Microsoft's Rush To Xbox 2 A Danger?

Game Boy writes "Brit games business site Gamesindustry.biz has posted a fascinating editorial asking whether Microsoft is about to shoot itself in the foot over Xbox 2 by rushing to launch the console years ahead of its rivals' next-generation platforms. It's a pretty good analysis of how Microsoft is thinking about this marketplace, and why they could be pretty drastically wrong - I work at a major games publisher, and a lot of people here are worried about exactly the same things, but it's rare to see anyone actually discussing them openly. Xbox has done pretty well so far, but Microsoft could be heading for a disaster that even Bill's billions won't dig them out of..."

No, no, no

[Mz6]

"Xbox has done pretty well so far, but Microsoft could be heading for a disaster that even Bill's billions won't dig them out of..."

You do realize that you are talking about a company that has almost $60 Billion (with a B) just in reserves alone. They are sitting on this money! Add into what they make in revenue and the profit off that.

I know this is an editorial and all and very light on research findings but this paragraph right here struck me as odd:

"The belief within Microsoft's top Xbox executives, according to company insiders, is that the main reason that Xbox has failed to seriously challenge the PlayStation 2 is because Sony had first mover advantage - a gap of a year in which to build up its installed base and convince consumers and industry alike that it was the key platform of the next generation. Hence the urgency around launching Xbox 2 well ahead of its competitors; if, as seems increasingly likely, PlayStation 3 doesn't arrive until late 2006 or even early 2007, Microsoft believes that it will have won a huge competitive advantage by being to market as much as two years earlier. This, the conventional wisdom says, is how Microsoft will crush Sony."

Just because you release a platform before a competitor doesn't automatically make it better. The movie industry is notorious for this. Think back in 1999, The release of Armageddon was very hyped at this time, Hell, McDonalds had a friggin contest for it. However, before that release came this little movie called Deep Impact. It was an OK movie, but lacked some parts. It was rushed, designed to make it out before Armageddon and take a cut into it's sales. The movies had the same premise and theme, but Armageddon destroyed Deep Impact in both the box office and dvd/vhs sales. In this case, Microsfot doesn;t know when Sony will release the PS3. The PS3 is so highly anticipated right now, that developers are already writing games for it, studios have already put aside funds. The same cannot be said for a next generation Xbox.

I am not totally sure on this, but has the Xbox managed to outsell the PS2 in any month except for when the Xbox was first released? When will companies learn that to make a market share, you have to be different. Playstation become popular back in the day because they were disc-based. They were able to hold more space, add better graphics, play music, play full-motion video. But most of all they had the game developers behind them.

I would be very interested to see what Microsfot has to offer that will be different from the rest. It definitly wasn't a 40 GB hard drive. I think this will be great for Sony to see what they can enhance upon for their game system, considering the PS3 has been in development for what? 3-4 years now.. perhaps longer? I think they might have a slight advantage and a better product.

Just my $0.02.

History says this is bad, mmmk.

[schild]

Sega tried this. Remember the dreamcast erhmmm the 32x and THEN the dreamcast?

Remember the CD-i?
Remember the 3D0?
Remember the Atari Jaguar?

These weren't experimental systems. They were meant to beat the big guys to the punch, whether it was Nintendo or Sega back then.

The Dreamcast (still my favorite recent gen system) got trashed by the ps1 and the n64. It keeps me up at night thinking about how much better games for the Dreamcast would have been.

However, if I remember correctly, the PS2 was launched a year before the GC and the Xbox....Hmmmm, no one was naysaying when Sony was planning on doing that, and look at them now - on top by a large margin.

XBox shooting themselves in the foot? Not if they have Ninja Gaiden, a Halo spinoff and other stuff coming out. Oh and backwards compatibility, they NEED backwards compatibility, no matter HOW HARD it is. I'd put some cash, money, hoes on that being the reason the PS2 succeeded as quickly as it did.

Re:No, no, no

[lukewarmfusion]

I'd guess that the average game console life is probably around three years. Whether that comes from the obsolete technology, the natural decline of sales, or the short attention spans of the public (especially those that play video games?), I don't know. Xbox 2 might capitalize on the lull between PS2 and PS3. But you bring up a really good point about the movies - timing isn't everything. Quality means a hell of a lot more.

Microsoft needs to know their place

[Ridgelift]

In other words, studios are being asked to invest in next-generation R&D two years before it's required for PS3, and to spend more money developing an Xbox 2 version of a cross platform title - for an audience of a few million people - than they'll spend developing all three current-generation versions of the game - for an audience of well over a hundred million...

...Herein lies the arrogance; Microsoft isn't used to making decisions as an industry small-fry, and it's trying to act like an industry leader in an industry it simply doesn't lead.

Microsoft is so proud, that they're becoming blind to the fact that their brand name is become a joke in pop culture. Add that to the fact that Sony's PS3 will be a revolutionary CPU design, whereas Xbox2 will only be cutting edge.

Pride comes before a fall, guys (Prov 16:18). Just keep focussed on making something great and forget about the competition; Sony did.

Been here before -- Nvidia?

[Monkelectric]

Isn't this just what Nvidia did? The XBOX is already the most capable console out there, it makes the ps2 look primitive, and it is signifigantly more powerful than the GC but I wouldn't say dramatically so. For years when Nvidia was the only real manufacturer of GPU's, instead of resting on their laurels they pushed ahead and released new products month after month after month. A lot of companies were prevented from competing with Nvidia had raised the bar dramatically. I submit this is exactly what MS is trying to do, raise the bar for Sony, make it more expensive for them, to screw up their PS3 plans, and prevent competition in the general sense.

Re:No, no, no

[Chiasmus_]

The belief within Microsoft's top Xbox executives, according to company insiders, is that the main reason that Xbox has failed to seriously challenge the PlayStation 2 is because Sony had first mover advantage

Isn't this obvious to everyone??! What the hell is wrong with these Xbox executives?

The reason that the Xbox hasn't challenged the PlayStation 2 is that when you walk into a GameStop, there's an entire wall of PS2 games - plenty of good titles, at that - and three little rows of stuff that's either terrible (Outlaw Golf, anyone?) or available on PS2.

The reason XBox hasn't challenged PlayStation 2 is the same reason the Sega Master System couldn't challenge the NES: Despite the fact that the former are superior pieces of hardware, the latter has the best, and most, contracts with game designers.

I think the XBox is a fantastic machine. I've played GTA3 on both XBox and PS2, and it's simply more enjoyable for XBox.

But, as an XBox owner, every time I think "You know, I'd like to play a strategy game.. or maybe an RPG..." all I can do is lament the fact that all the good titles are on the other wall.

Re:backfire, well we'll fire back!

[2057]

what happened to Dreamcast was that Sega had huge losses because of previous failed systems, they didn't have enough capital or games to back their project up. Microsoft has had success with Xbox and I assume that Xbox2 will be a backwards compatiable, and that will ensure previous Xbox users have a home in Xbox2. And as for if PS3 comes out and its deemed better than Xbox2, then guess what, in a year or two XBox3 will be out. Its a one up game.

Re:No, no, no

[Mz6]

I'm not sure you understood me here... I'm applying the PREMISE of releasing movies in Hollywood to the PREMISE of this editorial and releasing game consoles. My comments were that it seems Microsoft is rushing to beat these guys out to take away a market share from others... A kind of gimmick to say "here, try me first". However, if you KNOW a big one if coming down the line, why not wait to see the one that will be the better of the 2? Why even waste your money on the first?

It worked for them before ...

[stinkyfingers]

Given that it's only been a couple years, MS hasn't yet made a profit on it's XBOX venture. But it's got about $60B to wait around for that to happen. As soon as XBOX came out, then Sony knew what PS3 was going to have to look like. PS2 didn't have the integrated hard drive or networking or graphic/computing capabilities. It was made to compete with Dreamcast and N64. So, all those PS2 fans took solace in the game library, which is formidable, but on every other front, XBOX makes PS2 look like a hairy ass-pimple.

I personally would rely on PS3 being a reaction to XBOX1, then crush them into the ground with XBOX2, but then again, maybe that's why I don't run a multibillion $$$ corporation.

Something that was missed

[drsmack1]

What is to stop Microsoft from releasing this at the end of the year and then relasing the NEXT version a few months after the PS3? They would get all the folks who picked up a Xbox 2 looking to get the 3. This would greatly expand their user base. They have a lot of $$$ to throw at this.

Re:Halo 2?

[Apocalypse111]

Halo 2's release date is supposedly set in stone. The guy who announced it had it tatooed on his arm, and was showing it off at E3. After a publicity stunt like that, I don't think they're about to push it back any further - if I had an important event date tatooed on me, I'd make DAMN SURE that event happened on time.

Bigger risk is to wait

[cmacb]

I thought I read AT LEAST two years ago that Sony had all the parts needed to make a Playstation 3 but was holding back due to the fact that there was no competition they needed to whomp at the time. Had XBox done better the PS3 would probably be out there now. I'd love to see the PS3 come out though, since as it was described it might not only be an XBox killer but a PC killer as well.

I hardly see how this move is a "risk" for Microsoft though. The bigger risk to Microsoft is that they just sit on their 50 Billion $ nest egg and wait for the Windows/Office monopoly to dry up. Having shot blanks with just about everything else they have tried, even Bill must be doubting his own genius by now.

If you had Sony to go up against in consumer electronics, IBM in IT consulting and hardware, Google, Yahoo and AOL in Internet space, and Open Software gradually picking up steam against your existing monopoly, wouldn't you be a bit worried? I bet the stock holders are.

Besides, who says the end of 2005 is a rush? In MS time that means 2007 at least.

Online Console Gaming is the Future

[CodeBuster]

It seems to me that Microsoft would do better to concentrate on pressing their advantage in the online console gaming market with their XBOX Live service. This is an area where Microsoft is definitely ahead of Sony, which has left online gaming largely up to the individual publishers whereas Microsoft has concentrated on a single branded and managed service. The XBOX Live network can include a greater variety of content and better integration of online gaming services with the centralized service model. Also, smaller publishers, who would balk at the cost of maintaining their own online console gaming infrastructure, would definitely take advantage of the Microsoft branded service and the marketing support that comes with it.

The next generation console wars will clearly be decided in the online space. If Microsoft concentrates on this then they have a chance.

Re:Backwards compatibility

[Dark Paladin]

Only conjecture, really. We're "pretty sure" the Xbox2 dev kits are Apple G5 computers (savor the irony), and "pretty sure" that there won't be a hard drive - but nothing is set in stone yet, and MS themselves might not really know.

So it just comes down to what they really decide to do. For all we know, they could hard code a Virtual PC chip into the machine that emulates an Xbox1, so it might be a moot point. Time will tell.

Re:Pretty well?

[W2k]

For a company with next to no prior experience in the console business, no reputation for quality in the console market (or anywhere else according to some people), and with so many people associating their name with Windows 95 crashing in yet another BSOD... Yes, they (Microsoft) have done very well. The fact that the Xbox even made it to the "big three" (PS2 and Gamecube being the other two members) is a testament to its success. Microsoft may have big pockets, but no amount of money can make people buy something (unless you pay them more than they have to pay you, which somewhat defeats the point). Considering where Microsoft started (scratch), making their very first console a relative success considering the competition is a fairly remarkable feat.

Re:No, no, no

[Maestro4k]

• Just because you release a platform before a competitor doesn't automatically make it better.

True, and the converse can be true (releasing one later so you know the competition's strategy). One of the things that has never ceased to amaze me about the Xbox vs. the PS2 is that if you want to play DVDs on the Xbox, you have to pay about $40 more to get the DVD playback kit (a remote, an infrared receiver for it and software to install). That's have to, you can't do without it, it won't play DVDs without one. On the PS2 you pop in your DVD and can play it using your controller instead of a remote. You can get a remote if you want (around $20), but it's not a requirement.

While I worked at a Wal-mart in Electronics a while back that was a BIG selling point along with their being more games available. If a customer asked us about the systems we'd tell them the facts. The Gamecube wasn't even considered (even at the $149 vs. $199 price at the time) unless the customer wanted one in the first place because it couldn't even play audio CDs, let alone DVDs at all. In the small town I was in, in right around a year of part-time work, I personally saw hundreds of sales go to Sony partly, or solely, because of the DVD playback issue. The available games could be overcome to some extent, depending on what kinds of games a person might like, but that "free DVD player" bit for the PS2 was an awfully big deal, especially to folks who didn't have a DVD player in the house already.

It's also interesting to note that we rarely ever sold the DVD playback kits for the Xbox. We did sell the PS2 remote fairly regular, maybe 10 or so a month. (Versus maybe 10 or so a YEAR for the Xbox DVD playback kits.)

Re:No, no, no

[Yaa 101]

You do realize that you are talking about a company that has almost $60 Billion (with a B) just in reserves alone. They are sitting on this money! Add into what they make in revenue and the profit off that.

You do not realize that this $60 Billion is paper-money only, there is hardly any cash. All this money is stuck in other people's projects.
It will probably take them 10 - 20 years to be able to cash all their assets if they can at all. If they try this with force then they will loose many billions financing the force.

Also you must realize that a company like MS needs to make a certain amount of money each and every day just to be able to survive.
This is the cost of growing your company beyond certain levels.

They pretty much need to keep thinking of ways to continue their revenue stream.
People only perceive these companies as big and bully and nasty, part of this is because the management of these companies know very well how vunrable their companies really are and try to hide that fact with their bluf.

My Analysis

[Zavatar]

The REAL reasons that the PS2 is numero uno: 1. BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - the previous console leaders (Sega, Nintendo) failed to realize that this simple tactic ensures loyalty and almost guarantees success during the platform transition period 2. 3RD-PARTY SUPPORT - Square/Enix guarantees Japanese market, the strong relationships with EA,Konami,Namco 3. HYPE - the ridiculous BS that Sony spread in the mainstream media "the PS2 is a super-computer that the DoD wants to restrict exports of" made all the idiots out there decide that this machine is the one to get when in reality it is inferior to the older DC in many aspects 4. SYSTEM-SELLING TITLES - GTA, Gran Turismo, Ratchet, etc Sony clearly has more exclusive must-have titles than Xbox or GC The reasons that Xbox is numero dos: 1. FEW SYSTEM-SELLING EXCLUSIVE TITLES - Halo and... maybe Metropolis, Ninja Gaiden but clearly not enough to win the war 2. DESIGN FLAWS - too bulky and big for non-US markets; too expensive - the features that make the Xbox superior also make it unprofitable to build, no chance of seriously under-pricing the Ps2; 3. UTTER FAILURE IN JAPAN Xbox market share in Japan is zero, nullifying its advantage over N in Us/Europe. This makes strong Japanese developer support impossible - yes there are some (Sega, Tecmo, Capcom) but the bulk of Japanese "A" titles are still on the PS2

No, it's about content

[payndz]

VHS beat Beta because more films were available on VHS. PS2 beats Xbox (a technically superior system in every way) because it has more games. Simple as that.

The games don't even have to be good, they just have to be *there*. Nintendo still doesn't seem to have learned this after the debacle of the N64, reasoning that 'a couple of really good games is better than 50 okay-ish ones', not taking into account that most people don't play games to the death, trying to uncover every last secret. Most people play a game for a few weeks, then toss it aside for something new. If there *isn't* anything new, they won't go back to the game they're bored with - they'll just do something else. Or buy a PlayStation(2).

Re:Makes me shudder...

[Gudlyf]

"However, don't most people buy consoles because they want to play games with a high entertainment value and great sound and graphics without the troubles and complexity involved with PCs?"

That's definitely accurate for many people, but additionally one huge aspect of the console that I've liked is the even playing field.

With a PC, framerates can make all the difference in an FPS game. If you don't have the latest and greatest video card, you're BFG fodder. With the current implementation of console systems, everyone has the same framerates, and you're not finding yourself trying to save up for the newest $500+ video card.

The same is true for the CPU speed, amount of RAM, etc. Once you start offering bits and pieces like this, it throws the level playing field off kilter.

Re:Online Console Gaming is the Future

[ThousandStars]

The next generation console wars will clearly be decided in the online space. If Microsoft concentrates on this then they have a chance.

Despite the +1 interesting mod, I reject your premise. I think the abysmal showing (in terms of sales in the overall game market) of virtually every MMO with the exception of Everquest demonstrates that most people aren't that interested in on-line only play. When they are interested, they want free, like Battle.net or FPS servers. I know about 20 people who own an X-Box. Zero of those people use the X-Box Live service.

Online content in the console market faces two important hurdles, in my view: 1) Most American homes lack broadband internet. While broadband continues to grow, the fact remains that modems will continue to dominate in terms of number for the near future. 2) Most console gamers I know prefer to play literally live, against friends in houses, dorm rooms or apartments.

Then there are other things: parents don't want to pay for or set up online games; service outages; increased costs; etc.

Granted, I'm arguing primarily with anecdote, but I've seen no data that indicates that Microsoft can win the next generation with online games. I think that other factors will play a much larger role. Another poster wrote about his experience in the electronics section of Wal-Mart, at which he sold hundreds of PS-2s because of the DVD playback feature. Things like DVD playback and backwards compatibility will probably play such a larger role that the online market alone gives MS a chance. Certainly, they may win the next generation, but I think it will be for different reasons than those you state.

Backwards compatibility

[amacedo]

I think many are forgetting about something that's extremely important. Backwards compatibility.

If Microsoft maintains backwards compatibility with the current XBOX, developers don't have to jump in right away. Instead the hardware potencial will be there and when game technology catches up Microsoft will have a platform already waiting.

Don't forget that that was the major feature for Playstation 2. It might not matter much now, but when developeres are in the process of crossing over, backwards compatibility is all that matters.

Re:Halo 2?

[Exitthree]

As a Mac user and former Bungie fanboy, I will entirely agree that they were better off before being assimilated (and the irony of their founding principals and what finally happened to the company still disturbs me).

However, to avoid being a "me too" poster, I'll add something about Marathon which you have mistaken. You could walk under a bridge in Marathon, as long as the bridge was closed and the inside of the bridge was described in the map as a different set of enclosing polygons from the set outside. Marathon could handle elevation data, but not different levels of elevation in the same column of space...without tricking the engine. A lot of the more complex level designs used this hack to accomplish pretty impressive feats for the time.

Article completely misses the point.

[Thag]

And the point is, Microsoft is still losing money on every XBox they sell, and it's not going to get better for them. They are stuck buying PC parts that don't follow the same price curve as console electronics. For instance, hard drives don't get cheaper, they get bigger, and after a couple years, any given model of hard drive is out of production.

Because of this, Microsoft has to get the XBox 2 out as soon as possible to stem their losses.

The other console manufacturers, from all indications, are still making money on their consoles, so they are not under the same pressure to put out the next generation.

As for compatibility, that will most likely be secondary to "not losing money" in the design of the new XBox.

Jon Acheson

Re:Bigger risk is to wait

[MuMart]

since as it was described it might not only be an XBox killer but a PC killer as well.

Remember all the hype about the PS2 being a supercomputer back in 99?

Then they came out with a quaint 32mb antique PC equivalent. How many times will people believe sonys marketing department?

Re:No, no, no

[Crispin Cowan]

I don't dispute your claims, but you did not provide any sources. I quoted all the data IMDB had. If you think I'm wrong, then do better.

Crispin

Screw Downloading

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck with downloading, I got the new gamepass that blockbuster is offering, and now I get three games a day. With my 250 Gig HDD in the XBox, I'm probably going to get around 100 games on the thing (Seriously, I have 20 games on there now, and I haven't even used 40 Gigs of the space available for game "backups"), plus any that I want to burn to DVD
Also, I use XBox Media Center [xboxmediacenter.de] to have access to all the music (almost every format imaginable), video (ditto), and picture (not quite as extensive, but still amazing) that is on my computers.
So, total investment:
1. XBox - $150
2. Solderless Modchip - $56
3. 250 Gig HDD - $130
4. Blockbuster FlipCard - $50
Total $386
$386 for over 100 games plus a media center pc to boot. Now if I could get PVR functionality, I'd be in complete heaven

Re:History says this is bad, mmmk.

[The Lynxpro]

"The dreamcast got trashed by two things, in my opinion. The first one, which is more or less provable, is Sony's announcement of PS2 specs. They made it look like the PS2 would put the DC down like a dog. Fact is, while the PS2 has greater capabilities than the DC, they are seldom used to their full extent because of the difficulty of developing for the system to that extent. Anyone who can write C can write a PS2 game, but to really use the hardware takes talent. I firmly believe that the second factor was piracy, it was just too easy to copy Dreamcast games. Sega brought out a system with no meaningful copy protection just at the time when it became trivial to download ISOs from the internet, with predictable results."

The Dreamcast failed for a variety of reasons. However, it is chief to remember that the Dreamcast was essentially the Xbox v. 1.0. Many people forget this crucial fact.

The pact with the demon Sega signed up for was the condition that the Dreamcast's operating system would be Microsoft's WindowsCE. Then, behind the scenes, Microsoft manipulated Sega into cancelling its contract with 3dfx to provide the graphics chipset (which became the Voodoo3) in order to use NEC's PowerVR chipset (which was a complete failure in the PC market). NEC had pressured Microsoft into orchestrating the deal considering NEC (at the time) was a major PC vendor and customer of the Windows operating system via Packard Bell. Sega breached their contract with 3dfx (not to mention the fact they were a large shareholder of 3dfx) which cost them a major lawsuit.

Now add to all of that the number of consumers who waited for the PS2 and you can see why the machine failed. But do remember that it was a cheap way for Microsoft to rid itself of a future competitor of console hardware and learn how to work the industry.

marathon's strength was Gameplay/Story, not Tech

[Saltation]

quake always blitzed marathon from the perspective of 3D & realism & so on. but quake was as boring as hell unless you played other humans marathon sucked you in PHENOMENALLY well-designed as a GAME people playing marathon would get physically nervous as they snuck into new areas, shout out loud when they were surprise-attacked by a critter, flee when they heard the critters gathering for attack. awesome game. i fired it up recently on X, of all things, and despite the now-crappy graphics, got badly sucked into it. had to delete it after an hour for the good of my life... :)

Re:doesn't matter

[Archfeld]

A console, be it xbox3.11 or nesMEGA-ULTRA, with conectivity to my pc is the ONLY way I'd ever consider buying one. I realize I am in the minority on this issue, but the current closed game systems remove the best features around a good game, player mods and maps. The lack of control in a console game and environment really bug me. It's like the old quarter arcade, only I have to buy the machine AND PAY a quarter. #1 the console save game standards, I want to save when I want, easily and quickly, not when the developer thinks it is a good time, real life happens and I don't want to sacrifice my present advances because I am not at 'PROPER' save spot.I want to be able to access the game control console and play around, UT servers with no gravity or the accuracy set to wall-eyed drunkard :) Provide that kind of program flexibilty, some control mechanism beyond a game pad (YUCH) and a STANDARD nic interface and I would consider, heck I would have bought an xbox just for HALO. The other big issue I have is related to online play, a company that requires me to verify to play/host a private LAN based based game or requires I play thru their authorized online interface only gets only my scorn and disgust. Farcry is a good example, web access and route to their authentication server is required to host, it would be one thing if they provided dedicated hardware, but this is to even host a private LAN game :(
Convergence has been touted but the corporations can seem to give up one iota of potential profit, control or total ownership of everything involved, they starve everyone rather than have a thanksgiving meal and move onward. Profit is good and right, and it drives the market as it should but KARMA is more powerful, subtle and NOT SUBJECT TO FCC regulations.

Solid lineup...of games you don't need an Xbox for

[analog_line]

Halo - PC version available
KotOR - PC Version available
Prince of Persia - PC, PS2, and GameCube versions available
Splinter Cell - PC, PS2, and GameCube version available
Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow - PC, PS2, and GameCube versions available
Full Spectrum Warrior - Coming out for PC
Halo 2 - Will have a PC version eventually
Prince of Persia 2 - coming out for PC, PS2 and GameCube as well
Doom 3 - If you're playing this on the Xbox...I feel sorry for you.
KotOR 2 - Scheduled to be released on the PC

So that's a grand total of 3 of the 13 games you listed as the "solic" Xbox lineup all scheduled to have or already having a release for a different platform.

Doesn't sound like a super duper reason I need to go get an Xbox, if I can already play 76% of the good Xbox games without needing to buy an Xbox.

Re:No, no, no

[DeadScreenSky]

That may be your view, but Japanese people generally hate all American games. Halo is obscure, and even GTA3 sold pretty poorly over there. If MS can't get Japanese developers on board, they are doomed in the Japanese market.

At last count GTA3 sold a couple hundred thousand copies in Japan, even being a fairly recent release - not the smash hit it was in the West, but far better than the most optimistic estimates by 'the people who should know that stuff'. And not remotely "pretty poorly".

Many Japanese game industry figures have credited Halo's release with finally opening the doors to FPS games in Japan - witness how well the Medal of Honor games sold. Unprecendented, at least prior to Halo...

Sure, Western games overall don't sell that well in Japan. But the suggestion that Japanese people generally hate all American games is complete and utter bullshit.