Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Moore Dissects State Of The Xbox 39

Posted by simoniker from the splayed-on-operating-table dept.
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to the C+VG article interviewing Peter Moore, Xbox VP and former Sega of America boss. This long, detailed, and intriguing interview covers a lot of interesting ground, such as Microsoft's online service versus Sony's ("Do they [Sony] have a service? Don't they just sell adaptors?"), the longer-term strategy of buying developers Rare ("If I thought by acquiring Rare we'd make all the money back in 12 months, that wouldn't be right"), and even a little more detail about why Microsoft aren't getting into portable gaming right now ("..we believe that the future is the social element of gaming, and that's going to be done through a console, not through a handheld gaming device.")
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Moore Dissects State Of The Xbox More

Moore Dissects State Of The Xbox

Comments Filter:

  • social element (Score:4, Funny)

    by anotherone ( 132088 ) on Thursday June 19, 2003 @11:41PM (#6250550)
    we believe that the future is the social element of gaming

    hahahahahahahahahaha, he said "Social" and "Gaming" in the same sentence. hahahahahahaha

  • Wrong leadership? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CashCarSTAR ( 548853 ) on Thursday June 19, 2003 @11:42PM (#6250556)
    I think Microsoft in general is still far too biased to expect a revoultion.

    Handheld gaming is not competition for the console market. I actually think that Nintendo is on the right track with the GBA, especially with the connectivity with the Cube. Not for playing games together, oh no.

    Imagine a handheld system with a good flash memory, enough to capture a 16-bit game. Furthermore, imagine connectibility with a CD-based system, and the ability to download a game to the portable system. Not to mention, every company throwing an old game or two for downloadable play. Konomi offering the old Contra games, or maybe Laser Assault (remember that?) Maybe with the new TMNT game include one of the NES or SNES games. With Metal Gear Solid, include Metal Gear 1 and 2.

    Furthermore, have the ability to copy over full multiplayer versions of games, to allow full multiplayer with one cart. Not a reduced version of the game, but a full multiplayer-only version.

    Furthermore, I still contend that the purchase of Rare was a mistake. Rare is most certainly a great company...however, I wonder how much Microsoft is going to let Rare be Rare. Just a thought.

    Fable and Halo 2 do not a system make. Of course, MS tends to want to put games like that silly volleyball game or Tao Feng on the same level. Whatever that means.

    • Re:Wrong leadership? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Babbster ( 107076 )
      Furthermore, I still contend that the purchase of Rare was a mistake. Rare is most certainly a great company...however, I wonder how much Microsoft is going to let Rare be Rare. Just a thought.

      If you mean letting Rare be Rare by making good games, I'm sure that Microsoft is not only letting them but encouraging them to do so. If you mean letting them get the game just right instead of rushing, I'd suggest taking a look at other MS development teams and recent history - Crimson Skies was allowed to slip i

      • I would agree with the idea that Halo was rushed. The later levels lack the depth and the "WOW" factor that I felt in the first few levels. They definitely get more repetitive (think Library, as well as others).

        It was definitely good enough, and it was probably the "correct" decision at the time to ship it instead of wait. At that point, XBox really needed a few good titles to get it off the ground, and Halo was needed. On the other hand, now there are enough titles out there that Halo 2 isn't needed t
  • "..we believe that the future is the social element of gaming, and that's going to be done through a console, not through a handheld gaming device."

    I have to say that this is an excellent excuse to give on the matter -- bravo. I mean, sure there are real (good) reasons why MS isn't coming out with a handheld device right now, but Mr. Moore's made-up excuse makes them sound much more confident and visionary.

    Really, I could not come up with a respose like that. I wonder if he wrote it himself.

  • How did Sony win the console war? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cloudless.net ( 629916 ) on Thursday June 19, 2003 @11:44PM (#6250575) Homepage
    - The Playstation was significantly better than the SNES.
    - Sony signed with many game developers. Many good titles were released early with the console. BTW Final Fantasy VII was the deciding factor for my PS purchase.
    - Sony's marketing and brand recognition.

    The Xbox has better hardware than the PS2, however not significantly, at least not in the average users point of view. Although Microsoft spent a lot of money to buy some developers, it is still not getting enough good games. I think the key to Xbox's success would be online gaming, however I think the market is still not enough to make it profitable yet.

    • Re:How did Sony win the console war? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by djNocturne ( 94307 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @01:43AM (#6251153)
      Good point, but online gaming in the console market is finally starting to pick up steam, and will eventually become incredibly profitable. The real question is, for whom? The problem M$ will forever have in winning over online gamers, and the very reason I'm not the least bit concerned about that eventuality, was summarized quite nicely by the man himself:

      "Do they [Sony] have a service? Don't they just sell adaptors?"

      Once again, in Microsoft's alternate reality, a technology system only achieves a full state of Nirvana once it is controlled front-to-back by a single company. Hmmm ... let's see ... when I decide to pay for online gaming, do I want the money should go to, a) the console manufacturer, or b) the publisher and/or development company that worked hard to produce the game in the first place? Also, when some bored little teenage malcontent decides to DoS the gaming network using tools some clever jackass wrote and posted online, or do I want it to, a) take out the entire networking capabilities for every online-compatible game I own, or b) the specific network of a single publisher?

      Isn't Microsoft that the same company that had both their primary and secondary DNS records on the same Class C at one point? Yeah, I trust them to competently administer a monolithic online console network single-handedly.

      The entire issue of the M$ vs. Sony online architectures can be summarized thusly:

      M$ alone controls the "Xbox Live" gate. If a publisher wants to add online capabilities into their game, M$ alone will decide how many, or how few, table scraps to throw them from the table of proceeds. They alone will also decide how much you, the gamer, are going to pay them for the privilege of having only one game-network option when you plug an ethernet cable into your XBox. As with anything M$, "ease-of-use" and "reliability" are the primary reasons given for why we should all bow down to a single network.

      As this shill correctly points out, Sony just sells an adaptor. That's all. Just the hardware that you need to connect. The gaming servers themselves are independent of Sony Corp. (Actually, they will probably run the networks for their own in-house titles ... but then again, so can anyone else.)

      Is a system where you simply plug in a cat5 cable, run a little on-screen config form, and then just start sending M$ money the ultimate in ease-of-use? Sure it is ... in the same way that Windoze XP is easier for my grandmother to run than Linux. But unless my grandma plans on booting up Halo 2 and dumping a 20-gallon drum w00t-ass on you---and if she is, she certainly hasn't mentioned it to me---then I guess I fail to see a market clammoring for dumbed-down simplicity at the expense of choice and some measure of flexibility.

      I, for one, would actually love to see the Xbox continue down this path. It'll send most of the serious gamers (and, by extension, games) over to the online-capable console I actually do own. I'd therefore like to send a shout out to the entire Xbox division. Keep on doing what you do, baby!
      • The beauty of the Xbox Live is this: You pay just one fee for services. If every company is hosting on-line play for thier games, you might have to pay several bills to different people.

        It's easier (And quite possibly cheaper in the long run) to simply have a conslidated system or something.

        I could just be talking out of my ass though. But, this is /.
        • The beauty of the Xbox Live is this: You pay just one fee for services. If every company is hosting on-line play for thier games, you might have to pay several bills to different people.

          That's a valid point, but it goes back to my "who do I want getting my money: the consoler or the people who made the game possible" argument. It actually ends up being equally parts simple principle and enlightened self-interest. I do think that the developer/publishers more deserve to have it, but I also believe that th
    • - Sony signed with many game developers. Many good titles were released early with the console. BTW Final Fantasy VII was the deciding factor for my PS purchase.

      What were the launch titles for the Playstation?
      I bought my Playstation to play Tekken 2/3, Final Fantasy VII, and Resident Evil 2, but NONE of these games were 1st gen titles for the Playstation.

      - Sony's marketing and brand recognition.

      Their brand recognition was nil with gamers. They made the Walkman and overpriced stereo equipment, not game

  • Iraqi Information Minister? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gmhowell ( 26755 ) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Thursday June 19, 2003 @11:50PM (#6250612) Homepage Journal
    I thought the Iraqi Information Minister was working for SCO, not MS. This interview was such a puff piece. Gimme a break. Let me bitch about a few things specifically.

    First, the guy claims to have almost no knowledge of what Sony is up to, and seems nearly proud of that fact! For shit's sake, that's your number one competitor. You think the head of GM doesn't know EXACTLY what Ford is up to? He's either lying (Iraqi Information Minister) or incompetent.

    He claims that MS has 'knocked Sony on its feet'. Uhh... How? You're number two in the US, number three in the world. From what I've read/heard, the only reason so many people bought the Live! thing from MS is that it's just about the only reason (other than Halo) to have the damned thing. One peripheral doesn't make up for a lack of decent games (relatively speaking). Then he speaks of vendor lockin (go through MS's service or piss off) like it's a good thing.

    We're just fine without EA sucking our dick. Yeah. Right.

    We're in a five year or longer development cycle. Hoo, boy, I hope for your sake that you won't be taking much longer than five years for your next console. It's clear from pricing and talking, especially by Sony, that the next consoles are clearly in the works.

    Karaoke is going to be a huge thing. Even thought I just heard on NPR last Friday (on morning edition if you are curious) that that business is hurting. Hard.

    He says the company never backs down. Yeah, why can't I get MS Bob XP?

    "I have bigger fish to fry [than Sony's PSP]" Yeah. Sure you do.

    I'm not saying things are 100% in the shitter for the Xbox. Far from it. But things are not as rosy as this guy presents. The interviewer was about as tough as Barbara Walters.

    • "I have bigger fish to fry [than Sony's PSP]". Heh, yeah. Like the GameBoy, which controls 99% of the handheld gaming market. Which is market control Microsoft has not seen in any of it's product lines, ever.

      The bigger fish you have to fry is Nintendo. And it's not going to be as easy as the Playstation taking control of the console market. For you see, at the time of the PS one's release, the SNES didn't hold 99% of the home console market.


    • He says the company never backs down. Yeah, why can't I get MS Bob XP?


      Ah, but you can, but you can. On any system with Windows XP, open up the Search for Files or Folders tool. The little dog at the bottom is Rover from Microsoft Bob. He even still has the yellow circular nametag on, a tribute to Bob (in Bob, that nametag was the smiley-face-with-glasses logo, although that logo is illegible in XP).

      So yes, the company never backs down...

  • Social (Score:3)

    by Boglin ( 517490 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:07AM (#6250714) Journal
    I contest his notion that console gaming is more social. Handhelds have the ability to be taken anywhere, while the console remains at your home, where it can only be enjoyed by a small group of friends. For more evidence, look at Nintendo's Pokemon, which allowed to kids to battle against each other. Now look at Legend of Zelda: The Four Swords. There is immense social potential in the handheld market; it just seems that Nintendo is the only developer currently trying to exploit it.
    • I think handhelds certainly have some social potentials that consoles and PCs don't - I remember taking a prototype of a Gameboy game I was working out to the park to get feedback on it from some non-gamer friends. But overall, I think screen size is the biggest limitation. For "gather in front of the same screen" playing, a handheld will never match a system that can hook up to a big TV in the living room. For "each player playing on their own screen" socializing, handhelds make it easier to do the equi
  • One thing Xbox is way ahead on, as far as social gaming is concerned, is how people talk to each other. A pretty small percentage of the population converses by typing messages to each other - most humans don't like to type, and they don't like to read as much as they like to watch and listen. People spend more each year to talk to each other on the telephone than they spend on movies, tv, radio, magazines and videogames COMBINED. Talking to each other is big business.

    Xbox gives you a headset microphone

  • "So if you're competing on NFL Fever, do you want to do that on Xbox Live with a controller, or do you want to somehow interact your PC and Xbox together? We believe it's the latter, so things change."

    "Someone's yet to explain to me the value of hooking up your handheld device to your console. If somebody can tell me what the value of that is, I'm all for it."

    I mean, the first one certainly seem to be saying that connectivity between the PC and the XBox is an innately good idea, regardless of application.
  • Step 1: Hire an ex-Sega man and assign him a high-ranking job in your console division.

    Step 2: Unknown. (The rapid and ultimate effectiveness of Step 1 renders any futher testing ... problematic.)

  • Huh? (Score:3, Informative)

    by sandalwood ( 196527 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @02:20AM (#6251284)
    "An MMORPG for a console, which the Japanese market is dying for, and we'll be the first to do it."

    Guess he's never heard of a little company called Square Enix and their little game called Final Fantasy XI.
    • This is weird. It's not like this guy is some gaming virgin pulled out of the MS ranks to fill a position. He's Peter Moore formally of SEGA! I mean, C'mon!
  • "Xbox gives you a headset microphone. People talk to each other the way they like to, with their mouth and their ears"

    I don't know about you, or anyone else, but personally I feel uneasy about sat playing a game with a headset on and chattering away. For anyone that walks in, they're going to think you look like a total muppet. And, it's talking to complete strangers.... it just makes me feel... uneasy. I mean, talking on the phone is different, you more than likely know the person at the other end.

    B

  • "..we believe that the future is the social element of gaming, and that's going to be done through a console, not through a handheld gaming device."

    With everyone living on their mobiles now, why does MS think we need a console for socializing?
  • Peter Moore's been there for less than 6 months and already he's talking out of his ass.
    If I commented on all the innaccuracies he made, I'd be writing a thesis paper.

    Something he's ignoring is PROFIT. Why do you make a product? For PROFIT! For as much as you mock Nintendo for, they still make MONEY. Have they gotten so far into this they've forgotten that CORE ideal? Rare will NEVER, mark my words, make a return equal to a 1/3rd of a billion. Enter The Matrix hasn't yet, and probably WON'T.
  • further proof that ms just doesn't get the gaming subculture.

    ("..we believe that the future is the social element of gaming, and that's going to be done through a console, not through a handheld gaming device.")

    sounds good to the uninitiated though.

Slashdot Top Deals

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.

Close