“Microsoft nearly doubled its losses from the Xbox video game console in the December quarter, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Meanwhile, the unit that makes Microsoft’s Office software closed in on Windows as being the company’s most profitable.” Read more at News.com.
Since they lose $120 per console and video game consoles are a popular Christmas gift.
Duh…
I have heard people say that ‘M$ must not really be losing money on the XBox because they are still selling them.’
This would only be as ‘stupid’ as shipping a commercial web browser for free when everyone else is charging for one. And, we all know how well that ‘stupid’ plan worked…
This would only be as ‘stupid’ as shipping a commercial web browser for free when everyone else is charging for one. And, we all know how well that ‘stupid’ plan worked…
Exactly – now the entire web is full of Frontpage’s extra extensions for IE and are not W3 complaint.
The only reason Microsoft is reporting such huge losses on Xbox right now is because they are still trying to recover their R&D costs. But Xbox will become profitable. Say what you want about MS software, but their hardware is traditionally been quite good and Xbox is not exception. Xbox is currently the best console gaming system on the market.
They can affort the loss and then they turn around and write it off on their taxes! It is a great plan! However, nothing is cheaper than free linux. How can they lower their prices to beat that
If you want a great gameing machine its Nintendo Gamecube 100% of the way.
“This would only be as ‘stupid’ as shipping a commercial web browser for free when everyone else is charging for one. And, we all know how well that ‘stupid’ plan worked”
Not really, they dont lose $120 on every copy of IE they ship. And the XBox and PS2 are the same price… so… IE/XBox is an inacurate analogy.
Unfortunately with MS, best on the market NOW means a monopoly of mediocrity in the future for which YOU the consumer will end up paying with high prices and lack of choice.
Buying an MS product has developed something of a political aspect. The question is do I buy (unarguably) the most powerful console and help MS achieve the same thing as it has achieved in the OS and Office Productivity area?
Ultimately, if successful Xbox will allow MS to strengthen its current monopoly and looking at its past history, it will behave no differently in seeking to achieve a monopoly in the game console area and abuse that position.
Make no mistake about this, Xbox will succeed very well in the long run. Microsoft is not fearless fighter, and they are not anything if not resilient. Game consoles are profitable. Don’t be surprised in MS overtook the competition in a few years
They don’t care about losing money on the consoles, as long as they get a bunch of them in distribution. Their profits will be long-term through continuing sales of the games. Have you seen how much XBox games cost?!?
If MS was afraid to take a short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain…
“Exactly – now the entire web is full of Frontpage’s extra extensions for IE and are not W3 complaint.”
If web developers waited for w3c to make something a standard, we probably wouldn’t even have tables yet. Web developers want to use new browser features now. Not when w3c gets around to making them “standard” in a few years.
Netscape was guilty of the same thing, so don’t blame IE for this. Netscape introduced tons of tags that were not w3c compliant and didn’t work with other browsers at the time.
Put MS out of business: buy a ton of XBoxes but don’t buy any games. 🙂
BTW, </SARCASM>.
I think any who argue that Apple needs to reposition themselves as a software company need to keep this in mind. Microsoft loses money on their Windows division. Virtually the only product they have generating revenue is Office. Apple is in no position to move to selling software.
Simba: The only reason Microsoft is reporting such huge losses on Xbox right now is because they are still trying to recover their R&D costs. But Xbox will become profitable.
And when will that be? Microsoft may have a great deal of disposable income which they can throw away with their XBox division, but it takes more than money to make a good console.
Microsoft’s main competator in the console world is Sony, a Japanese megaconglomerate with over $30 billion in assets. In other words, this isn’t a company Microsoft can defeat by just throwing money at the problem… Sony will not be vanquished any time soon simply by undercutting them on cost.
Sony has in-roads with Japanese game developers. The only game development company Microsoft even remotely has on their side is Sega, who has positioned themselves with a cross-platform game development API which allows them to develop for all 3 consoles. Through an inordinate amount of money Microsoft has managed to secure some titles, namely Jet Set Radio Future, Panzer Dragoon Orta, and Shenume 2 as XBox exclusive titles (in America at least. Shenmue 2 was released as a Dreamcast title in Japan/Europe)
Say what you want about MS software, but their hardware is traditionally been quite good and Xbox is not exception. Xbox is currently the best console gaming system on the market.
If your only definition of best is raw hardware power, perhaps. In terms of profitability of a console, there are only two things that matter: how much you eat on each console, and how many games you sell. Sony has completely vanquished Microsoft in both of these areas… they lose less money on each PS2 sold, and they’re selling far more games. The PS2 has far and away the most games of the 3 major console systems today, and many of them from established series whereas the XBox has somewhat crappier titles which were made solely for establishing the guise of an XBox games base. (i.e. SSX Tricky and Amped)
Nintendo, while not commanding the PS2’s enormous sales lead, is in a pretty good position themselves. The Gamecube initially sold at a profit, something that hasn’t been seen for awhile in console gaming. Furthermore, many of the Gamecube’s best selling games were developed in-house by Nintendo, which means greater profit margins.
Sony and Nintendo have both come out ahead in the console race, while Microsoft is far behind. The question now becomes if Microsoft stays in the console race, how many generations of consoles down the road will it be before Microsoft can actually turn a profit on a console? Will it ever happen? Will Microsoft be willing to stay in the console race for that long?
I forsee Sony remaining a console powerhouse for quite some time. They aren’t even playing hardball with Microsoft yet because they know for the time being Microsoft poses no threat, otherwise they would have been willing to outbid Microsoft for exclusive titles from Sega. I think for the time being that Sony will largely ignore Microsoft until they can actually establish themselves as a real player in the console market, and not just the dismal failure of this console generation.
I recognized that some people think that since MS loses money on Xbox, and MS is losing much more money on XBOX now, that means MS XBOX sales are good (meaning more Xboxs are being sold at a loss). This is untrue.
Xbox is selling poorly.
“the company lowered its total Xbox sales forecast to 9 million to 11 million units by the end of June 2003. The company originally expected to ship that many units by the same point in 2002.”, for comparison playstation2 has sold 50 million units.
http://www.itnews.com.au/storycontent.cfm?ID=17&Art_ID=11492
Another bad sign is component manufactures like Focus (and likely Nvidia) are being told that they don’t need to make more components for the Xbox (mentioned in above link).
“Microsoft’s main competator in the console world is Sony, a Japanese megaconglomerate with over $30 billion in assets. In other words, this isn’t a company Microsoft can defeat by just throwing money at the problem… Sony will not be vanquished any time soon simply by undercutting them on cost.”
You’re right. Microsoft can’t solve this problem just by throwing more money at it. But they can solve it by producing a better system, which I think they have done. I think Xbox is better system than PS-2 by a long shot.
“Through an inordinate amount of money Microsoft has managed to secure some titles, namely Jet Set Radio Future, Panzer Dragoon Orta, and Shenume 2 as XBox exclusive titles (in America at least. Shenmue 2 was released as a Dreamcast title in Japan/Europe)”
They also secured DOA 3, which has not been released for any other consoles.
“If your only definition of best is raw hardware power, perhaps. In terms of profitability of a console, there are only two things that matter: how much you eat on each console, and how many games you sell.”
Raw hardware power is what the consumer will want. The Xbox has better graphics and better sound than the PS-2.
“I forsee Sony remaining a console powerhouse for quite some time. They aren’t even playing hardball with Microsoft yet because they know for the time being Microsoft poses no threat, otherwise they would have been willing to outbid Microsoft for exclusive titles from Sega.”
There is no company in the world that can afford to play hardball with Microsoft. Microsoft’s net profit margins are so high they are practically unbelievable. Microsoft has way too much disposable income. The only way Sony will compete is if they can produce a better system. And at this point, they aren’t doing so. Xbox is a better system than PS-2.
And Sony has to be careful about playing hardball with Microsoft. You know thos Sony Vaios that run Windows? I’m sure Sony would hate to lose their Windows preload contracts with Microsoft.
Raw hardware power is what the consumer will want. The Xbox has better graphics and better sound than the PS-2.
The sales say you’re wrong. Console gamers buy consoles for games. The XBox has been a dismal sales failure, despite having superior hardware.
There is no company in the world that can afford to play hardball with Microsoft. Microsoft’s net profit margins are so high they are practically unbelievable. Microsoft has way too much disposable income. The only way Sony will compete is if they can produce a better system. And at this point, they aren’t doing so. Xbox is a better system than PS-2.
The “better hardware” argument is entirely ridiculous and I don’t see why you persist in it. Let me break it down for you this way:
The PS2 is profitable
The Gamecube is profitable
The XBox has resulted in a net loss of $314 million
And as SESE said:
The PS2 has sold 50 million units
The XBox hasn’t even sold 10 million units
I can’t really say what the future will hold. Can Microsoft defeat a Japanese kadetsu? Will Microsoft resort to the underhanded tactics that you describe in order to increase the chances of (future generations of) the XBox’s success?
The battle between this generation of consoles is over. The PS2 is the clear victor. The Gamecube is also a winner, because it was profitable from the outset and has served as a platform for the in-house games Nintendo has developed as part of its existing franchises, further garnering profit for Nintendo. The XBox is a clear loser due to its dismal sales and $314 million in losses.
“Raw hardware power is what the consumer will want. The Xbox has better graphics and better sound than the PS-2.”
you are not much into the gaming business history, are you?
When the PS1 was launched, it’s main competitors were the
Sega Saturn and, later, the N64. Sega Saturn died basically because it was crap. But N64 had better graphics and better sound. Everyone in every
gaming magazine, forum and whatnot (especially in europe and japan)
was saying “the N64 will beat PS because itis more powerful HW” which
was absolutely true.
-N64 had, as it name boasted, 64-bit processing power. PS was one
generation behind.
-PS runs at 33 Mhz. N64 runs at 99.75 Mhz.
-N64 has expansion slots for memory upgrades.
-N64 had better video arch (it makes hardware AntiAliasing, MipMapping,
Gouraud Shading and more)
-etc etc..
N64’s only minor disadvantage was a slightly higher price (both the
console and the games were more expensive)
And who won? Sony Playstation won. Because it had BETTER GAMES.
Better known titles. An unsurpassed amount of games. That is what
makes a console a real hit. A lot of good, famous games. Nothing else.
“And Sony has to be careful about playing hardball with Microsoft. You know thos Sony Vaios that run Windows? I’m sure Sony would hate to lose their Windows preload contracts with Microsoft.”
Wow, that really is knowing how to make a good console.
You have just summed up exactly why i don’t want MS or their gaming console to exist. They are freaking EVIL.
In fact i just sold my PS2 all of it’s games my network adapter and all my PSone game in order to buy a Refurbished Xbox a game and Xbox Live and to pre-order C&C Generals on PC… Xbox has FAR better graphics, FAR better online play, and the games are pretty fun. The only game I miss from my PS2 is the one I got for christmas: Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers by EAgames; I will buy that within a few months on Xbox though so no matter. PS2 was out for a year before the Xbox that si why it has sold so many consoles and games, yes PS2 has MANY MANY more game but I can only think of about 6 good ones where as all of the Xbox games I have ever seen have kicked ass(except JSRF by Sega as I hate shading). PS2 I never played except Lord of the Rings… none of the other games were any fun to me at all.(or any of my friemnds who played them) Atleast for Americans and maybe Canadians Xbox is the best way to go for the future of Console gaming.
@Damian got it right – what matters most in games is not the hardware at all, but the games. The one with the best/most popular games wins, period.
@simba – you cannot be serious. Better hardware is NOT a reason for something to prevail. The technology industry history is littered with “superior” and even “cheaper and superior” hardware that failed, while the “mediocre” won. Please revisit the VHS/Beta history. Whatever else you can cite for X-box’s future, “superior hardware” is NOT an argument.
As for MS going after Sony through their OS licencing – bwahahaahahahah! Not only would it not fly legally (and Sony, unlike the small companies MS is used to bullying, can afford the best lawyers – not worth it to MS to get into a pissing contest w/ Sony), but it wouldn’t really matter – Sony could drop their PC business completely and it would if anything help their bottom line overall.
Sony has a crushing advantage over MS when it comes to gaming. MS must go for content (games), or they’ll soon be out of the running. So, MS will do what they always do – buy their way in. They are already eyeing game developing companies for an acquisition.
But things will get worse for MS over time. Their hold on OS will loosen – already Europe and much of the 3rd world including future huge IT consuming markets like India and China are leaning toward Linux. It’ll take time, but it is quite certain that the center of gravity is moving away from Windows. What MS is doing with MSN, their hardware business, applications, games etc. is trying to diversify to prepare for the inevitable day when their golden goose Windows becomes a niche player – and GASP(!) could even die… how could it DIE??? Well, simple really. Unless you have a HUGE market of buyers, a modern proprietary OS is expensive to develop. How many billions can MS keep pouring into developing the next iteration of Windows when there are fewer and fewer buyers (who have gone on to Linux etc.)? And when MS can no longer afford to update their OS, it will die (or more accurately become a niche legacy system a la Atari). Yes, that is quite far into the future, but it’ll happen. And so, MS must prepare OTHER sources of revenue. They’re trying to controle the net – but won’t succeed. They’ve tried phones – failure. TV-cable-boxes – failure. MSN – failure (not profitable – the latest statistics show the whole recent butterfly camapaign for hundreds of millions of $ was a complete failure). X-box – failure.
In fact, except for their core OS and applications business (primarily Office), MS has not had a very good track record of profitability. And by CORE OS, I really mean CORE – just look at the dismal failure CE has been. Yes, MS is very persistent, and willing to lose $ for a long time, but they have thrown in the towel before, and will so again… especially as their hold on the OS market and their ability to monopoly price starts to weaken. I realize many here don’t want to accept it, but MS’s dominance is coming to an end – from here on it will be a long (probably slow) decline. But while many here may not realize it, the highest echelons of MS folks know this – and they are not willing to go without a fight… they know they may not stop the trend, but they sure as heck can slow it. X-box is just a symptom of this larger overall strategy.
Why doesn’t apple do a game console? They are good with multimedia, and they have good experience with hardware. It would be a natural progression, and they will actually have a good chance.
Apple game console???? Ummm… what kind of system would the console run? And who would dedicate exclusive games to them? Contrary to your belief, Apple makes sh|tty hardware – the only reason it seems decent is because they optimise the whole system, since they are also an OS shop – something nobody can match as MS does not build PCs. But on its own, Apple hardware is completely uncompetitive – not surprising, since you’ve got an extremely broad base for PC hardware, and a tiny one for Apple (not to mention Apple being dependent on weaker players for their core chips). Sorry, but an Apple gaming console is an idea whose time will never come.
Apple needs to worry about its future processor problems than worry about a game console. They did try one a few years back but there were no takers.
As for XBox having better graphics than PS2, well no DUH!
Considering that XBox came out over a year AFTER the PS2 (as did the Gamecube) one would expect the newer machines to be far superior to the other. Microsoft was able to add features they thought would sell a boatload of consoles which the PS2 did not even consider having at launch. While the XBox did have a network adaptor before the PS2, why did it take so long to get online games for it? Why did the online games come out at the same time as the PS2 online games? XBox should have had online games at launch. I truly believe this would have been a mojor selling point to begin with. Also the games for the XBox (while looking prettier) have not really advanced the gaming experience any more than the PS2 or Gamecube. We still have the same games on all three consoles and not much to differentiate the other. Sure there are exclusives, but they do not stay exclusive for too long. Economics now dictates a version for all three consoles.
But lets look at another scenario as to why the PS2 outsells XBox. IT PLAYS ALL PLAYSTATION 1 games as well. For the average gamer or previous owner of a PS1 it makes perfect sense to buy a PS2 over XBox or Gamecube. Mothers and fathers are more willing to shell out money which makes the previous investment worthwhile.
Sony makes a boatload of money selling games. The hardware is usually sold at a loss until about 3 years later. XBox will not see a profit in its current lifetime. The next version of the XBox (if Microsoft stays the course which I believe they will) will turn a profit.
Same thing as your cell phone. More money is made off of your minutes used than the sale of the phone itself.
Its funny how many PS2 advocates argue a point. You can almost catch a hint of fanboyism. lol! Trying to remain impartial is difficult for them. I don’t own any of these consoles. But I do work for Sony’s Asia Pacific HQ. And I say this, The Sony PS2 made it this far because of its already large and faithful PS1 userbase. How many ppl saw the Dreamcast go under? and for what? Because a few million ppl were blindly pinning their hopes on the next Sony console. And preferred waiting for that instead on getting, the then superior Dreamcast. I mean, they didn’t even give Sega a chance. The fanatacism already ran deep by then unfortunately.
But times have changed. I for one as a marketing rep, am very conscious of the m$ competition. Hell my livelihood depends on it. But I remain impartial. I don’t go on and say, PS2 this and PS2 that. I know we have a large userbase. But just like Atari and others before us, maintaining the console crown, is not to be taken for granted. Just look at nVidia. ATi came from being the underdog to being top dog. Of course it took several dev cycles to accomplish this. The same may happen when round 2 comes in 2005, and the next gen consoles launch within months of each other. You will see a clearer picture then. Rest assured I will not let Sony loyalism, keep me from getting a better job as a m$ marketing rep, if thats where the money is, or the worst happens and Sony start losing the console race, come 2005/06.
Signed Sony employee
“Its funny how many PS2 advocates argue a point. You can almost catch a hint of fanboyism. lol! ”
I have not seen a “PS2 advocate” in this place so far.
“Trying to remain impartial is difficult for them. I don’t own any of these consoles. ”
I don’t either. I do own a PS1, tho.
“But I do work for Sony’s Asia Pacific HQ. And I say this, The Sony PS2 made it this far because of its already large and faithful PS1 userbase.”
And this is an excuse, how? the PS1 deserved every bit of fame it had.
It was a really good machine, had lots of support from game makers and
a long lifespan.
On the other hand, you have Nintendo. They are OK. just OK.
And Sega? sega consoles? the one and only really popular Sega console
was the MegaDrive/Genesis series. Then they crapped their pants
with that MegaCD extension to those, then they crapped their pants
again with the MD32X fiasco, then they crapped their pants yet once
more with the Sega Saturn…… I can keep a candy in my mouth longer
than Sega could keep Saturn in business. Then the Dreamcast, which was
OK for a while, but people was already too uncomfortable with how
Sega killed their userbase, basically trying to sell them crap. Namely,
too little too late.
Sony was a new player in the game industry, and it started up excellently.
It’s only natural their userbase to be proud of their choice and wait for more.
It doesn’t have Nintendo’s high prices or restricted game quality controls
which make for a narrow range of games. It doesn’t hype new consoles
abandoning the older ones (and their users) every year like Sega.
” How many ppl saw the Dreamcast go under? and for what? Because a few million ppl were blindly pinning their hopes on the next Sony console.”
This is what happens when people like a product.
“I mean, they didn’t even give Sega a chance.”
Sega had a fame of it’s own already. Believe me, thay had their chance.
I’ve seen it happen.
” The fanatacism already ran deep by then unfortunately. ”
If you like to call it fanatism… siut yourself.
i’m positive that PS fanatism exists. But fanatism is not what made the
PS the great hit it was. And Sony only has to keep giving the PS2 the
things that the PS1 had: Wide range of games (instantly done: backwards
compatibility is a ground-breaking feature and in itself makes the purchase
of a PS2 worthwhile), lots of support from the game industry, and lower
prices.
Well, there are a few things you missed out on in your PS1 vs N64 list. The fact that the PS1 came with a CD drive was a definite advantage over the N64’s cartridge based format. CDs are cheaper while cartridges are expensive, and you can fit more on a CD not to mention the ability to switch CDs which made it even easier for more storage space. This is what lead to all of those FMVs that everyone loved and adored on the PS1. The PS1 was also easier to develop for. And if you want to start nitpicking, the controller design on the PS1 was better/easier than the N64 (though here I’m starting to argue more opinion than fact). That is just on the hardware side, you could if you want point to Nintendo’s alienating of Square as something that gave the PS1 a leg up.
It’s foolish to think Xbox ever really had a chance this generation. I believe it’s all about mind share, MS needs to establish itself as a serious player in console gaming and launching a FULL year after the winner of the previous generation is not how you start out, if you want to win this generation. Sony’s success as an upstart in the 32 bit era was partly due to Sega messing up the Saturn launch by releasing early and without enough software and diluting its market segment with too many choices (I mean releasing a 32 bit upgrade (32X) to the Genesis not long before launching your next generation 32 bit hardware??? Even a hardcore Sega Fanboy like me didn’t bother to touch it). Also helping out was Nintendo’s long delayed vapourware Project Reality –> Ultra64 –> Nintendo64, plus they REALLY dropped the ball by sticking with carts instead of moving to cd-rom. Carts cost a lot more to make and the bigger the game the more roms you need thus raising the price even further. Also, I believe (correct me if you know better) Nintendo made the all carts, and no doubt charged a nice fee for it. From a third party perspective the N64 wasn’t all that appealing even with superior tech. I really think it’s a two horse race next generation, unless someone else shows up, Nintendo will still be there, but it seems more interested with catering to it’s fan base than trying to be number one. Right now MS learning the ropes and cutting its teeth by courting developers, developing unique content like Xbox live(I think Sony will likely do something similar for the PS3) and Xbox specific games like Halo (I know there’s to be PC version but it’s really out of date now and can’t affect Xbox sales). All in preparation for the dog fight that will be the next generation. Personally I hope no one dominates the next generation like Sony has dominated these last two. Gaming was a lot of fun in the16 bit era when Sega and the Big N were fighting tooth and nail for every tenth of a percent of market share. As for this generation… its over… as much as I like my Xbox and know it’s technically superior that won’t change the momentum that Sony has. At best MS will be a respectable number two (at least outside of Japan) this generation assuming current trends continue. Like I said at the beginning it’s about mind share when the general public i.e. the non-hardcore, thinks about video gaming they think Playstation. Sony’s Playstation IS console video gaming, it’s almost a generic term much like Nintendo used to be, I can still remember my mother referring to my Genesis as a Nintendo, and recently when travelling back home with my Xbox I had to explain what my Xbox was and the customs officer said, “oh! a Playstation”. That kind of mind share takes time to erode. Sorry if I rambled a bit but, video gaming is my “other” passion, second only to operating systems : )
Its funny how many PS2 advocates argue a point. You can almost catch a hint of fanboyism. lol!
I’m not a PS2 advocate. In fact, I’ve been a Sega fanboy since the Genesis, and one of the titles I mentioned as being XBox exclusive (Panzer Dragoon Orta) is a sequel to one of my favorite Saturn games. The others (Jet Set Radio Future, Shenmue 2) and one I didn’t mention due to it’s incredible crappiness (Dead or Alive 3) were sequels to titles that I originally enjoyed on the Dreamcast.
The Dreamcast had a number of excellent games, and was truly the “hardcore gamer’s console”. However, the Dreamcast lacked the broad marketability that comes from the companies that Sony had in their pocket. The Dreamcast appealed to a core audience of gamers, whereas the PS2 has more universal appeal.
Certainly the PS2 put a large hamper on the Dreamcast’s sales, but it certainly wasn’t the only reason the Dreamcast died. I think one of the largest causes was piracy… the Dreamcast required no hardware modifications to play pirated games. With piracy being so easy, why would anyone bother paying for Dreamcast games?
In regards to PS2 versus XBox, I’m simply stating the facts. The only way the XBox can be regarded as anything but a failure is if you look at it the way Microsoft looks at it… mile one of a long road towards profitability. I think it’s unlikely that the next few generations of consoles Microsoft releases will be profitable either, but looking at the report linked from this article, none of Microsoft’s ventures are profitable except for the Office and Server divisions of the company.
Well, your points are true, but i actually forgot to add some of the
DISADVANTAGES of a CDROM (being read with a 2x drive) over a cartridge.
the N64 does not have the problem with loading times the PS1 has
(when the PS first came out, it’s flagship game was “Formula 1” along
with Crash Bandicoot and some others. Formula 1 would make you wait
30 seconds before the pre-race menus, and once you were done with
those –like in 5 seconds– you had to wait over a minute for the race
to start. It was the first PS game i tried, and i used to think
“did it crash? Ah, no, there it is….”
The N64 was completely free from this.)
Second, cartridges are easier to handle. they don’t get scratched. And, unless
you have modded your console, you could not make backups of your
games.
Third, the PS1’s “flip-top” design made it rather easy to accidentally
touch the CDROM lens while inserting disks or cleaning the machine.
It is more fragile than a N64, and it definitely has reading problems once
it gets a bit old (and don’t even try to argue this one, I bought my PS soon
after it came out, so it is several years old, and even though i treat it
really nice and have never touched the lens, it currently has a LOT of
problems plaing some games, problems i wouldn’t have if it were a N64)
The PS2 somewhat solved this issue by making the drive a “slide-in”
like a regular computer cd/dvd rom anyway… but it still does not mean
that the lens can get clunky.
I agree with you about the controllers. But the controller i like best of
all is the one that now is default with PS2, (the one with two analog
joysticks and “rumble” function) and it is only available as a separate
peripheral with PS1.
About Nintendo “alienating” companies, you can bet sony is grateful for
their conduct. As you may know, the “Play Station X” project at Sony
was started up from an agreement between Sony and Nintendo.
“Play Station X” was the codename for some expansion of the
SuperNintendo that would add CDROM to that console (to compete
with the MegaCD). Sony went their own way after Nintendo refused
them the rights to make games for this new plattform they were making.
Yeah I remember that, still have an old EG mag somewhere with an article and specs on it. Wonder if Nintendo feels regret for dumping Sony. Carts were always better than cd-roms in every way except price and capacity. Sony machines have never been known for being “high” quality. Nintendo seems to be the only one who can build a game machine properly (except the original NES, what a piece of crap) Why is Nintendo the only one who keeps the power supply outside of the system? can’t anyone else see the obvious advantage? The machines would be much easier to keep cool. I’ve blown power supplies before and it was much easy to get a new adaptor than to send in the machine for repairs (especially when I lived in a “third world” country).
Video game debates are always fun.
Anyway, things are a bit skewed with historical references:
*Saturn was originally designed to be a 2D system. It was adjusted later to be able to do polygons when Sony announced the Playstation system being released by itself and not a part of the SNES. Hence its architecture was Frankenstein in nature. It also had issues going against Sony’s entry into the American market where the Sony rep had the shortest speech of all: “$299”. A full $100 less than the Saturn (even though Saturn had a pack in of a games like Virtua Fighter 2).
*Sony didn’t have as tight of restrictions as to what games could be made on their platform, CDs were cheaper and their licensing fees were less expensive than Nintendo’s. So a lot of developers flocked to the PSX because of this and that the PSX was also easy to program for.
*The PSX having the “best games” is looking at its title lineup with rose-colored glasses as one would when they said the NES had the “best games”. To date the PSX has about 1,200 titles released in the USA alone and over 2,000 titles world wide-beating out both the NES and I believe even the Atari 2600. As with any system, the PSX has its share of craptacular games along with more “Average” games and then finishing off with a few true gems that made the PSX noted (when you think of PSX, what comes to mind? Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Tekken, Crash Bandicoot, etc.).
*While the N64 didn’t do nearly as well as the Playstation (which had the added bonus of being “hip & trendy” and making video games mainstream thanks to the Sony backing), it certainly opened the door to standards we all take for granted today. They were the first game company ever to release the analog stick as the primary interface and make it mainstream (Atari 5200 was before them and there’s another golden oldie I can’t think of, but you haven’t seen this interface since until the N64). They were the first console to have a rumble feature that reacted to whatever programmers wanted (there were rumble features before, but those relied on bass, not programmed actions). The N64 also brought the idea of multiplayer back into the fold with 4 controller ports, something not seen built in since the Atari 5200 (which then saw the 4 port system replaced with a 2 port later on). So I wouldn’t be giving the ol’ N64 as much of a bad rap as some people do.
That said, Microsoft wanted to get their foot in the door wit h the XBox. Being a total newcomer to the console market (even though they had a hand with the Dreamcast), it was unsure how well they would do being an American company in a Japanese dominated industry (for the record there really hasn’t been an American made,er designed, game console since Atari released the Jaguar back in the early to mid 90’s). Last I looked, the XBox was #2 by a slight margin in the US (and maybe Europe, but I’m not sure on Europe) and is #3 everywhere else. Not too shabby for an initial run. If the XBox was adopted more in Japan I think we’d see a different story, but the Japanese aren’t too keen on foreign products not to mention the sucker is downright heavy and not overly visually appealing in design.
Will they beat Sony? Not anytime soon, unless they pull some of the same moves Nintendo did to knock itself out of the top spot. Sony has replaced Nintendo as the household synonym to “video game system”. I think the XBox and all future MS consoles will serve up to the “hardcore” groups with games like Steel Battalion while Sony plays to the “Common” gamer and Nintendo plays to the younger crowd.
Loathe as I am to send tribute to Redmond, I bought my Xbox based on who had the best hardware – Sony vs. Microsoft.
Microsoft is eating a little over $100 on each box and hopes to make a profit based on software i.e. games. Sony works on the exact same model and, despite poor hardware, Sony sells millions of units based on the number of games they have (1500 or so at last count including PSOne games).
For those who haven’t heard. Microsoft announced Xbox Lite yesterday to be officially debuted at the May E3. Check http://www.funxbox.com for info. Lite will be translucent green, small, and with Media2Go built in. Media2Go was demoed at CES last month and gives Xbox Lite USB and Firewire ports that enable it to up/download games, movies and/or music from and to the hard drive and any other USB/Firewire equipped device. Xbox games on your wireless phone? Check. PDA? Check. Download games direct from the developer? Check. Play Xbox games anywhere in your house? Check.
I think that if Lite works as promised that Microsoft will have, in effect, delivered to us ‘Xbox 2’. IMHO.
Let the flames begin…