold well
>since day one, and has a sufficient installed base to assure Sony that it
>will be a profitable product. I guess this tells us that DVD playback is
>the killer app for consoles.
No, although it's definitely a plus. Add in backwards compatibility with an
enormous game library, tons of third party support, and considerable genre
variety, and then you can see that the PS2 had a formula for success.
Whatever
<20010505145355...@ng-fa1.aol.com> :
>>And this might explain partly why trying to turn videogame consoles into
>>something else besides a gaming console fails.
>
>The PS2 didn't fail, moron.
Whatever, Tyrone! It certainly hasn't succeeded yet. Sony is bleeding a bunch
of red over the PS2 and it certainly hasn't proven to be the winner this round
yet regarding the series of consoles. At this point and time, the Dreamcast
wasn't a failure yet, nor was the Jaguar or most other consoles. The PS2 has
not been out long enough to prove itself a success.
- Richard Hutnik
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com