J. Allard Predicts Disappointment at 360 Launch

Eurogamer has an interview with J. Allard about the 360's imminent launch. Among other things, he admits that some people will be let down by the console supplies when it goes retail in Europe. From the article: "We decided we're going to take a little bit of heat on allocations, frankly, in all the territories rather than take a lot of heat in one or two territories. So, we're not saying Europe comes four months later, we're saying Europe comes now, but with that combining it with the physics properties of the silicon means we're going to have some disappointment in terms of what we can provide to retail and ultimately to the consumers this year, but that's okay, because we want to get the market started. We want to get started on a worldwide basis, we want to do the right thing for gamers, for our publishers and for consumers."

What a weird interview!

[Dr. Spork]

Allard was basically saying, the whole time, that the won't make nearly enough units and that there will be problems and that the first games will suck and that the press should not descend on them like vultures. Talk about anti-hype! But I think what's important for MS is that they have their marketing machine in gear before PS3 launches (surely with its own set of troubles), and I expect they will.

I predict disappointment for J Allard at 360 launc

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though I have given up attempting to understand the purchasing habits of 'Normal' people, I honestly suspect that Microsoft is putting themselves into a horrible position with the Xbox 360. Microsoft is releasing their system too early (the XBox only launched 4 years ago), they system (and accessories) cost way too much, and the first generation of games (even by Microsoft's own admission) are not of next generation quality.

Even though it is by no means a scientific measure, I have talked to many XBox owners and it doesn't sound too peachy for Microsoft; most of them say that they think the 360 is cool but they have no plans to purchase one. The most common comment I have heard from XBox owners is that the XBox already produces 'good enough' graphics and it isn't worth $500 to upgrade their system.

Well...

[vertinox]

The games look good. Really good... But... To me it feels like the original Xbox all over again. Not to say the original Xbox was fun, but I didn't run out to buy it til it was $149. I feel the same about the new Xbox360 because even though I really want to play the "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" (it just look so damn awesome visually) I don't think it's currently worth the money to be the first to buy it before the holiday.

Maybe quarter2 will be good time to buy and I think many people feel the same way with the wait and see attitude. I don't think this means failure of the xbox, but i think many people are either waiting for a price drop in the console or what Sondy and Nintendo show us first and then make a decision on which console to get.

Odd word choice...

[yammosk]

We want to get started on a worldwide basis, we want to do the right thing for gamers, for our publishers and for consumers.

Anyone else find it odd that Mr. Allard separates the two and thus implies that they are not the same thing? Not a sermon, just a thought.

Re:I predicted this

[Rod Beauvex]

Yet when Sony does this same trick, the unwashed masses beleive there really is a shortage and falls for it.

Re:Well, I tried to RTFA

[Blakey Rat]

"best" is a subjective term. Who says he's not telling the truth? If I said that Marathon is the best FPS game ever, would I be telling the truth? Even if you like Goldeneye better?

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. He didn't say anything "incorrect" or "untruthful."

Re:Well...

[ivan256]

even though I really want to play the "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion"

You know it's shipping simultainlously for the PC, and that it has what could arguably be called it's most important feature (The construction kit and the ability to load third party modules created with the kit) on the PC exclusively, right?

Of course if it's like TES3, the other important feature that will be PC only is the ability to patch.

Re:Ehh... misleading title

[ivan256]

From the interview, it sounded to me like the disappointment was going to be the lack of games when it comes out. The disappointment in quantites is probably going to be on his end when he sees the initial sales figures.

I know dozens of gamers (including myself), and lots of Xbox owners. I know *one* person planning to buy a 360 on release day. Everybody else is either waiting for some good games to come out, or expecting a price drop when the PS3 comes out, and is planning to wait until then.

If you really want one that badly, I expect you won't have too much trouble walking into a Wal-Mart on the 22nd and picking one up.

Re:More dissapointment for publishers

[ivan256]

If we were talking about any other company but Microsoft you probably would have a point. Microsoft, however, seems to know the magic word that keeps developers coming back for more every time the folks up in Redmond decide to sick it to them. It's uncanny. If any other company treated third party developers the way Microsoft does (And I'm talking on all platforms here, Whatever version of Windows you can think of counts), they wouldn't have any developers left.

It's funny, because the third party developers are the only thing keeping people on Windows. In the business world, people buy the platform their application runs on. Until recently (the last 12 years or so) that was SCO UNIX, VMS, DOS, OS/2, DG/UX, Digital UNIX, or HP/UX. End users didn't care which. They bought the one their application ran on. Now application vendors are under the false assumption that if they don't write for Windows, nobody will buy their product. At this rate, that may end up being true... even for Xbox.

Re:More dissapointment for publishers

[@madeus]

Microsoft, however, seems to know the magic word that keeps developers coming back for more every time the folks up in Redmond decide to sick it to them. It's uncanny. If any other company treated third party developers the way Microsoft does (And I'm talking on all platforms here, Whatever version of Windows you can think of counts), they wouldn't have any developers left.

As much fun as most /.'ers have Microsoft-bashing at every available opportunity, that's just not true. As a games company there is nothing to suggest they treat their developers no worse than the competition, in fact probably a lot better than competitors Sony and Nintendo (who have both spectacularly shafted developers).

Microsoft make significant effort in providing SDK's and development resources (knowledge bases, code samples, easy to use libraries) to developers, they are also pretty up front about their plans for the console - if you are sceptical compare them to Sony or Nintendo who are being at best very elusive about their consoles, and in Sony's case telling outright lies about it (just as they did with the PS2).

It's true I find Apple's information a lot more useful (probably knowledge base aside, but it's the developer documentation I'm usually most interested in), but at the same time I find Sun's information a lot worse (it's wonderful if all you care about is re-writing all your existing applications in the latest version of Java - otherwise it's enough to make you want to never develop anything that runs on Solaris, on purpose, just to spite them). In this respect MS are not The Great Evil, they are doing a perfectly competent job.

As much as I prefer Mac OS X (or even just any Unix system) for 'Serious Applications', there are a whole bunch of things (games development particularly) that are a lot easier to do on Windows than any other platform due to the libraries, SDK's and documentation provided by the vendor.

In the business world, people buy the platform their application runs on.

That's true for a comparatively small set of specialist software (on the server side, at utilities companies (power/telco/etc), and for things like financial traders) but not for the vast majority of systems, which are traditional (very dull) desktops.

They run Windows because they always have, everybody else does, and MS Office (particularly Outlook) runs on it - and because it also runs a bunch of other applications they also use (be that Sage, Visio, Visual Studio, MS Project, or whatever floats their boat).

It's a collection of reasons, and if one application on it's own stops being available, people will either stop using it and switch, or if it's really vital to their business, they will by a additional systems dedicated to running it only for those that really need it (and either give those people X11 software on their Windows system so they can access it, or just give them a second desktop).

Now application vendors are under the false assumption that if they don't write for Windows, nobody will buy their product.

That's essentially true though, because if they don't write for Windows most there customers will just switch to an alternate product, rather than switch OS on all their systems (because that would require switching all their other applications too, and IT staff with new skill sets and putting up with lost productivity and additional expenditure of switching to a new system).

If their product is the only one in the market - or is regarded as best by a significant margin - they will have the option to survive for a time with a much smaller user base (though this is almost certainly just a long, protracted death as they won't be able to put enough resources into new development to stay competitive in the long run).

That's the best case likely scenario though, if there is reasonable competition then they will simply die very quickly (probably within 5 years) as everyone jumps ship. It's a lot easier to switch a single application vendor than switch all your desktops, your server infrastructure, your IS/IT staff and all your other software.