Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
XBox (Games)

The Successes and Failures of the XBox 99

Posted by Zonk
from the many-and-varied dept.
thegamebiz writes "Amped IGO continues its 'XBox Retrospective Week' with a great two-page feature breaking down exactly where Microsoft went right and wrong with the XBox. From the article: 'Both lists have included hardware and the acquisitions of developers, but both have ended by reverting to the big issue: games...No matter how many impressive technical specs are shoved down our throats we must remember one simple fact: in the end, it's all about the games.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Successes and Failures of the XBox

Comments Filter:
  • Eh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Demona (7994) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @01:10PM (#13980352) Homepage
    "It's all about the games." I didn't buy an Xbox for the games, I bought it for the Xbox Media Center. Of course I had to void the warranty, but I've never used a warranty for anything I've bought anyway.
    • by jclast (888957)
      It's also all about price. Now that I could buy one for a reasonable price ($150) and there are 5 exclusive games I'm interested in (Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic, Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, Fable, Jade Empire, and OddWorld: Stranger's Wrath), it became worth it for me to buy one.

      I'm sure any third party games I pick up from now on will be XBox, too, but it took a while for me to buy it, and price was the biggest player (after all, you can pick up a GameCube with Super
      • by thebdj (768618)
        Ummm...KotoR I and II are both available for your PC. Guess what else, the PC version can be patched to fix the bugs that cannot be fixed in the Console version.
        • by jclast (888957)
          Fable is, too, but I prefer to play in the living room. Give a controller and the couch over an office chair and a keyboard/mouse combo any day.

          My PC is for work; my consoles are for fun. I only play on the PC when a console version isn't available (right now, I only have Syberia, Syberia II, and Civilization III for the PC).
          • by Gulthek (12570)
            Syberia is available for the XBox. But seriously, can you really play through that thing?

            Check out Still Life or Indigo Prophecy.
          • by thebdj (768618)
            So much better and easier control usually on the PC. Not to mention better frame rates and presently better resolutions then your TV. Now if you got yourself a nice HDTV I do recommend game play through a PC on there...played WoW, HL2, and CS: Source on an HDTV before like that....oh so sweet....
        • by Digex (928229)
          You must not own an XBox. The hard drive in the XBox allows auto-updates (more commonly referred to as patch updates).
          • by thebdj (768618)
            Yes, but do you have to pay for live to update games? If not, you realize that many games have ignored this function since they had 0 online capability there was no point in adding a patching system. Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind comes to mind, as I recall it had many problems on X-Box that were PC patched. The same for KotoR I.
      • Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath would have been worth buying an Xbox all by itself.

        The fact that they (Oddworld) are going to get out of video games alltogether made me cry a little bit.
    • Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)
      Don't forget that modern electronics have a warranty that lasts an even shorter time than that new electronics smell. The Xbox had what, 60 days? 90, maybe. About a week after my warranty expired, I cracked open the box and hacked it up. I was lucky enough to get a version 1.1 Xbox with the "good" DVD-ROM (which is now on its way out) and XBMC has been my hero ever since.
      • One year in the UK, with manufacturing defects protected for 7 years after purchase. How do you guys put up with 60 day warranties?
        • Mostly we suffer. You can of course buy an extended warranty but in my experience, most devices you do not mistreat either fail within the short warranty period or don't fail until I stop using them and throw or give them away.
  • by artifex2004 (766107) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @01:35PM (#13980591) Journal
    They had two games that were supposed to be part of the launchday lineup, that were offshoots of the movie A.I. From what little I heard, they were cool, and expanded that universe. But they apparently dumped them because the movie was considered unsuccessful in the U.S.

    I told myself when I heard about the games coming out that I'd be sure to buy the system as soon as they did. Still haven't bought an XBox. Bought a PS/2 instead, after the first price drop.
  • Games... (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Serapth (643581)
    Its funny that one of the biggest reasons for XBox's failure ( and most likely true ), is one of the biggest reason its my favorite console of this generation... Japanese RPG's.

    To this day, I still dont understand the obsession with these games and how they manage to sell consoles. The most lauded console RPG in the last decade has to be FFVII, which I personally couldnt bring myself to finish. I played a handful of other J-RPG's on my PS2, and always came to the same conclussion, its always the same s
    • Re:Games... (Score:4, Funny)

      by StocDred (691816) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @01:52PM (#13980769) Homepage Journal
      Its funny that one of the biggest reasons for XBox's success( and most likely true ), is one of the biggest reason its my least favorite console of this generation... FPS's.

      To this day, I still dont understand the obsession with these games and how they manage to sell consoles. The most lauded console FPS in the last decade has to be Halo, which I personally couldnt bring myself to finish. I played a handful of other FPS's on my PS2, and always came to the same conclussion, its always the same story/characters across different settings with random and mind numbingly boring combat throw into the mix.

      Im sorry, maybe its my age coming into play here ( im 30 ), but the dialogue and especially violence in theses games seem to be written to target a 12 year old. Plots from the games I played were well... um.... I suppose unique is a nice way to say it... non-sensical is probrably a more accurate way to put it. Then again, maybe its because I was raised playing mostly PC based FPSs so I have developed a different mindset and expectations then most console RPG gamers. Then again... I found Duke Nukem fun... but hey wait... I was what, 12 at the time? Makes sense.

      So, as I said, I avoid the XBox exactly because I prefer games outside the FPS mode. Yet, I know im the minority here.

      /Irony

      I trust you see my point.

      • Um... not really irony, just a really bad typo :)
    • Re:Games... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by frederec (911880)

      I have to say this is one of the reasons I'm glad that the Xbox and PS2 had somewhat different markets where they excelled: there are different kinds of gamers with different tastes. It's great that there's a console that had what you wanted. As for me, since I dig those Japanese games, the PS2 is what I have and I've never touched the XBox. All my American RPGs are on the PC.

      Though I will let you know, I've always thought that people who played J-RPGs for the story or characters are nuts. I agree wit

    • So, as I said, I choose the XBox exactly because I prefer games outside the JRPG mode.

      The way you put that is revealing to me. The implication of your statement is that the presence of such games - even if you never purchased one - would weaken the console for you. Presumably this is because you perceive that only a fixed number of strong titles are released for any console and therefore each game in a genre you don't play is bad ? I don't know if this was really true of the XBox or not, but if so it w
      • [q]The way you put that is revealing to me. The implication of your statement is that the presence of such games - even if you never purchased one - would weaken the console for you. Presumably this is because you perceive that only a fixed number of strong titles are released for any console and therefore each game in a genre you don't play is bad ? I don't know if this was really true of the XBox or not, but if so it was a weakness indeed.[/q]

        In a nutshell, that is exactly true. JRPGs were the focus
        • I agree with Serapth on this entire thread-

          I too am very happy that the Xbox was NOT a home for many Japanese RPGs. It made a difference in the culture of the two consoles, and I also think it may have led developers to target a console based on the perceived clientele.

          Games like Top Spin, Crimson Skies, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six...those games interested me. And I think they did well on the Xbox, because of types of games they were, and the type of person who chose Xbox as their primary console.

          Very rar
          • Games like Top Spin, Crimson Skies, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six...those games interested me. And I think they did well on the Xbox, because of types of games they were, and the type of person who chose Xbox as their primary console.

            This thread is absolutely crazy batshit nuts.

            First of all, the games Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six were released for every gaming system under the sun, including PC, GBA and fucking cell phones, so they're hardly some kind of high-concept Xbox exclusive that gave people a reas

            • If you want to play Grand Theft Auto- which console do you buy?

              All the games have come out on the Xbox...but they are always on the PS2 first. If you want GTA- you buy a PS2.

              Now go check your release dates for Splinter Cell and Top Spin on the Xbox and compare them to the PS2...then check the ratings of each game at GameRankings.com. You will see that the dates, and the rankings, aren't even close. Xbox is the superior platform for those games.

              Then go look at the PC version of Crimson Skies...and compare
              • Xbox was indeed the superior platform for these launches. But keep in mind that the xbox came out almost 1 year later than the PS2. There would be a certain amount of advancement in technology compared between these 2 boxes. But despite the difference in power, PS2 continued to perform well. I would love to see how things pan out this time around. It would be interesting to see whether or not can the xbox hold a candle against a console that comes out later than it does.
              • Now wait a minute... it's okay to buy a PS2 (inferior version) for GTA because it comes out there first instead of Xbox (superior version). And it's also okay to buy an Xbox (superior version) for Splinter Cell because it comes out there first instead of PS2 (inferior version). So your chief concern really isn't the quality of the game, it's which console gets it first.

                And let's look at those release dates. Splinter Cell Xbox: 11/02. PS2: 04/03. GameCube: 04/03. That's pretty close, in my book, around 6 m

                • Wait...do you really want to mention Rainbow Six?

                  At Gamerankings.com:

                  Rainbow Six 3 Xbox- 88% (pretty good)
                  Rainbow Six 3 PS2 - 72.1% (even lower if you take out the PS2 fanzines)

                  Rainbow Six 3 was another game that was essentially Xbox only (for the consoles).

                  And another game I liked.

                  Sure...go buy the PS2 version...it just isn't the same. Here is what Gamespot had to say about the PS2 version:

                  Unfortunately, the online multiplayer mode is stripped down from the Xbox version. It supports up to six players in

                  • You're ignoring my point, yet you still manage to prove it.

                    Once again, it is the enhanced online play that differentiates the Xbox, not the game's genre.

                    The original posting suggested that "these types of games" - of which Rainbow Six was mentioned - were indicative of the Xbox's game library and people who liked those types of games tended to stick with the Xbox rather than the PS2. Several people in this thread were complaining about "all the JRPGs" available for PS2 and seem to think that the larger

    • With all those story clichees I wonder if it would be possible to write an algorithm that creates a random JRPG (minus new twist on the combat system, obviously) by combining a number of clichees and whether that would pass the Turing test.
    • I wouldn't say you are a minority. Most RPG's worth playing are PC-based anyway (and even then it's MMORPG's pulling in the millions, not your console-based RPG in Japan). When was the last time you heard about WoW being huge in Japan?
  • by GoNINzo (32266) <GoNINzoNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @01:50PM (#13980758) Journal
    So the Xbox 360...

    SUCCESSES:
    5. VIRAL MARKETING: Check
    4. THE HARD DRIVE: Not the standard in all machines, which is major key to the original xbox. This might lead to a failure of the system.
    3. XBOX LIVE: Check, all your box are belong to us! More invasive than before, even.
    2. NORTH AMERICAN MARKET PENETRATION: Check, maybe, if the supply chain holds up.
    1. THE ACQUISITION OF BUNGIE: Check, sorta, they are still there but without any radical or life changing games in the pipeline. Time to ressurect Marathon?
    FAILURES:

    5. THE "DUKE" CONTROLLER: The new controller is a lot different. Until I actually use it...
    4. THE ACQUISITION OF RARE: This is going into the success column, I think, cause the new games they are working on.
    3. THE CANCELLATION OF TRUE FANTASY LIVE ONLINE: Check, still not there. I'm sure they'll be working on MMO's for xbox 360 though. Hard drive required.
    2. NO ASIAN MARKET PENETRATION: Without a massive games lineup change, I don't see this happening.
    1. LACK OF GENRE VARIETY: On launch, the differences between xbox 360 games and previous gen games is so small, I think this is a major failure.

    We'll see how the launch goes. Not much time left though...

    • Where the hell is the $4 billion loss on that list?
      • Heh it's not a failure if they planned to do that from the start. The xbox had budgeted $5 bil in losses, but were sure they were going to make it a profit by the 2nd year. wait no, 4th. no wait, now. no wait... nevermind, about this xbox 360, huh? It's only a loss leader for the first year, really!
    • As to the controller, ive played with the new one at an EB store, and frankly, I want the duke controller back. It was by far and away the first controller that didnt give me carpal tunnel. Im kinda disappointed it isnt an option with the 360. The dreamcast controller came close, but for some reason with the button layout it seemed to big. Wasnt a big fan of the S controller ( I think it was called ), it was too small and finally the dual-shock would cramp my hands up within an hours playtime. Never di
      • None of my brothers and I are exactly small, all of us are over six feet. You'd have to be a lot larger than I for your hands to not fit the S controller. My brothers and I use it for hours at a stretch and never even notice the controller, it's as if our hands have forged some kind of electronic mind meld with the videogame character. It's that good.

        Second to the S controller is the Gamecube controller, very sweet. Then the Dreamcast controller.

        Any of the playstation controllers are horribly atrocious for
        • The S controller may be fine, my experiences with it are limited to play time at friends. I bought my xbox and extra controller within a month of it being released when the S didnt exist, so its what I got used to. The damned thing fit like a glove ( except the black and white button placement, they were pretty bad ), so when I use an S, it feels small. That said, it doesnt cause me pain like the DualShock does.

          Part that sucks, is the new controller seems smaller then the S. I hope its just the wierd
  • 2 Pages? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hal2814 (725639) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @01:59PM (#13980834)
    This is an on-line article. What do you mean there are two pages? Oh... There's really one one page of information split up to accomodate twice the number of ads. I get it.
    • Re:2 Pages? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cowscows (103644)
      It's also a useful way to split up information from time to time. As much as a love my scroll wheel, I do appreciate not having to spend 10 seconds going back to the top of a page to look at a navigation menu or something that I remembered seeing up there.

      Perhaps you'd find slashdot more enjoyable if they just put put the full text and every comment from all the articles on one big page. Then you wouldn't have to see any more of those ads that help support all this content that so many people participate in
      • While I do agree that are situations where multiple pages might make sense, there is no way all the text of that article wouldn't fit nicely on a single printed page.

        My primary gripe with this article is that there just as much screen real estate devoted to advertising (both of the site itself and of its advertisers) than there is devoted to content. If you have to push that much extraneous content in to publish articles for free, then maybe you should consider another line of business.
  • The purchase of Bungie was important (and irritated quite a few Mac people, myself included), but Xbox Live is impressive. When I am considering whether a game is worth purchasing, I look first for whether the game is Live Enabled. Xbox Live verifies something that everyone should know, human opponents and team mates are more fun than AI. Xbox Live gives real value, because games finally have real replay value.

    If there is any lesson to be learned from the Xbox, it is that people like to play against othe

    • by dividedsky319 (907852) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:20PM (#13981071) Homepage
      If there is any lesson to be learned from the Xbox, it is that people like to play against other people, not computers.

      I disagree. This isn't true for all people.

      If I'm sitting at home playing a game, and someone rings the doorbell, I can pause the game while playing against the computer. Or if something else comes up, I can save and turn the system off.

      You can't do that when playing someone else. (Well, it's not polite to, at least) When I'm playing an online game, I make sure I'll have no distractions and I'll be able to dedicate my time to at least one game of whatever I'm playing.

      When playing single player, or against a friend sitting next to me, you aren't "stuck" finishing a game. I feel bad making others wait, and hate when people do it to me in World of Warcraft. So... playing against a human isn't always better, IMO.

    • Seeing that less than 10% of Xbox owners actually subscribed to Live ever (and we have no idea what number of those only did so for 1 month as part of free bundles) I'd say that the lesson to be learned is that online play really only appeals to a small fraction of console gamers. Calling 10% market penetration (at its best point, much lower at a sustained point) on your killer feature a success is suspicious at the very least. The way they were marketing it and pushing it as the reason to buy an Xbox, I'
      • I'd say that the lesson to be learned is that online play really only appeals to a small fraction of console gamers.

        You still don't get it. Why are we on Slashdot right now posting these messages? That's right I want to interact with my fellow dotters. I'm not just reading this stuff, I'm interacting with the environment. Same principle with XBox Live and online gaming. Kind of like, not every response to a topic is the same the second time around. Your typical Halo 2 or BF2 match is never the same no ma
        • Right- we're on slashdot because we want to interact. Slashdot is a minority of the web. Even then, slashdot is a minority of my web time, I spend most of it just reading. Online gaming is a minority of console gamers. Even Live, touted as the Xbox killer feature, managed to get less than 10% of owners to buy it, despite many free month bundles.

          You compare it to MMOs- mmos are a tiny market compared to gaming overall. Its niche software. The number of gamers willing to pay extra to play online is a
    • My online gaming experiences have been full of kids typing obscenities, people I just can't compete with annhilating me at every turn and being accused of cheating when other players have lag issues.

      I prefer to play against the computer because I can turn the AI difficulty up or down as I choose, it rarely trash-talks me and like others have said, can be paused.

      I play for fun. I don't care if I never get to be a great player. It's not about that for me, and I don't have the time to invest anyway. Halo is a
    • Does M$ need a great MMORPG? Sure.

      M$ just needs to buy Blizzard and be done with it.
  • These "successes" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SetupWeasel (54062) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:05PM (#13980900) Homepage
    Are all overshadowed by the amount of money MicroSoft lost. Look, the Xbox 360 would need to be the most profitable console ever for MS to break even on this venture. No other company could sustain this level of loss. In fact, this sort of business model is precisely the sort of thing that our anti-trust laws should prevent. Microsoft must be paying some politicians a lot of money to overlook the Xbox subsidy in every Windows or Office license the government buys. It is a fucking joke to call this preversion of our economic system a success.
    • What is wrong with a company investing profits from one product in another product it produces? All they're doing is keeping alive a product they think might one day be successful but just needs a little more time.
    • Why do you think the 360 is coming out *now* and not in a year or two?

      Hint: It's not to beat Sony out the door, because Sony wouldn't be releasing the PS3 nearly as soon if not to keep up with Microsoft.

      The Xbox 360 is designed to be inexpensive to build and sell at a profit. Even Microsoft can't afford to lose billions of dollars, especially now that they have to pay out their stash of cash as dividends. So they have to get the newer, profitable version out right away. That's also the only explination for
      • Why do you think the 360 is coming out *now* and not in a year or two?

        Hint: It's not to beat Sony out the door, because Sony wouldn't be releasing the PS3 nearly as soon if not to keep up with Microsoft.

        The Xbox 360 is designed to be inexpensive to build and sell at a profit. Even Microsoft can't afford to lose billions of dollars, especially now that they have to pay out their stash of cash as dividends. So they have to get the newer, profitable version out right away. That's also the only explination for
        • Why do people bother to argue with "estimated" data? Especially when the estimated data has tyipcally been wrong in the past?

          I wish I could get actual numbers, but I can't because nobody releases them. I'd bet money though that the 360 only costs $450 to make in volume. Look at what's in it. Where does the money go?
          • Why do people bother to argue with "estimated" data? Especially when the estimated data has tyipcally been wrong in the past?

            I wish I could get actual numbers, but I can't because nobody releases them. I'd bet money though that the 360 only costs $450 to make in volume. Look at what's in it. Where does the money go?


            Lets assume yrou estimate is right (GDDR3 ram is expensive, so your estimate is pretty off). So microsoft spends $450 dollars to make the system. Now they sell it to wallmart/EB/Circuit city ect
            • GDDR3 ram is expensive, so your estimate is pretty off

              You can get video cards with 256MB of it at retail for under $100. The memory is *not* the most expensive component on those cards. You do realize that the difference between GDDR3 and older technologies (like regular DDR, DDR2 and GDDR2) is that they *simplified* it to make it cheaper to manufacture, right? The reason they don't use it for general purpose PC memory isn't because it's more expensive. It's because they hacked features out of it. It's tota
              • Let's stop right there.

                There is no "standard markup". The markup depends on the product. Typically only "service" products have a markup greater than 100%. 25% is considered excelent for general retail goods. When the PS2 launched, retailers only made $2 in profit per sale. The wholsale price was only $2 less than the retail price. With Xbox, the wholsale price and retail price were identical... No profit. Stores sold them anyway, because margins are high on games and (especially) accessories. That's why st
                • Have you ever worked in retail? Cloths have a 300% mark up, as does anything in food services. Electorinics range from 25% mark up to 300% depedning on the items.

                  Worked retail? Yeah, because joe associate knows shit about how the company makes money.

                  Oh, and yes I've worked retail.

                  BTW, You're just plain wrong. "consumer electronics margins typically average 15%-20%, compared with 25%-30% in other categories [multichannelmerchant.com]".
                  • Worked retail? Yeah, because joe associate knows shit about how the company makes money.

                    Oh, and yes I've worked retail.

                    BTW, You're just plain wrong. "consumer electronics margins typically average 15%-20%, compared with 25%-30% in other categories".


                    I have clothing merchants in the family the mark up is around 300%, as well computer retailers, the mark-up varies. Commodity parts are 5-10% while luxury parts like high end video cards are 20%-30%. Consumer elctronics varies as well, some products are 300% mark
                    • Well, you're right about cabling. Cable prices are rediculous. $300 for a "Monster" DVI cable (Yes, they're $300 at Radio Shack) is probably more like a 3000% markup... I also love how a 6 foot cable can sometimes cost twice as much as a 3 foot cable, even though 95% of the manufacturing costs went to producing and attaching the connectors on the ends... That markup goes mostly to the manufacturer though.

                      Anyway, the markup varies for consoles in the other direction. Just like how the manufacturers expect to
    • Why? It's not like Microsoft doesn't have to compete in order to end up making a profit at the end of the day/year/decade.

      If Microsoft were producing shoddy games, and cornering the market, and being willfully deceptive with their games division, you'd have an argument. But right now they're far from a monopoly, clearly some people must like their games because they're selling, and even though it's bankrolled by the monopoly that is Windows, it's not like Sony or Nintendo don't have the cash to compete, e

      • by ivan256 (17499) *
        Why? [...] But right now they're far from a monopoly [...] even though it's bankrolled by the monopoly that is Windows

        You almost answered your own question. Being a monopoly isn't illegal. Using your monopoly in another sector to force out the competition, thus granting yourself a new monopoly with a different product is. If it weren't, new businesses wouldn't stand a chance, and eventually we'd just end up with one big company that had a monopoly on everything.
        • If it weren't, new businesses wouldn't stand a chance, and eventually we'd just end up with one big company that had a monopoly on everything.

          Which is fine, but I still must ask... and then what?

          We know that Microsoft didn't become a monopoly overnight, but instead happened to become, through marketing and better decisions, the biggest computer company in the U.S. When they illegally destroyed Netscape (and Netscape put out Communicator 4.8) that was a criminal offense. Was it one when the market share wa

          • When they illegally destroyed Netscape (and Netscape put out Communicator 4.8) that was a criminal offense. Was it one when the market share was 50/50?

            Yes, because it was the Windows market share that mattered, not their market share in the browser sector. But the Netscape case is a bad example anyway, because it's way too complex. Good arguments could be made for why Microsoft wasn't guilty there too, and they were essentially convicted based on a technicality (bundling).

            If Sony is also selling boxes at a
            • A lot of products take a while to end up being profitable for a company, it's a fact of business. You gotta spend money to make money. Sometimes the profits come a ways down the line, that's the way it works. It's kind of crazy in this case, because the gaming market is such a huge entity, and you really need a significant presence to stand a chance. So MS has had to spend a whole lot of money to get into the game. I don't think they're really doing anything illegal, immoral, or even unusual with the Xbox,
              • The scale is what makes it questionable. No startup is going to have $4 bil to lose. Most existing companies do not have $4 bil to lose. This is the spirit of the anti-trust laws. How can most start ups and established business compete in a market where one company does not have to play by the rules of profitability? You might say that they are now, but how long does that last? This is the point. It is an unfair advantage. They shouldn't have that advantage.
                • If only startups or companies that can turn a profit from the start are allowed to compete, how are we ever going to get competition in markets where there are already established players? Like the console market.
                  • Whatever. Companies we like can do whatever they want. Screw everyone else. There won't be any consequences to letting companies suppress competition. None at all. We certainly aren't experiencing any of those now. Nope. Everything is going swimmingly.
                    • I don't really know what you are saying, should a company that is a monopoly in one market not be able to enter a new market? Should they not be allowed to make a loss at all in that new market? What is the difference between a company taking risks to establish itself in a new market and it trying to run the existing players into the ground? How can you tell the difference? Where do venture capitalists fit into this? Sometimes startups get money from companies that are in a monopoly position. Not I'm not t
                    • We aren't experiencing any of those bad things in the console market. I've been a mac fanboy for over a decade, so I've got no love for MS, but I can't see anything that they've done to hurt gaming as a whole. The only move they've made that's even upset me a little was buying bungie, because I was looking forwards to seeing Halo on the Mac. But I'm over that.

                      The Xbox has kept sony from completely dominating the market. It's given Nintendo some more room to maneuver. MS has created a quality benchmark for
                    • What is the difference between a company taking risks to establish itself in a new market and it trying to run the existing players into the ground? How can you tell the difference?

                      It's hard to tell the difference. It takes years in court to tell the difference because you're prosecuting intent rather than reality. If there's some internal Microsoft memo or some other sort of proof that their intent was to distroy the competition in order to take over the market, you'd have a smoking gun. If not, and that w
    • Anyone who brings up the fact that XBox 1.0 lost a lot of money misses the fact that Microsoft EXPECTED this. They knew that to establish themselves as a serious player in the console business and to get brand recognition, they would not make money on the first version of XBox. This is not a surprise. I think that Microsoft expects to make money off XBox360, however. Now that the XBox Live infrastructure is complete, they shouldn't have to spend the money they did in R&D for XBox Live 1.0. They hav
  • From TFA: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by travail_jgd (80602) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:18PM (#13981047)
    "It instead competed by traditional means, and made the Xbox a success through its smart business practices, games, and focus on offering a central unified online gaming service."

    Having effectively unlimited funds doesn't hurt either. Unlike other companies, Microsoft had no exit strategy [xboxsolution.com] if the XBox tanked -- other than pouring more money into it.

    I once told a friend that with Microsoft's cash reserves, they could pretty much afford to give away 10-12 million XBox bundles and still have a ton of play money left over. Even if each giveaway cost the company $500-$1000, it wouldn't deplete their cash reserves. What other companies could afford to do that??
    • According to the Reuters report, industry analysts expect Microsoft to spend up to $2 billion on the console over five years.

      The article was posted in December of 2002. I guess the analysts were a bit off!

  • ...I strongly disagree with one of the assertions made. In particular, I am a part of that vocal minority that thinks that Microsoft should have continued selling the big-hands original Xbox controller. Why not just keep selling it? I have gigantic hands, and I was forced to run around buying up used controllers so that I would still have controllers that fit my hands when there were no longer any non-busted original controllers. Also, Microsoft didn't invent a new controller because people were whining ab

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

Working...