XBOX 360=Dreamcast 2.0? 452
Tenken writes "1UP has an eye opening article on the many similarities between the XBOX 360 and the Dreamcast. It's actually pretty scary, case in point: both consoles launched a year before their major competitors, and even their logos are incredibly similar. The article also goes on to mention why the 360 will not fail miserably like the Dreamcast. "
The biggest difference is (Score:5, Insightful)
Why 1UP won't be asked to dev the 360 interfaces (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it's because I'm old [33] or something but that article made little and/or no sense to me on any level.
Idiots.
#13 Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Erm...no... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Erm...no... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the article is meant to be taken seriously. It is part of their "launch coverage" (read: we need to fill time). It is interesting to look at, and some of the coincidences are surprising, but I think it is meant as a laugh.
Either way, when you get to the second page, that is when the article becomes more serious. Many of the 10 reasons the XBox 360 will succeed show why a similarity from the previous page isn't so similar after-all.
An example of this is on the first page, they show both the DC and the 360 have a way to connect to the internet (modem, and ethernet) and tout playing against your friends and such. On the second page, they point out the difference between the modem (yeah, you can use it) and XBox Live (already established, successful, high speed, and there is a good broadband penetration).
This is just one of those "Isn't this interesting" articles, sort of like those things about the similarities between Lincoln and Kennedy. While many of them are kind of eerie, many of the similarities are a stretch and you can see people were just reaching for another connection.
Dreamcast: (Score:5, Insightful)
If the xbox 360 can have half the amount of original games that the Dreamcast had, I'm getting one.
And yes, even though I hate Microsoft, Sony has become the new Evil. DRM on *everything* seems to be their goal, and the PS3 will be the ultimate foot-in-the door in their quest to lock down all things digital.
Blu-Ray. Just say no!
Submission was retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
OMG!! Both were white systems when the previous generations were black. Noooz!!!
Calling the PS3 "far superior at this point is rediculous. Mentioning "hi-def" when the Dreamcast was released before there was basically any hi-def sets in homes and when the PS3 is also supporting hi-def is moronic.
The article itself was so fluffy I can't believe it made it to the front page. But hey, if you didn't RTFA in this case it only takes aobut 20 seconds and there's lots of little pictures to help you out.
Re:I just had the same thought yesterday (Score:3, Insightful)
The article mentions that the XBOX 360 controller may be the best console controller ever. I can't see how it's possible. There are some games for which analog sticks are not the apex input device, and the D-pad on that controller looks horrible - it looks like the input on a logitech $9.99 usb controller. As long as the D-pad doesn't have at least a T-bar, instead of the circle of doom, it will never be as good as other controllers for fighting games.
Not to mention, it looks like they've been wishy-washy on what the controller for the left thumb is supposed to be. Is it supposed to be the D-pad, or the analog stick? Ugh. So instead, there's a big blank space where your thumb normally rests, and you have to stress yourself to move to either of the inputs. The buttons look too bubbly to be responsive... I dunno, it just looks like it was designed by marketing people to look slick, and then secondarily to fit the buttons on.
Sorry, but the PSX controller is the best controller ever made. To the point where I use them on my computer with an adapter to play games and emulators. Everything on the ps2 controller feels like it's in exactly the right spot. No controller compares; not the NES, SNES, dreamcast, sega, N-64, gamecube, XBOX, or any controller I've ever used on the computer. I'm not a playstation fanboy (i own a grand total of 3 playstation 2 games, and I didn't buy one of the things until 2 years after it was released), but Sony hit a homerun with that thing.
~Will
Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)
D: Had tons of amazing games...but no Halo 3.
X: Will have Halo 3. And it will be huge.
That point being given to the XBox? To put it bluntly, this is biased crap.
dreamcast was "failed" only for non-owners (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dreamcast was "failed" only for non-owners (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's how you can tell that Dreamcast failed. Instead of making Sega piles of money, it lost Sega piles of money, and it caused them to get out of the console business forever.
Believe it or not, the gaming business isn't about giving you and your friends fun games to play, it's about making money. That's why it's hard to qualify the XBox as a success. The XBox lost more money than any other console in history. Microsoft has lost billions of dollars on the XBox. Heck, it's still losing money on a quarterly basis as Microsoft readies the 360. If the XBox 360 is as big a financial disaster as the XBox then Microsoft investors are almost certainly going to wonder what they are doing throwing their money down a hole.
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. It's biased. The sad part is it's true though.
Put enough money in marketing crap and people will buy it. Halo may not live up to expectations of customers, but it will live up to expectations of sales dept.
Re:The biggest difference is (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how MS has always worked- the first version sucks and loses a ton of money (the Xbox somehow dodged the former), but they do learn from their mistakes when they're actually forced to compete with someone.
I really enjoyed the dreamcast (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The biggest difference is (Score:4, Insightful)
When you start looking at what Nintendo did with the GameCube, you start realizing that it wasn't that Microsoft kicked them out of the second place slot, it's Nintendo failed to execute sufficiently to keep the second place slot.
If they'd designed the GameCube a little differently, say with a DVD drive in it instead of their cutesy discs...
If they'd not gunned for the kiddie games company role (which has always been a failing of Nintendo...)...
If either or both of them happened differently, X-Box would have most likely ended up third. Even then, Microsoft didn't
really kick them, they out bought them. Like the grandparent poster indicated- they basically GAVE the X-Box away, spending more than either of the other two players, just to get that second place. Imagine what would have happened if Sony had seriously opted for that play- Sony's a MUCH bigger company with even deeper pockets.
Re:The biggest difference is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The biggest difference is (Score:1, Insightful)
Sony's got significant financial issues to deal with right now, and they're losing money in pretty much every product except the PS2. Microsoft continues to make more and more profit each quarter. Thanks to a smarter console design, this next time around MS will be able to cut console prices and still make a profit, unlike Sony whose PS3 is looking to be extremely expensive even with Sony's subsidies.
The tables have turned in the gaming industry. Microsoft has learned, and it appears that Sony has reverted backwards. Already Merrill Lynch has called the XBOX360 the early but clear winner in the next-gen race.
I love the Dreamcast (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The biggest difference is (Score:3, Insightful)
I always find it amusing when people slam the Gamecube because it's too kiddy. Invariably, people who make this claim don't own the console. Repeat after me: the [gamezone.com] Gamecube [capcom.com] is [killer7.com] not [eternaldarkness.com] kiddy [soulcalibur.com], despite [ign.com] repeated [activision.com] claims to the contrary [xiii-thegame.com].
Even if you're not looking at M-rated games, there are several excellent games that are enjoyable for all ages, including F-Zero GX, Mario Kart, Metroid Prime 1 & 2, Pikmin, and Viewtiful Joe. I'd also like to see a kid play Ikaruga for more than five minutes before moving on to something easier. Finally, the PS2 has games like Powerpuff Girls Relish Rampage, Monsters Inc., and Piglet's Little Game, while the XBox has such Triple-A titles as Disney's Extreme Skate Adventure, Tom and Jerry: The War of the Whiskers, and Fairly Odd Parents: Breakin' Da Rules. Does that mean that Microsoft and Sony were "gunning for the kiddie games company role" too? Cutesy graphics does not necessarily equal "kiddie games."
Typical 1Up bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
X360: Will have Halo 3. And it will be huge."
How the hell do they know Halo 3 will be huge? If it's like the last one it won't be finished and it won't be a patch on the FPS games the PC has been doing for years.
Who the fuck is bribing the whole games industry into giving the Halo franchise such a cock sucking? It's average at best and nothing revolutionary, why everyone hails these games as the second coming I don't know. And before anyone tells me about Halo 2 on Live, it's full of squealing 13 year olds who call everyone gay when they get fragged.
about this potential X-Box failure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I have to slightly disagree with you there. Firstly, was it actually a "disaster"? Is Microsoft in financial troubles because of it? I couldn't claim to have anything near to exact figures, but I'm nonetheless quite sure that the answer is no, it is not in bad financial shape now because of the X-Box. Just because it didn't make money doesn't make Microsoft instantly broke, and investors know that . . .
Now, I'm usually the first to lambast the system for the encouragement of short-term quarterly gains instead of long-term goals, but I think in this case Microsoft (or, since this is slashdot after all, I should say "M$") has been pretty clear with its goals and the investors are on board with it. The fact that Microsoft is making so much money in every other area is exactly why it needs to go into this area even if it means losing a fraction (perhaps a sizable fraction, even) of that profit; there really isn't much room for growth where it is now. Already with a virtual monopoly, what is "M$" left to do? So what if some money is lost in the short term. It's a sacrifice to get a foothold in an industry that is quite difficult to break through into. But the X-Box is a success because it does show a widespread adoption. It was certainly never intended to make money, it was meant to be successful in the "screw the monetary consideration!.....for now" way. And a foothold in the video-game industry gives the Redmondians a stepping stone for access into the vague but promising directions that digital entertainment is always threatening to soar off into.
The company has grown, and growth is nearly synonymous with success. The profit part can come later. If Microsoft had less of a seriously impressive disposable income, then it would be another story, but the company has the luxury of such (relatively) grand planning.
Naturally, if anyone has facts to back up my arguement (or alternatively, to dismantle it) please do elaborate!
We're talking about Microsoft here (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we're talking about Microsoft here? Remember Windows 1.0?
The Xbox isn't yet supposed to make money. It's supposed to extend Microsoft's market. Then, it's supposed to make money.
Re:The biggest difference is (Score:2, Insightful)
Failing? No. Gunning for the kiddie games is what kept Nintendo at the top of the portable gaming console market for well over a decade.
Re:The biggest difference is (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that the first-time console manufacturer Microsoft could get it's foot in the door on it's first try is huge.
Re:Let us hope it is as easy to mod as dreamcast (Score:3, Insightful)
When you buy a console, yes, it's a one-time loss for MS. But they gain one more tick in market penetration numbers. So instead of going to EA and saying "There's a million Xboxes out there" they can say "There's a million in one". Now, add that tick with all the others, and you have a signficant increase. They can then charge MORE on licensing fees (which is based on total market) and easily make up the one-time loss, and then some.
The formula for console success is:
First party titles x (licensing fees x installed base) - hardware loss
The first two more than make up for the third.
Re:dreamcast was "failed" only for non-owners (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dreamcast was "failed" only for non-owners (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the 360 may do well - easier piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
You are full of crap.... but not "literally" (^_^) (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft did not literally give the Xbox away. When we say stuff like "Microsoft gave the Xbox away", we accept some slight exaggeration being used to make a point.
I can't see any justification for throwing "literally" in there, unless you actually meant "literally". Or perhaps you didn't mean "literally" literally. But I doubt it...
Please don't tell me you were actually referring to Microsoft giving a few of the things away in promotions; we know that's not what you meant
Re:Dreamcast: (Score:2, Insightful)
because then you should say no HD-DVD too because they both use the exact same DRM system.
Except that unlike the Blu-ray Video DRM spec, the HD-DVD Video DRM spec requires publishers of motion pictures to write the DRM license files so as to provide for a modicum of space shifting, even if not the transformative use that the Freeists want.
Re:about this potential X-Box failure... (Score:3, Insightful)
So if Microsoft and Sony are both competing on the DRM and standards front, the only choice you have left is Nintendo. Which is probably where most people find themselves. I for one, however, refuse to limit myself to a system with a bunch of games that make the game designers go nuts but are marketed to 8 year olds. I think Microsoft and Sony both realize that the average age of gamers is not in the teens, but more in the twenties and will likely increase as time goes by. Just like the movies industry where there are movies for adults and for children, I think the games industry will need to fulfill both markets. Nintendo has yet to prove to me they can successfully and consistently hit both markets. For every Splinter Cell there is an Obi-Wan to complement it. Not to mention that there are far few unique adult oriented series for the Gamecube or DS. The company is hit and miss to this age group. Sure, Nintendo can inovate, but all I want are games I enjoy, not the latest and greatest in gameplay mechanics.
I'd also point out (Score:3, Insightful)
Sony was the first company to ever smash in to that and survive. Now they did it at an extremely good time too. Sega's downward slide was in full force with the disaster that was the Saturn. Nintendo pissed off some developers with the announcement that the N64 was cart based (Square essentially told Nintendo FF7 WOULD be on a CD, on the N64 or not) and also miscalculated the kid gamer market, forgetting that many of the kids who had NES's were now older teens or young adults. In to that gap, Sony stepped successfully, the first major player other than Nintendo and Sega since, well, Atari.
Microsoft didn't have nearly so easy an environment to try and compete in. Sony's second gen system was out and people liked it, between Nintendo and Sony there was a selection of games for everyone. For all that, they managed to do it and well enough to edge out Nintendo in market share, and they are now comming back for round 2.
I certianly don't think Microsoft has a lock on the gaming market and the 360 may well prove to be less than they hoped, but to try and write it off because the X-box was costly is silly. Of COURSE it was costly, they were trying to bash in to a market that's extremely hard to get in to. They were also smart enough to know you either go all in or you forget it. To try and just poke at the edges, even if your stuff is superior, and sell an expensive console is doomed to failure.
This is even more true these days in the era of the computer GPU. Time was, consoles were it for high-end graphics. You could spend all the money you liked on a computer, the top dog console would still whack it. No longer the case. At best, a first flight console is as good as new accelerators (the 360 should be roughly on par with upper ATi X1000 and nVidia 7000 series accelerators) and it doesn't take long for comptuers to pull ahead. So those with tons of free cash and the need for the best will go with computer gaming, and not spend tons of money on your specality console.
Re:Typical 1Up bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Halo has brand recognition under its belt. You have to look at Halo in the terms of an iPod to understand why, barring some major screw up, it will always be successful.
Halo is to multiplayer FPS's as iPod is to MP3 players. There are a number of similarities when comparing the two. Halo was not the first multiplayer FPS, we've been doing this on PCs for years. In the same way, the iPod was not the first MP3 player out there. In both cases, it was the technically savvy, the geeks, the "true-believers" that actually utilzed what was existing at the time. iPod and Halo brought this stuff to the mainstream masses, in an easy to use, friendly way.
Now they're a part of culture and they "are" the market they belong to. "Do you have an MP3 player?" gets "um.... I have an iPod!?" Same way with Halo... The thing is you know there's better stuff out there, and I know that there's better stuff out there, but the populous either doesn't know or doesn't care. Plus you have to factor in the fact that Halo was a lot of people's first time... and as they say, you always remember your first.
Halo is multiplayer fps, fragging a bunch of the guys on Friday night, the future of gaming, to much of the population out there. Just like it's fun for us to get together and LAN party, it's fun for them to get together and Halo party. That's why the next iteration of Halo will be successful.
Re:Typical 1Up bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who the fuck is bribing the whole games industry into giving the Halo franchise such a cock sucking?
Well... Halo was fun, not so challenging that I couldn't beat it on Legendary if I felt like playing it through a second time. (I'm not as good at video games as when I had an Atari 2600...) Halo 2 did lots of things that probably should have been in Halo. If you were already a Marathon fan playing Halo you probably felt like you were going from Blade Runner to Star Wars/Trek.
Personally, I think a lot of the Halo fanboys just never played any FPSs before Halo or read any good sci-fi. They're the kinds of people who would flip to the end of an Asimov book to find out where the second Foundation was. It also probably appeals to a lot of people who, honestly, aren't very good at video games because it's a very easy game. The gameplay is a lot slower than Quake, and the missions are much simpler than Half Life.
Bogus, bogus, bogus (Score:5, Insightful)
2. One of the reasons that the Gamecube is so dang affordable ($90 retail here in Canada) is because they left out the ability to play DVDs. Those licenses cost money.
3. The "kiddie" market is extremely lucrative, and Nintendo dominates it. Kids harass their parents constantly about toys. Parents have money. Teenagers and college students don't. Did you ever wonder why 90% of your friends' XBoxes and PS2s are modded?
4. If "Clueless Dad" walks into Wal-Mart looking for a console for his kids, he'll find that the cheapest one has about 200 E-rated games. On top of that, "Clueful Dad" will probably know that this cheap console is so durable that his kids will have to work really, really hard to wreck it before the next generation comes out.
5. Were the 'cutesy discs' really a problem? I can only think of a handful of games that needed to span two discs.
I think that Nintendo is working to convert a bit of its "kiddie" image to a "casual" image. The fact of the matter is, Gates didn't get into the console business because of Sony. He did it because he heard Nintendo had these insane 20% profit margins. Now he cries himself to sleep every night because Nintendo still has 20% profit margins and he's losing a mint.
Re:Typical 1Up bullshit. (Score:2, Insightful)
I feel the same way. I think that is why so many people love it and give it high scores, while PC FPS players like me find it to be average or less then average.
If they have played as much FPS as a lot of PC gamers have, they would probably understand why people like me are not too thrilled with Halo.
Just a different boat (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see it as missing a boat at all. I see it as not needing to spend $10 (or whatever the cost is now) a month for the rest of my life just to play online games... there are a number of PS2 games with online play too; it's just up to the companies to provide the servers instead of Sony. It's that they've chosen a whole different boat to be on.
Personally I like that approach a lot more since I only irregularily play online games now and have come to detest any form of recurring payment. I do realize the benefits of having a centralized service such as comprehensive buddy lists and invites that can appear while you're in the middle of some other game... but I just don't need it, and sometimes I wonder how many other people really do.
I also see the scary things that can happen like your XBox being forever denied entry to Live if it's hacked. To me it does not seem desireable that a company that makes a thing I buy should so easily be able to remove such a degree of value so easily.
Re:about this potential X-Box failure... (Score:3, Insightful)
What other areas are those? The PDA/cellphone area? No, I gotta say, I think they're losing there. The MP3 player area? No, I gotta say they're losing there, too - even though the majority of MP3 players use MS software, many still don't, and even MS employees agree that the iPod is better [wired.com]. The PC peripheral area? No, I think companies like Logitech and Kensington are still beating them there. The PC gaming area? No, id and Valve have got them beat - and if MS hadn't bought Bungie we'd never be able to make the comparison. Maybe you're talking about Microsoft Press? MS' history is fairly interesting, but I doubt they're making a killing off their books.
Name four areas where MS is "making so much money".
I'll help you out a bit. Let's see - there's the OS area, there's MS Office, there's IE. . . oh, wait, that's free. . . what about OE. . . wait, no, that's free too. . . hmm. . .
And Windows and Office are stolen quite often in other countries. Not to mention the fact that Linux, MacOS, Firefox, and OpenOffice.org are gaining ground. If they ever lose Windows and Office, MS won't last long unless they change their money-spending habits.
Re: Probably did fail because of marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcast [wikipedia.org]
Re:I just had the same thought yesterday (Score:3, Insightful)
People like different things. The XBOX controller to me is by far the most comfortable. The button layout just feels perfect to me. Next comes the PS2 controller. Next, GC controller. So now that I have stated my opinion after yours, I must be right!