Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games)

Does Microsoft Have First-Mover Advantage? 163

Posted by Zonk from the maybeeee dept.
Gamasutra's question of the week feature just finished gathering up reactions to the query "Is the 'first mover' advantage an important factor in launching a next-generation console?" From the article: "For first mover advantage to work, the new platform must have credibility in two areas. First, it must be seen as being a significant technical advance over the current generation, otherwise it has no real purpose in the market. Secondly, there must be confidence in the new platform from both the public and the industry, without this the new platform will struggle to reach critical mass. The second mover can negate the first mover's advantage by having a higher level of credibility in these two areas. This explains the current tone of Sony spin."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Does Microsoft Have First-Mover Advantage? More

Does Microsoft Have First-Mover Advantage?

Comments Filter:

  • Dreamcast (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:46PM (#13075733) Homepage Journal
    Did SEGA have first mover advantage with the Dreamcast?
    • I was just about to suggest the same thing and only hope history repeats itself, only this time with the XBox360.
      • I was just wondering why you want the Xbox 360 to flop? Are you just a jaded saturn fan who wishes every console after the saturn to fail or are you just an @sshole?

        • Re:Dreamcast (Score:3, Funny)

          by Fr05t ( 69968 )
          I'll put my money on "Can't master FPS with a console controller, and his younger siblings spank him in Halo 5 times a day.", or maybe yeah he is an @.
          • Even more fun is getting fragged by your kids (and their friends). At least I know when I go into it that I'm not going to win. Those few occasions when I actually do pull off the upset are even more fun then;-)
      • I know this is probably just anti-Microsoft /. sentiment, but you do realize if Microsoft fails, and Nintendo fails, then Sony is the monopoly in console land.

        Competition is always beneficial to the consumer. I cheer on even systems I don't personally plan on buying because I personally like the benefits competition brings.

        • This is a tad anti-Microsoft but really it's more along the lines that I prefer Sony's offerings and have always respected Nintendo. I am looking forward to the PS3 because the system just appeals to me more with the Blu Ray discs and the NVidia GPU and such. Nintendo seems to be holding their cards close to theri chest but the idea of (legally) playing all the old school games sounds really cool. I am just not as enthused towards the new XBox but I do agree with the prospect that there needs to be competit
        • I agree. I'm a Nintendo fangirl, but I still like the benefits of having 3 competitive systems. Stuff is cheaper (then I think they'ld be otherwise), there are more games (again, IMHO), and each system can cater to a little bit different niche instead of one having to be everything for everyone. I hate the attitude that one system must "win". They can all easily co-exist nicely, making more and better and cheaper games for us. :)
    • "Did SEGA have first mover advantage with the Dreamcast?"

      Yes. But the advantage wasn't enough.

      Advantage != Automatic Win.

      • Re:Dreamcast (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Fr05t ( 69968 )
        "Advantage != Automatic Win."

        Unfortunately for MS, it seems like they believe that First == Win. God knows they will hack and slash out whatever functionality (despite its importance) to ship 360 before the PS3. They already seem to be neglecting their starting line up so they can launch "the good stuff" when PS3 goes on the shelves.
        • God knows they will hack and slash out whatever functionality (despite its importance) to ship 360 before the PS3.

          Care to list any examples of this? The closest I can think of is maybe a HD disc drive, but a built-in hard disk instead is going to give far more of an actual gaming benefit. There's no way the system could come with both and still be reasonably priced.

          They already seem to be neglecting their starting line up so they can launch "the good stuff" when PS3 goes on the shelves.

          Huh? Are you re
      • Yes. But the advantage wasn't enough.

        Actually, based on the critera given, SEGA only had half of the first mover advantage with the Dreamcast. Technologically it was superior to previous consoles, but SEGA had the somewhat recent failure of the Saturn - evidence that releasing superior technology first is not a guarantee of success. They did not have the requisite "confidence in the new platform from both the public and the industry". Instead, SEGA had a small cadre of devoted public and limited suppor
        • Considering the saturn sold 9.2mil units, the dreamcast sold 10.6mil units and the xbox sold 19.9mil units, I wouldn't call the saturn a definitive insurmountable failure or the xbox a difinitive success and excellent launching point.
          *worldwide sales, jan.2005
          *other sales figures of note: PS1 100mil, n64 33mil, ps2 81mil, GC 18mil.
        • Nintendo isn't likely to either, though it is becoming more and more of a niche gaming console than a serious contender for the top market-share.
          Marketshare isn't everything. If my info is correct, Nintendo is making as much profit, if not more, than Sony. Not Sony's gaming division, the entire company.

          If making more profit than your competitors doesn't make you a serious contender, I don't know what does.

    • Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by superultra ( 670002 )
      Coming out first was not what killed the Dreamcast. Sega did not have the "The EA Advantage"(TM), "The SquareSoft Advantage"(TM), or the "We Have Cash Coming Out of The Pores on Our Ass Advantage"(TM). Microsoft has like 2 of those 3, which makes this NOT LIKE THE PAST.

      I hate how anachronistic we are.
    • Not much of a gamer, are ya?

      The Dreamcast had the best/most successful console launch ever at that point in time. It was a smashing early hit. What killed it later was the lack of support from certain major publishers. This is not a problem with Microsoft, they already have those publishers on board.

    • I don't think the Xbox 360 will die the way the Dreamcast did, as Microsoft have proven with Xbox 1 that they are willing to throw as much money as needed to keep their console in the race. They must have made quite a loss in Japan but they are still perservering.

      Sadly Sega didn't get first mover advantage because Sony promised a console so powerful it could render Toy Story in real time and that the Emotion Engine was allegedly classified as a super-computer by the US government and could not be exported
  • The old Atari Jaguar was a highly unsuccessful first mover.
    • It all comes down to the financial backings. Sony has an existing PS2 to backup the PSP and PS3. Xbox has M$ windows to backup xbox360.

      Atari had nothing when Jaguar was coming out. The PSP can sustain itself in the market till Christmas 2005 with no new games, literally.

  • Article's credibility (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dannyitc ( 892023 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:56PM (#13075851)
    Quoted from TFA: You never get a second chance to make a first impression. The Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, and PlayStation were the leaders of their respective generations. They were also the first. Is this guy crazy? First of all, SNES outsold the Genesis on the worldwide market, with the Genesis barely outselling the SNES in the United States. Also, the PlayStation's launch was predated by the Sega Saturn, so the claim that they were the "first" is clearly wrong. Someone needs to work on their fact checking.

    • Re:Article's credibility (Score:5, Funny)

      by Fr05t ( 69968 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @03:15PM (#13076049)
      "Someone needs to work on their fact checking."

      Journalists checking their facts? That's sooooo 1990, get with the times!
    • And the Atari 2600 was hardly the first as well.
      That honor belongs to the Fairchild Channel F [digitpress.com]. That ugly sucker was out about a year earlier...
    • Actually, I believe the Genesis outsold the SNES in worldwide sales. It was quite popular in Europe and Japan. It also wasn't the first out. Turbographx 16 was the first out in that generation.
      • To be really pedantic (in a silly way) there were probably only 10,000 or so genesiss sold in Europe and japan ;) The Genesis was the US version of the MegaDrive (IIRC it was also called Megadrive in Japan).
        Though im not sure , but i do think the _SNES by the end of the 16 bit era was ahead on sales , but it was a rather close race
    • What the article SHOULD say is that coming out first fails if you're Sega

      Or, perhaps, it should say that the key to a winning console is to have Sega release a system right before you.

      Genesis, Saturn, and Dreamcast are the wind beneath SNES, PSX, and PS2's wings.

  • Yes (Score:2, Funny)

    by Gogo0 ( 877020 )
    Yes, of course they do.

    Rushed First out: Saturn
    First out: Dreamcast

    Yes, Sega was in deep financial doo-do for both, but that doesnt matter. Being the first is totally irrelevant to a hype machine (Sony) and franchise loyalty (Nintendo).

    Though if the 360 has any kind of Halo at launch; even a Halo text adventure by Infocom (like it matters, people will think it's innovation), then they have a good chance at getting nearly their entire original Xbox customer base back.
    • Rushed First out: Saturn
      First out: Dreamcast

      You're missing a few steps here.

      Genesis: first to market of the REAL 16-bit generation, it had nearly 2 years lead over the SNES, and still managed to nearly fail. Were it not for Sonic, some impressive 3rd-party developer deals and the 6-button controller just in time to combat the SNES, Sega would have been dead long before the Dreamcast.

      SegaCD, 32x: wasted efforts that just managed to make Sega look inconsistent. The SegaCD had the capacity of the Saturn

  • It's a little bit of everything (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @03:01PM (#13075899)
    One of the main reasons the Xbox did as well as it did was due to Halo. It had one killer app that everyone just needed to have and that you couldn't get anywhere else.

    What will end up making or breaking the Xbox 360 are the games that are available when the product launches. This article [insidepulse.com] has a list of probable launch titles for the Xbox 360. Team Xbox [teamxbox.com] also has a few predictions. The question is, are any of these killer apps that I just need to have and that I won't be able to get anywhere else?

    A quick glance at the list and I know there isn't anything on there that I just have to play right away. Some of you might differ, but to me it looks like a lot of those games are more of the same old that will probably see PS3 versions with the possibility of slightly better graphics.

    The launch titles are especially important for the Xbox 360 because there are still a lot of doubts about the compatibility of Xbox games. Apparently, some explanation has been given [gamesindustry.biz] about hos it will work, but I've heard a few rumors that say backwards compatibility won't be there. If there aren't any games I need to have for the Xbox 360 and I can't play my Xbox games on them right out of the box, then do I really need an Xbox 360 right away?

    The final factor is the price and what I get for it. Sony has called the Xbox 360, the Xbox 1.5, which I won't entirely believe, but does have a few points. Right now it has a plain old DVD drive in it. Where's the next-gen media format support? A recent EGM article hinted that this might be upgradable to HD-DVD if MS feels the need to do it. The Xbox will also serve as a media center, which I really don't need. So is $300 worth the price of admission? Considering that the PS3 is expected to launch for $400 or more and include more next-gen bells and whistles, I might consider waiting for that if I needed a media center. Then again, Nintendo is trying to ship their console for $200 or less. Granted that Nintendo isn't offering an all-in-one package, but it is an affordable gaming console. The only problem is that I'd have to wait almost another year for it to come out.

    As metioned in the article, brand loyalty will certainly play a part in what people decide to do. Since I own all three major consoles, I don't really see myself as loyal to any particular brand. Each has its merits though.

    If I had to make a prediction, I'm going to guess that the Xbox 360 will do quite well in America taking the number 2 spot and picking up market share, but will do poorly in Japan.

    • Strange. As an owner of both a PS2 and an XBox, I openly admit I bought the XBox because the graphics were better, and because it had a hard drive built in, eliminating the need for losable (although portable) memory cards.
    • If you own all three of the current consoles, then what's the problem with waiting a year for the Revolution? It isn't like new games for your current systems are going to dry up that quickly.
    • Where's the next-gen media format support?

      It doesn't exist yet (drives and media aren't available yet). Additionally, games don't need friggin 50gb of space, and access times on first gen games will be deadly slow. Finally, hardware costs and media are drastically more expensive.

      I've heard a few rumors that say backwards compatibility won't be there

      It will be. I heard a rumor that the PS3's explodes the 3rd time you turned it on. Basing buying decisions on rumor and inuendo is dumb.

      So is $300 wo
      • Additionally, if you're into online gaming, Sony STILL hasn't announced their gameplan in that area; Live is probably one of the few things Microsoft got REALLY right with the first gen Xbox.

        If you think they got it right with the first Xbox, then wait until you see the new Xbox Live that's coming out with the 360. I've seen so much about it, actually seen the thing running, seen some of the support things coming with it - this is the #1 thing that's got me so interested in picking up a 360.
      • The only technical "feature" the PS3 has over the xbox is the blu-ray drive

        Neither machines specs have been nailed down. The PS3 will come out after the xbox 360, which means 100% that in many areas it will be technically better. If we can see it or not is another issue. Your speculating that sony won't responde at all to anything Microsoft does.

        Live is probably one of the few things Microsoft got REALLY right with the first gen Xbox

        Live is great. However the vast majority of Xbox owners aren't on liv
        • Neither machines specs have been nailed down. The PS3 will come out after the xbox 360, which means 100% that in many areas it will be technically better. If we can see it or not is another issue. Your speculating that sony won't responde at all to anything Microsoft does.

          By 4-6 months. The major specs have already been announced. Devs are playing with alpha hardware. There won't be any revolutionary changes to the core components in the system. The processor and GPU are tapped out. The only thing I
          • 1.4 million subscribers ... 20 million consoles. Yeah, 7% definately isn't the vast majority. But it is definately a significant number. The rate at which that number is growing is also not something that should be ignored.

            Your numbers betray you, indeed it grows but most people are content with offlien play. As for your example of MMORPG's, they have relatively small user bases when you compare it against the size of the whole market. 3-4 million is pretty much all the MMORPG players in North america/eu

            • Your numbers betray you, indeed it grows but most people are content with offlien play

              People used to say the same thing about cable. Look where it's at now. Once people try online gaming, they're hooked. If you assume an even distribution of gamers for Xbox & PS2 are interested in online gaming, then this would yield a significant increase in market share and initial sales for the Xbox360.

              little under half of them cannot pay anything a month

              If they can't afford $50, they can't afford to purcha
              • There is a difference this time around: Blu-ray isn't "the" established standard. People aren't going to be purchasing them because they want both a next gen movie format + game box -- they don't know which format will come on top. This means that only people who are convinced that blu-ray will come out on top will consider this a good deal.

                Actually, at the time DVD was a new standard and it was competeing with Super VCD's. In asia VCD are still common. The PS2 was often bought as a cheap DVD player for a
                • Actually, at the time DVD was a new standard and it was competeing with Super VCD's. In asia VCD are still common. The PS2 was often bought as a cheap DVD player for a format that was new. In a very similiar way Blu-ray is.

                  I don't have any knowledge of "Super VCD's", nor how people perceived that format, so I can't counter your arguement. Given my lack of knowledge of the existance of that format, however, I would suggest that it probably wasn't well supported in the first place ...

                  The problem with onl
                  • I don't have any knowledge of "Super VCD's", nor how people perceived that format, so I can't counter your arguement. Given my lack of knowledge of the existance of that format, however, I would suggest that it probably wasn't well supported in the first place ...

                    Actually, super VCD and VCD's in general are the prefered format of movies in asia still. DVD's are gaining a foothold but it took a while before the hardware came down in price so everyone can get it. The reason you don't have any info on that f
                    • err... does that mean the majority of your games end in a draw?

                      No, it means that I ended up somewhere in the middle of the rankings.

                      If we have time for games, it mostly offline and we don't crave online play very much, I wish it weren't so myself. Finding good friendly Warcraft 3 matches is hard since all my friends don't play (well, some do but just not against me). I still play bnet, but without the social aspect it's nto as fun.

                      Again, all things that a good online service takes care of for you. Y
                    • Again, all things that a good online service takes care of for you. You should spend no time "looking" for a good game -- a good online service ought to just give you one. A good line service also builds a social aspect into it, forming a community of players.

                      *shrug* As I said before, I think these are solvable problems.

                      Bnet is such a service. I have no problems getting games against players of similiar skill, but "MY FRIENDS" don't play online so I miss that social element. For online play the social in
                    • Bnet doesn't make any attempt to solve the social aspect. If bnet also throws people who can't finish the 1p campaign into a game with a top ranked person, their matchmaking system is broken as well. As I've said, these are solvable problems. Bnet, from what you describe, has not solved them -- hence your poor experience.
                    • Bnet doesn't make any attempt to solve the social aspect. If bnet also throws people who can't finish the 1p campaign into a game with a top ranked person, their matchmaking system is broken as well. As I've said, these are solvable problems. Bnet, from what you describe, has not solved them -- hence your poor experience.

                      what exactly doens't bnet do, it has a ranking system and it generally works. But the minimium skill level required is far high then most nubies have even for lvl 1 play. I play lvl 25-45
                    • They set the level 1 bar too high if someone who hasn't picked up the game before gets the living crap beat out of them by someone "stuck" at level 1.
                    • It also does match ups based on #wins and #losses. But the social aspect of having a lot of losses drove people to start over which messes up the rankings. If enough people don't mind losing 100 times, they'd be paired with people who also lost 100 times.

                      The lvl 47 player I played was very mediochre but he apparently played a lot. This meant his level was high but was correctly paired with me. Sometimes you see match ups liek that and thinkt he system is broken but it compares games played vs level vs win
                    • Yes, that would definately qualify as a very poor matchmaking system.

                      The best ones I've seen are based around an ELO ranking, where your rank increases/decreases relative to who you beat (base don their ranking) and how badly you beat them.

                      The matchmaking system selects people with a similar ELO ranking (there is an acceptable range) and throws them into a match together.

                      You can read about it here, if you're curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system [wikipedia.org]
                    • Yes, that would definately qualify as a very poor matchmaking system.

                      The best ones I've seen are based around an ELO ranking, where your rank increases/decreases relative to who you beat (base don their ranking) and how badly you beat them.

                      The matchmaking system selects people with a similar ELO ranking (there is an acceptable range) and throws them into a match together.

                      You can read about it here, if you're curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system [wikipedia.org]

                      BNET is partially based on that. It tak
              • >>>little under half of them cannot pay anything a month

                If they can't afford $50, they can't afford to purchase a single video game, and they certainly can't afford a console. Oh wait, their parents bought them that stuff? Gee, I wonder what else fits in the xmas stocking ...

                It's the addition of a monthly payment that you have to keep up with that's the problem. Every few months I usually have the money for a used $20 game, but sometimes I don't. If I had had a monthly bill for XBox Live,
                • It's the addition of a monthly payment that you have to keep up with that's the problem. Every few months I usually have the money for a used $20 game, but sometimes I don't. If I had had a monthly bill for XBox Live, I might not be able to buy any more games, and I'ld have to worry about another bill every month I have to make sure gets paid. I think my situation is the kind of situation grandparent poster was talking about.

                  You don't have to pay a monthly bill. They offer a yearly subscription. They ev
      • Where's the next-gen media format support?

        It doesn't exist yet (drives and media aren't available yet). Additionally, games don't need friggin 50gb of space, and access times on first gen games will be deadly slow. Finally, hardware costs and media are drastically more expensive.

        I don't think I've ever worked on a game that didn't max out the available space. Admittedly, I haven't worked on a lot of games. But sometimes you would like to pack-in pregen video and don't have the space, or would like to f
        • Microsoft has said that it will be "selectively compatible," which is to say, it will play Halo and maybe the game you are trying to play. Anyone in the emulation scene can tell you that almost emulated is a nice way of saying not done. Of course, they will have time to finish the emulation later, but that doesn't help early adopters out.

          They're getting the most popular games to work first and working their way down the list. I have a feeling that people are going to be rather surprised by this particula
    • I think that people are overstating the consumer demand for next-generation media format. Granted, high-def movie playback will be nice, but I think it's perhaps a bit too early for the market to embrace that technology. Frankly, standard DVDs are just too popular at the moment (meaning the new format will have to overcome a tremendous amount of inertia). Lots of folks have just purchased their first DVD players in the last few years.

      Not that it really matters to me who wins the console wars... As a g

      • I agree. The difference between standard DVD and the next gen isn't nearly as compelling as the jump from VHS to DVD was. Maybe if you've got a hugemongous HD television, but I don't, and most people that I know don't either. Maybe another five years down the line, but it'll almost be time for another generation of consoles by then.

        The smaller jump from the current standard, not to mention the potential difficulties with the two competing formats is going to slow the adoption of BluRay and HD-DVD. It's not
    • Have to agree with the Halo thing. I had a PS2 but I bought an Xbox only to play Halo. I did end up buying several other games for it but never really cared for them. Eventually I gave it all to my brother and in hindsight, I probably shouldn't have dropped all that money on a console for 1 game (but I had the disposable income to do it at that point), but Halo was awesome to play.
    • There are two things that make me lean toward the 360 over the PS3.

      1) Live 2) Media Center fuctionality

      I've got so much media on my PC that I'd love to get networked into the living room. 360 looks like it will be cheaper than a media center PC, plus it's a console.

      Xbox live already rocks, and added features can't hurt.

  • History has Shown Otherwise (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Being first can be advantageous, but it can also be a downfall. One need look no further then Sega to see the problems it had not only with the Dreamcast, but also the Genesis. Everyone knows the issues the Dreamcast had, but lets not forget how because the Genesis were first to market and technologically inferior to the SNES how it hurt them in the mid 90s. Even as early as 1994, the SNES was pumping out games like Final Fantasy 3, which, graphically, blew most Genesis games out of the water. In the ne
    • I think post-1994 the Mega Drive / Genesis sufferred becuase Sega wanted to push the Saturn far more - in Japan the Megadrive was never that sucessful (note it's lack of Japanese developer support generally), and after the Saturn came out they put all their resources onto that, ignoring the fact that the Mega Drive / Genesis was still quite sucessful in the west. The lack of support from SoJ (both in games, and general management) probably didn't help with MD vs. SNES, as Nintendo were still focused on the
  • Microsoft's first mover advantage is balanced by Microsoft's "we can't put together a good first release to save our lives" disadvantage. I think Sony has little reason to be worried.
    • As if Sony can manage a good release? At least the Xbox had a killer app at launch, what did the PS2 have?
    • "we can't put together a good first release to save our lives" disadvantage.

      This is their second release.

      Your skepticism is healthy, but wrong. MS wants to play, and they don't play to lose, unless they will win in the long run.

      • The Xbox 360 is, for practical purposes, a completely new product.

        As for what Microsoft wants to do, it doesn't really matter. The company has had far more failures (some of them devastating) than successes.

        Even their "successful" products (meaning, non-negligible market share) generally only survive because their Windows monopoly pulls them through. Or do you seriously believe, any significant number of people would pay money for IIS or Access or SQL Server or Windows Media servers/clients if it weren'

  • The Main Factors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CDarklock ( 869868 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @03:12PM (#13076015) Homepage Journal
    I see four major factors going into this question.

    1. Is it compelling? Does it offer anything significant over what I've already got? The Dreamcast gave me a big "No" on that score.

    2. Is it readily available? I *wanted* the PS2 at launch, but Sony didn't ship enough and I got knocked off the waiting list... so I waited well over a year to get one.

    3. Is it worth the price? I didn't buy an XBox at launch, but I bought one when the price dropped below $200. I am impressed enough by the XBox to have the 360 reserved, however, and I fully intend to grab it on the day of release; the XBox is *easily* worth twice the price of a PS2 on construction value alone. (I've completely trashed three PS2 consoles. It says something that I bothered to replace them, though.)

    4. What can I do with it? If the answer is "nothing" -- no games -- I'm not really interested. So backward compatibility is critical. The GameCube was the last console to enter my arsenal, because I didn't have an existing library it could use. The key factor there was a strong used game selection and a few killer games (e.g. Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker).

    That's what goes into my decisions. YMMV.
    • I gotta ask how you completely trashed three of these devices. They're not meant to be played in rain.
      • CD-ROM failures. Laser screwups, alignments, one complete motor burnout.

        Yes, it's properly ventilated. I've had zero problems since getting the slimline version, as well.
    • Is it compelling? Does it offer anything significant over what I've already got? The Dreamcast gave me a big "No" on that score.

      Wow. What exactly were you looking for? The Dreamcast had one of the best starting line ups in American history, and to call it a step up over the Playstation One is selling it extremely short. (PS1 -> DC was a much bigger step than DC -> PS2; I'd say about 3:1, though that's an inherently subjective number.)

      Soul Calibur, Sonic Adventure, Sega NFL 2K, and to a lesser degre
      • PS1 -> DC was a much bigger step than DC -> PS2; I'd say about 3:1, though that's an inherently subjective number.)

        err... DC was the same "generation" as the PS2. IT's liek saying, NES-> Genesis was much bigger step then genesis -> SNES.
      • I'm primarily an RPG fan, as you quite rightly deduce later in your post, and I'm not a big fan of network multiplayer. Don't get me wrong, the Dreamcast was a fantastic piece of hardware, it just wasn't what I personally wanted in a system. I still have a sort of wistful nostalgia about the DC, for some reason, and have been considering picking one up on the used market for no real purpose other than to say I have one.

  • It's not the XBOX that'll lock users, it's LIVE (Score:4, Insightful)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @03:17PM (#13076068)
    If XBOX 360's implementation of Live can pull in enough users, and a few solid titles come along with it ... XBOX 360 should be a success. You see users will not only be invested in the system ... they'll want to remain connected to the friends they're connected to through Live. Since MS is planning on giving away basic Live on weekends for free, they should have a pretty solid connection to users, and I think their first-mover advantage WILL benefit them more than had they just released a game machine without any sort of community component.
    • Actually, I believe that the basic Live functionality, which will include friends lists, video chatting, stats, profiles, updates, simple games, etc. will be free all the time. Only the Gold service, required for online play for title games, will be for-fee, and they have stated that they intend to have occasional free weekends of that service.

    • Re:It's not the XBOX that'll lock users, it's LIVE (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Godeke ( 32895 ) * on Friday July 15, 2005 @04:34PM (#13076851)
      Yes, please... make the primary function the ability to be verbally abused while playing games and the primary upgrade the fact they will be able to flip me off in video as well.

      Wow: Sign. Me. Up.

      • the primary upgrade the fact they will be able to flip me off in video as well.

        Just a hunch, but I don't think people will be using the video for THAT. Although sometimes it may look like someone is holding up a finger, it's not a finger.
      • Yes, please... make the primary function the ability to be verbally abused while playing games and the primary upgrade the fact they will be able to flip me off in video as well.

        Another upgrade is the ability to set your "gamerzone" to Family, which is supposed to have a kid-friendly environment.
      • I think that the downside of total assholes playing on Xbox Live was heavily outweighed by the upside of being almost guarenteed of your firends having a microphone when playing games. Makes teamwork MUCH easier and fun.

        Video isn't as big of a step up, in my opinion, but the whole point is that hopefully you'll have a circle of friends that you'll be playing with that it will be useful for.

  • The number one factor in console sales is the games. It has nothing to do with brand loyalty, significant andvances in technology or quality and reliable hardware.

    Its the games, games, games. XBOX is the most superior current generation console on the market, and it lagged behind an older PS2 simply because Microsoft did not secure enough exclusive titles for the XBOX. MOST titles are either PC ports, or were ported to PC (including Halo), or the titles could be found on other game consoles. The only re

  • Backwards compatbility is also a huge factor.

    People could buy a PS2 risk-free, knowing that they could continue to play all of their old PS1 games and also play the new ones. It was an upgrade instead of a platform change, and people didn't have to choose between running two consoles and not being able to play their old games any longer.

    That's important. It remains to be seen just how good XBox 360's half-assed backwards compatability is - if I can't play ToeJam & Earl III on it, it'll be quite
  • Atari had first-mover advantage on other systems (Intellivision, Coleco), which was huge for them. I felt like an outcast for having Intellivision...

  • Console development is cyclical. To claim any release in the cycle has "First Mover Advantage" is to start the 'calendar' at a point convenient to your argument.

    The only "First Mover" in the console business is Atari.

    That's it. Everyone else is coming out with successive and improved products. The question "Does Microsoft have First Mover Advantage?" belies a lack of understanding for what "First Mover Advantage" is.

    Furthermore, there is nothing revolutionary or "First" at all about the Xbox. It does
  • /. really is turning into the new Gama redirect...

    Can't we just get a sidebar ala Blue's News for this stuff?
  • Nintendo was not the first mover on 16-bit. Sega was.

    Sony was not the first mover on CD-ROMs for games. Sega was. 3DO was second. (CDI doesn't count.)

    Sony wasn't the first into 32-bit, either. Sega was.

    Neither was Sony or Microsoft first into the current generation - Sega came before them again.

    Hell, I'm stretching here, but I should point out that Sega was first into console RPGs and had the first true real-time strategy game, and I bet a large number of the audience couldn't even guess what those
    • The first RTS game on Sega was Herzog Zwei, not Dune II, wasn't it?
    • >I should point out that Sega was first into console RPGs and had the first true real-time strategy game, and I bet a large number of the audience couldn't even guess what those games are. (Phantasy Star and Dune II if you're curious.)

      You're right there, except that the first real time strategy game was Herzog Zwei [wikipedia.org], released for the Genesis in 1988. Phantasy Star was an JRPG, and a great one too for that matter.

  • Why are we still talking about this? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DeltaSigma ( 583342 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @08:19AM (#13080631) Journal
    A console's success is directly tied to its titles. The faster you can get more titles from bigger publishers the more successful you will be. Microsoft's early debut will help simply because they'll be given more time to acquire a greater game library (quantity and quality-wise) than Sony will have at their launch. Microsoft and Sony both have a critical mass of game developers. However, Sony does still have the most licensees.

    Microsoft knows this, that's why they're attempting to release so early. Getting out early is going to put both systems with nearly an equivalent number of quality[1] titles three months after the PS3s launch (which is about the only time we could really start forcasting how this generation's console wars will go). The only way this won't end up with them on a fairly even playing field is if either of them (or their licensed developers) screws up royally.

    Understanding these facts, one can clearly determine that the beginning of the war will be fairly even. Playstation still has a slightly greater number of hard-hitters licensed but Microsoft is closing that gap as fast as they can.

    Even though I will never own an X-Box (OMG TEH M$ IZ TEH SUK! SONEH 4 TEH WIN1), I think Microsoft is going to pull ahead thanks to the developers they've just bought outright. Microsoft's acquiring a nice line-up of in-house developers, while Playstation seems to have forgotten that it was largely their in-house developments like Warhawk, Twisted Metal, etc. that got them ruling during the Playstation era.

    To summarize: It is to Microsoft's advantage to be the first-mover. It does not give Microsoft the advantage.

    [1] - For those that can't guess, I'm not trying to define quality titles in any artistic sense. By "quality" titles I mean games that sell well due to consumer satisfaction not simply hype. I personally find most of these "quality" titles to be average in execution and enjoyability, but my personal tastes don't define the gaming market. To summarize this footnote: Please don't try to argue with me about what makes a quality title. Chances are, I already agree with you.

Slashdot Top Deals

Byte your tongue.

Close