Xbox 2 to Release in Fall of This Year 765
GamesIndustry.biz has the news that the Xbox 2 will be launched sometime in late fall of this year. With EA games already working on Xbox 2 titles and rumors of a name for the console in circulation, it looks like the first of the next-gen consoles will be here soon. From the article: "Many have expressed concern that Microsoft is forcing the next generation of console hardware too early, and that the current generation still has much to achieve. The most famous example of this came from then Nintendo of Europe MD David Gosen speaking at an ELSPA summit in London last October, where he lambasted Microsoft for pushing a next generation machine to market in 2005, and even went so far as to question Microsoft's motivation as profit." Additionally, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has Balmer saying that they will "blow by Sony" with their next console.
Dreamcast (Score:5, Interesting)
Wanna bet that Sony will once again win with their incredible "wait until we have a good machine" plan?
XBox 2 specs? (Score:3, Interesting)
More power to them. (Score:1, Interesting)
I for one am excited to see the potential, excited for the competition and look forward to the "big 3" duking it out.
I also think its funny how people bash Microsoft for being anti competitive in the PC world and then bash them for being HIGHLY competitive in the Console world.
Not too Early? (Score:2, Interesting)
At this point, if the PS3 is late and/or the Cell chip is hard to write fast code for then the MS early mover advantage could be really bad news for Sony. Of course I think Open Source games will be the killer app(s) that spark the beginnig of a PC gaming reniassance and legal nightmare but that's going to take a couple more years.
PPC games optimization (Score:2, Interesting)
xbox is going to solve both of those. Of course they will still need grpahics card optimization and that will be different on Xbox and Macintosh. But clearly the largest obstacles to mac dominance of the gaming world are being removed. Price of course is not an issue here since a top gaming machine will cost more than an equivalent macintoshes--macs are good values at the high end of the market.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:5, Interesting)
When the PS3 arrives 1 year later, the Xbox 2 will be (much?) cheaper, have a nice line of games, a larger base of players etc. Sure, the PS3 will have slightly better specs, but what will you pick when you're presented with the choice between a 699 machine and a 349 machine? Where everything else (eventually) points to the 349-machine..
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care how good Sony is, $700 price tag for a machine is suicide... Neo Geo anyone? I don't think your scenario is going to be the case...
Your scenario also presumes that XBox 2 is going to have a nice line of games... In order for that to work, M$ needs to squeeze Halo 3 and Halo 4 out of Bungie within a year in order to see any success.
Sorry, but when a single title causes your system to significantly increase profits, it really makes me wonder what the system is really being propped up on. Knock Halo out of the equation and honestly, what is XBox left with?
Re:According to "sources". (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, Nintendo was waiting on the release schedules of these guys to decide when to release the Revolution. They wanted to avoid what happened with the Gamecube by coming out too late. It's expected that the Revolution will be coming out early next year.
All three will be unveiled at this year's E3. If there was ever an E3 to be at, this would be the one (I want to see the new Zelda game).
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2, Interesting)
Now some hard questions for the Xbox people.
1. Will the Xbox be backward compatable.
2. What major developers will there be a launch? Specifically how many games will be out before Christmass 2005?
I do agree that getting their console out early is much better than late, but I do not agree that just because Microsoft has billions in the bank they can afford to fund a looser forever. For every dollar they spend trying to defeat Sony on the PS3, they take one away from fighting Oracle on the DB, Palm and Linux on the PDA market, Apple on music sharing, Google on search engines, and Linux on both the client and desktop. Heck I won't even go in to the other battles like Tivo and cell phones. So yes Microsoft has some major resources but it is foolish to say they will put even 10% of those resources behind the Xbox.
But hey I hope they dump 100% of their resources behind it and let Longhorn slip another few more years.... and they keep ignoring their security flaws and stability in their products.
So in short, this is good for Microsoft, but it all comes down to games and cost, and don't believe for a second that Sony will ship the PS3 over $400. They won't. Heck, at Christmas time I talked to our Microsoft rep about the PSP and he said that he knew it would come out at well over $400, he believe more like $500. Well... here it is and guess what it isn't $400.
Sony is not stupid when it comes to hardware. Microsoft has had major issues when they have not been able to leverage their monopoly of operating systems and office, thus I believe Sony should be scared, but not at the point of rushing out a product.
Lastly my quesiton to Balmer, how few of these new Xboxes need to sell before you call it a complete failure? I want a hard figure for the Christmass 2005 season. To crush Sony you better sell around 20 million of them at least, and to add insult to injury how many of those xbox2 owners will still go out and buy a PS3 the following year? So "if" the hardware is far better on the PS3 then what games will they buy for? You better pray that Halo3 can save the system, or start talking to your stockholders about spending some more of that money in the bank
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree pretty much. I don't think Microsoft really gets it (when have they ever?), but they've got a lot of money to pour into their failure, too.
My main point is that first-out-the-door hasn't meant a sure-fire winner. In fact, I don't think it has in a long time. Nintendo wasn't first out the door with NES or SNES. Sony wasn't first out the door with the PS1 or PS2 (or PS3).
In the end, it comes down to one thing: having all the game houses making all the games for your console.
Microsoft doesn't have that.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically true, and there's a certain % of the market who will get a new OS and slap it on old hardware, but for the most part, people buy the OS w/ their machine and never upgrade.
and unless they deliver backwards compatibility there's not that much reason for a customer to stick with the XBox unless the customer actually likes the product. MS won't have the lock-in they have in the OS market.
There are generally only a few types of differentiators between consoles these days:
1. Console-unique Titles
2. Controllers
3. Form factor of the box itself
4. Bells and whistles like progressive scan and dolby
Fundamentally, a console is different than an OS, in that generations of OS have some consistency to them...it's easier to go from Win98 to WinXP then it is to go from WinXP to OSX, so you're right that there's stickiness there that game consoles don't have.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
These two are non-sequitur. I don't disagree with your first point; Microsoft won't give up that easy. They're too prideful.
But money doesn't buy a successful console. Sony already has the hype engine going strong: multiple super multi-core ultra-fast CPUs in the PS3! Whether this lives up to claims or not, hype is hype. Sony has a lot of things going for them; 2 successful consoles, lots of game houses, features (backward compatibility etc.), and this time they're trying to add hardware superiority to the batch.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, for now.
If, and let's hope that's a big if... If Microsoft wins and ends up with vast marketshare compared to it's competitors (like Sony has now), you'll see their real strategy kick in. Do you really want Microsoft software/hardware/formats/DRM as the technology interface between you and content providers? Do you want the console market to stagnate like the office application/web browser/operating system market has since they started dominating those markets?
Given Microsoft's history with how they've used a dominant market position in the past, there won't be an Xbox2 connected to my television no matter how good it is, lest we end up with a decade of video game technology stagnation.
Re:According to "sources". (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason for buying a console is to PLAY GAMES. Buy games you like, with high replayability, and keep it for 5-10 years. The Atari 2600 was still fun for me in the 1990s.
Re:Blow by Sony? Hahaha (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yet another "next generation" of consoles (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:According to "sources". (Score:2, Interesting)
Unless some game comes along which I consider worth the price of the console + the price of the game, I intend to skip a version generation of PS or X-Box after this next one. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see MS pushing the envelope and keeping the market competitive and interesting.
Re:Ballmer bullshit (Score:1, Interesting)
Nostalgia is a powerful influence on our lives - just don't kid yourself into thinking something is there when it isn't.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft seems to realize this, their strategy seems simple; BUY ALL THE GAME HOUSES!
So far this doesn't seem to have worked to well for them with the exception of Bungie [bungie.net], although I personally think Halo stinks. Rareware [rareware.com] hasn't released a decent game for the Xbox yet, and Microsoft had to shut down/sell their entire Sports division now that EA and Take-Two have shut them out of Football and Baseball. Most of the games I've enjoyed on the Xbox have been put out by Ubisoft [ubi.com], which is still owned by the Guillemot Family and releases most of their games for all consoles(Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil).
Personally (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is Microsoft seems very willing to do things for motivations other than profit. All of Microsoft's divisions except Server, OS and Office are consistent and heavy money losers. The XBox has been no exception. Microsoft doesn't really seem to ever show signs of minding this. If it's for purposes of expansion, no amount of money wasted seems to be too great.
Now, mind you, Microsoft insists they do very much intend to make a profit on the XBox 2. They claim this has been the goal all along, lose money on the XBox, make it back on the XBox2. But as I said, I'd question this. Here's why.
The chief reason the XBox has been such a money loser seems to be the cost of the console. Microsoft went out and bought a bunch of relatively expensive commodity PC components from off-the-shelf companies to build the XBox from, and the result seems to have been a console so expensive to manufacture that no realistic amount of game license sales that a single consumer might generate could recoup the loss from selling them that XBox. All signs are Microsoft has learned at least some lesson from the XBox that they will be applying on the XBox 2. Leaked information so far indicates that Microsoft has dropped the hard drive and will be contracting to more traditional video game console contractors-- like IBM-- rather than trying to buy PC components (important because IBM, since they're geared for contracting, will be able to lower their prices over time, whereas PC vendors, since they're geared for bulk, if anything raise prices over time-- because who, for example, makes 8GB hard drives anymore?). This by itself would indicate Microsoft is finally in a position to start making money-- though they'd have to make an awful lot to recoup the billions in losses from the XBox 1-- since they seem to be taking steps to manufacture a console that isn't sold at a large loss.
But I think Microsoft has given indication they aren't going to be taking advantage of that position. The problem is the release date. Microsoft has been very explicit that they intend to beat the PS3 and N5 to market-- and if this article is right, they'll be beating it to market by a LOT. But they probably realize at some level that whether they do that or not, they're going to have to retain the technical lead. Microsoft's entire strategy this generation has been based almost entirely on having the best hardware and attracting developers and users through that. They can't change strategies that quickly; surrendering the technical lead to Sony means potentially surrendering a huge chunk of their fanbase from this generation at the same time, if Sony shows even a hint of competence in marketing. This presents a problem. With the XBox, Microsoft had the advantage of two years to tinker with their hardware and let technology improve after the PS2 was released. With the XBox 2, Microsoft will be giving (or expect to be giving) Sony as much of an extra year to prepare their console, plus they'll have to overcome Sony's crazy vector processing ways (which were enough the PS2 was able to almost keep pace with the XBox and Gamecube when programmed by experts, despite being two years older). This would mean that they would have to design the box to be [i]so[/i] powerful that PPC or no, Hard drive or no, it's going to be sold at a loss.
If I'm right about this, and Microsoft does continue selling the XBox 2 at a loss anywhere near the scale of the XBox-- this seems to mean Microsoft simply doesn't, and never has, cared about profit with the XBox, their "it'll make money eventually" profits aside. Microsoft can sell at some loss and still make a profit, of course, technically, maybe, but the chances of this are so shaky it shows profit isn't actually a goal-- just a nice
Re:Ballmer bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
And try to imagine Castlevania: SOTN without the wonderful flowing sprite artwork of Alucard. Imagine if he was just a colored square. Would the game really be as enjoyable?
This is not to bash Rez and SOTN; they are very fine games that achieve what they're trying to do. What I'm saying is that a game is an organic experience, and you can't isolate out one element like "gameplay" and say that's all that matters. You're right that graphics for the sake of bland "realism" (like in too many FPSes) are usually not worthwhile; but visuals that are fresh, original and inspiring (like those of Rez) and that work together with the gameplay to create an atmosphere (like SOTN) can be what makes a game worth playing.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Interesting)
The PS3 has been repeatedly confirmed as being backward-compatible with the PS2, but not the PS1. The PS1 isn't that big of a loss at this point; a good reason for keeping a PSTwo around, or getting a PSOne if you're desperate for some reason. We're talking about a gaming system that will be over a decade old here. It's not that it's dead; it's just that continuing backward compatibility would cost more than it's worth.
Killer App is Halo 2 (Score:3, Interesting)
The N64 and Branding (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point, but I contend it's still the brand. I'm not talking "Brand Loyalty," which is what you're referring to. I'm talking brand. What Nintendo failed to do was develop a brand that grew with their audience. The PSX had. Nintendo marketed the N64 to kids. Look at the design of the system; round edges, colorful buttons. Compare that to the PSX. Straight edges. Looks like a CD player that would have fit into with 5 other audio devices on an AV shelf. Which has to do directly with brand.
Even the games have something to do with brand, so I'm not discounting them entirely. But the games on both the N64 and the PSX built into the brands they had established. Mario 64 and Pilotwings catered to the kid image Nintendo was fostering, and Tomb Raider and Ridge Racer to the all growed up PSX image. Brand.
What might have hurt Xbox in round one is that it just was not an established brand. Those who knew about it kept saying (wrongly) that it was just a PC, or that it would bluescreen every five minutes (again: BRAND). Five years later, and it's clear they've mastered image/brand as well as Sony ever did. What do you always see in the tour bus of bands on MTV? Halo and Xbox. What am I always seeing in tuned cars? Nintendos? PS2s? Nope: xboxen.
Which is why round two of Xbox v. Playstation will be more interesting than one. I love Nintendo will all my gaming heart, but I swear to god this lame ass talk of revolution and changing things is the wrong way to go. Well, right as in creating good games - but in terms of winning the war? They're hopeless. And that makes me sad.
Great expectations (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, even the expectation - if it had an impact at all, which I say it didn't - was part of the branding. You said yourself that "everyone knew that Sony had the developers lined up," yet in the beginning Microsoft had nearly as many developers lined up as Sony did save perhaps Square (this is in a pre-GTA3 world where Rockstar mattered). People believed that Sony would bring them good games. Moreover, if game expectation had anything to do with it, gamers expectations for Xbox Live from Microsoft may have countered it slightly.
Listen, I want to say that it's about the games, but that's just not true. Even the expectation of good games for a system is part of branding, image, and identity.
Re:Umm Xbox1 is making money (Score:4, Interesting)
What's more, Microsoft has publicly admitted that this is a one-off financial blip, the Home and Entertainments division will not maintain this performance - by their own admission.
Re:Difference in cultures... (Score:4, Interesting)
Who controls Japan isn't even in question at this point. Nintendo has a better chance of toppling Sony over there than Microsoft does. Hardly anyone owns an X-Box and even Japan-exclusive games for the system sell poorly.
I somehow doubt MS was talking about the Japanese market when they mentioned "blowing by Sony", though. I really expect to see MS drop entirely out of the Asian market in the next console generation and just focus on Europe and North America. If they don't, then they really deserve whatever ill fortune comes their way; the Asian market has made it very clear that they don't like the X-Box and don't want MS in their console marketplace.