Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
XBox (Games)

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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XBOX 360=Dreamcast 2.0?

Comments Filter:
  • by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Sunday November 06, 2005 @11:47AM (#13962889) Homepage Journal
    I love my Dreamcast. I still play it daily (used the HD output for years to my projectors). Never owned a PSx. I still have (younger) friends who knock on my door all the time to get their Dreamcast fix.

    I also couldn't give up my Intellivision for a Nintendo for 2 years (Metroid finally did it). Graphics hype wasn't enough. My friends with Nintendo came to my house for all-night Intellivision gaming. Playability was tops. I still have my Intellivision for a few games. Love that controller.

    I can't see picking up an X360 for gaming. I own 2 X-Box consoles, 90% for my Media Center Extenders, 10% for my broad's vampire games. Since back in the day, my gaming was PC gaming. Castlevania and Conan, Ultima, Utopia, etc.

    Console gaming for me was never about video hype. I love repeated playability with longevity, and catchy music/sounds. Graphics have always been better on my PC, but I turn them to the lowest settings. We're getting really close to "Life" rather than "Life-like" and when we get there, I'll put graphics near the top once I can truly be reality immersed.

    There aren't many gamers like me, I think. I'm not a market. I spend a TON on hardware, very little on software. I'd love to find a group/site I can communicate with, consisting of people with similar gaming issues.

    Chu Chu Rocket, anyone?
    • by Jonny_eh ( 765306 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:16PM (#13963025)
      Wow, you are sooo interesting! Tell us more!
    • 10% for my broad's vampire games.

      Guess she doesn't read Slashdot, huh?
    • Indeed, the people that accuse Dreamcast of being a "failed" system invariably are those that never had a dreamcast! The system rocked, and had eminently fun & groundbreaking games. If, like me, this is what you want from your console, then the Dreamcast was a smashing success (actually its my favorite console of all time). If, on the other hand what you desire from your console is "the same mediocrity that all your friends have", then the PS2 is your man.
      • by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:33PM (#13963121) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • by ArmorFiend ( 151674 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:42PM (#13963167) Homepage Journal
          Sega is a failed console manufacturer. I suppose that would matter if they'd released the system only to have no games for it, like, say, the 32x. But with Dreamcast apperantly they only had money to either (A) Make Great Games or (B) Market it properly. They chose (A), and that's why you don't see DC owners complaining it is a "failed system".
          • it's just that their marketing sucked, lots. They had the best looking games in existence. Games that look so good there was no comparison. Games that looked so good that only 5th gen ps2 games (and very few of those) compare. So why the fsck didn't they show them off? Instead, we got dumb ass 'It's thinking' commercials with Sonic all 'jammin' to the xtreme!!!' with the NBA. wtf?
          • Marketing had little to do with it, I think. It probably had more to do with all the stuff Sega released in the past and then abandoned so quickly. The Sega CD had a short shelf life, the 32X came and went pretty quickly, and in North America Sega dumped the Saturn as soon as it had a little competition. These were all good systems (maybe not the 32X, I never had one so I can't say) but gamers felt like Sega wouldn't support them to the extent they should have, so by the time the Dreamcast came out, the sen
          • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Sunday November 06, 2005 @02:33PM (#13963722)
            What makes you think the Dreamcast failed because of marketing?

            I knew about it. I bought consoles. Heck, I bought an Atari Jaguar - AND the CD unit! It wasn't like I made my choices based on popularity.

            But I just wasn't interested in the Dreamcast, because while it had some good games it did not have (in my mind) a lot. And the other problem was that for a brand new system, it seemed underpowered. To a lot of gamers that was a point in time where the increase in graphics meant more than they do now. To me the Dreamcast languished because of being slightly underpowered and a trickle of games I cared about.

            In that respect I do think the 360 has some things in common. Not exactly in the graphics where it appears to be about equal, but more in storage with the space-limiting DVD meaning games with wider ranges of graphic content will be released on the PS3. And there just aren't enough interesting games lined up for release yet (the ones that are actually releasing anyway) to make me want to buy the system now, or seemingly even in six months.
            • Sega probably did fail because of marketing. The Christmas season of 2000 was where they totally failed. PS2 had been anounced, but wasn't available. Dreamcasts were plentiful and had tons of great games (Soul Calibur on Dreamcast is still better than PS2 versions). But Sega didn't market it. There were no commercials on TV for it. They didn't tout it as an alternative to waiting for PS2. So no one bought it. Everyone I know who had a Dreamcast loved the games on it (Sonic Adventure, Soul Calibur, J
        • by Phil Urich ( 841393 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @01:51PM (#13963512) Journal
          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.

          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!
          • "The fact that Microsoft is making so much money in every other area"

            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

          • Income is never disposable at corproations only management is. Microsoft made huge claims for the xbox and failed. Now microsoft attempts to rewrite history and pretend it never made the claims that it did make. It was going to generate a huge profit, it was going to capture the majority of the market, it was to be the digital media machine instead the xbox is just a profit vacumn and hype.

            Cycles in consoles exist because the older consoles and games have to be sufficiently out of date to allow a new cons

        • 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.

          It's easy to say the Xbox failed due to the fact that it lost money. However, it's hard to find a 10-year old nowadays who doesn't know Halo. They might also know GTA, but Halo has much less controversy surrounding it and is more likely to hit that critical pre-teen brac

      • Indeed, the people that accuse Dreamcast of being a "failed" system invariably are those that never had a dreamcast!
        Which would explain why most people say it "failed".
      • Go go fanboys. (Score:3, Interesting)

        The Dreamcast was a financial failure and caused Sega to get out of the hardware business. Sorry.

        Were some of the games very good? Oh hell yes. I played the shit out of Phantasy Star Online 1/2 (before cheaters ruined it), Soul Calibur, Skies of Arcadia, and Jet Set Radio. Uh, that was about it though.

        Being mad at Sony for having better sales and in the end a much better game selection just proves you're a fanboy. That "mediocrity" comment will provide me with a chuckle or two when I'm playing Shadow of the
    • My Trunkmonkey can beat up your Trunkmonkey. ;)
    • Yeah, I'm a pretty big Dreamcast fan also. In fact, it's actually my favorite console still with the GameCube coming in a close 2nd. The fact of the matter is that it probably was not the "best" (but what is?) gaming console of all time, but it sure as hell had some kick ass games made for it. The same cannot be said for the Xbox, IMO.
  • by techmuse ( 160085 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @11:50AM (#13962902)
    The slashdot editors were probably not assigning the XBOX 360 to have the same value as the Dreamcast, but rather just doing a comparison. But since they have performed the assignment, the XBOX 360 will fail several years ago, in EXACTLY the same way as the Dreamcast. :-)
  • by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @11:52AM (#13962910) Homepage Journal
    that Microsoft is not coming off an abysmal failure of a console, it's coming from a console that did relatively well. It seems a lot of people were just so tired of Sega constantly releasing overpriced hardware(eg 32x, Genesis CD, Sega Saturn) with a very limited software selection that they just gave up on Sega and wouldn't even give the Dreamcast a try. Of course Sony's overhyped PS2 announcement didn't help either, but I don't think that was the main cause of the demise of the dreamcast. Microsoft(in the realm of video games anyway) is coming off a somewhat surprising hit with the XBox, a relatively long lived console with lots of games to choose from. They could still fail, but I don't think it will be for the same reasons the Dreamcast failed.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      The Saturn was a winner in Japan. It was Sega of America that fucked things up in the US by not releasing the good games and as a result Sega cleaned house after the Saturn.

      And the 32x was Japan but in the US. It was another US Sega fuck up.

      MegaDrive through Saturn were great systems to own, just not in the US.

      The Dreamcast died due to being half a generation behind Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. They were the odd man out and not strong enough to pull that off.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:15PM (#13963023)
      "Microsoft is not coming off an abysmal failure of a console"

      I guess that depends on how you define abysmal failure.

      Microsoft lost $4 billion, equivalent to 10% of their profits over the last 4 years, to come into a very distant and very sloppy second in a market with only 3 competitors.

      Microsoft literally gave the Xbox away. Divide the 4 billion they lost by the average price of the Xbox over the last 4 years and you get almost 20 million consoles - which accounts for almost every console they "sold".
      • by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:45PM (#13963183) Homepage
        Considering that they kicked their most experienced competitor out of that "very distant and very sloppy second", I'd say they did pretty well. Also, you're not accounting for games that tanked (of which MGS financed more than a few) and investments in the Xbox Live infrastructure.

        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.
        • by Svartalf ( 2997 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:52PM (#13963216) Homepage
          Define kicked...

          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.
          • 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...)...

            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 sever

            • I own one and while I don't think it is too kiddie, they DID lend that impression with the GC earlier on because there really wasn't a lot of adult/mature appealing titles out for it when it shipped, unlike the PS2 and X-Box.

              What was available in the "M" category at the first release date?

              Eternal Darkness, I think was mostly it (And a damned good game at that...). Most of the rest of the titles were kiddie style games and a couple of things like Madden Football, etc. There were follow on titles of the "co
          • If they'd not gunned for the kiddie games company role (which has always been a failing of Nintendo...)...

            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.
          • by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @05:23PM (#13964763)
            1. Nintendo is the most profitable of the big three, despite having the smallest share.
            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.
        • by Anonymous Coward
          Nintendo never had an unprofitable quarter this generation. When your competitors are losing $4 billion and you're making money, it doesn't matter how much they outsold you by. You won the console race.
      • Microsoft literally gave the Xbox away.

        which is called dumping, which is normally illegal, but it seems nobody gives a fuck anymore about monopolies and illegal economic practices in this country...
      • But they have very happy customers, whether it's billy who knows GTA looks better on the box than the ps2. Or Tom who uses the media player functionality to play Divx and Mp3.
      • XBOX was kind of like the turning point of WW2 in the eastern front, sure, Stalin lost a LOT of people but it was a strategic victory.

        The fact that the first-time console manufacturer Microsoft could get it's foot in the door on it's first try is huge.
        • I'd also point out (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )
          They are basically only the second company every to succede at that, Sony being the first. After the NES got popular and gaming was revitalized, it was basically a Nintendo-Sega hegemony. Sure there were other consoles, lots of them, but they were all tiny. The PC Engine (TG16), Neo Geo, 3DO, Jaguar, all did just peanuts for business. There was Nintendo on top, Sega with a slowly but surely slipping second place and then maybe someone is a waaaaay distant third.

          Sony was the first company to ever smash in to
      • by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @03:31PM (#13964037) Homepage
        Microsoft literally gave the Xbox away.

        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 :)
  • Erm...no... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kubevubin ( 906716 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @11:53AM (#13962914) Homepage
    I've already read this article, and I don't feel that many of those "similarities" are even relevant. After all, couldn't much of the same be said of other consoles?
    • Re:Erm...no... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kubevubin ( 906716 )

      Actually, allow me to explain...

      #1 - The Xbox 360 is not launching an entire year before its competition; it's launching 4-8 months before its compeition.

      #3 - The Xbox 360 is still bulky.

      #12 - How the Hell do they consider a VMU highly customizable? If nothing else, they could've mentioned the fact that you can change a Dreamcast's shell. Then again, you can do that with pretty much any gaming console.

      #14 - Dreamcast had a whopping three Bleemcast! discs releases, and maybe one or two Smash Packs (d

    • Re:Erm...no... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:07PM (#13962989) Homepage
      I've read this article too (I submitted it to /., but I guess he beat me to it).

      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.

    • This article is, well, pretty much utter crap.

      Similarity #5: ran on a Windows based OS.

      That's completly true, until you remember the fact that very, very few Dreamcast games ran on the Windows CE base. I'm not even sure the official webbrowser did!

      Here's one that really gets me.

      "Sorry Dreamcast fans, but the system's controller really wasn't that great."

      Puh-lease. Look at the pictures! The controllers look nearly identical, save for

      a) an extra stick

      b) no VMU

      c) placement of start buttons

      Or, problem #5. "Wasn
  • by Lord Byron II ( 671689 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @11:54AM (#13962922)
    The same thing occurred to me when I saw the white 360 controller in Walmart. "Is the Dreamcast back?" And then I saw the 360 logo. Interesting...

    • 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-wash
      • So you are countering an opinion with your opinion. God, what morons! You say the PSX controller is the best so now it must be. Way to put that argument to rest!

        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!
  • Because you'd have to be an 8 year old mathematical genius to figure out TFA.

    Maybe it's because I'm old [33] or something but that article made little and/or no sense to me on any level.

  • #13 Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the.Ceph ( 863988 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @11:58AM (#13962940)
    #13 on the list is "Peter Moore spearheaded the marketing" and most of the actual similarities seem like Marketing aspects of it so I think a better headline would read "How Peter Moore's marketing style resembles Peter Moore's marketing style"
  • As someone who recently picked up a second Dreamcast for my nephews,Let me say that I will only pick up an Xbox 360 if a good modding comunity springs up for it.Long after they quit shipping the DC I have found a new life for it playing emulated games with the boys and showing them what we played "Back in the day"

    As DRM and other crap like lawsuits threaten the mod comunity I just hope they remember that cool mods help sell consoles.Half the fun is finding out what you can do with it BESIDES play games.If

    • by jmcmunn ( 307798 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:09PM (#13962994)

      They don't care if your mods help sell consoles. They lose money on the consoles. They make the money on the software and accessories. So, by you modding the console, and buying nothing else (save for maybe a memory card to perform the 'raincoat mod' or something) they get nothing else from you. How is this good for them? Why is Microsoft happy that they sold more Xbox's to people when they lost so much money on each one? If you don't get Xbox live, don't buy games, and never get the latest greatest accessory, then they lose money on you. They couldn't care less that you are running Linux on it, or playing homebrew games that make them no money...

      The only possible benefit is that if you modded their console, you are probably more likely to have modded the competitions console as well, and thus their competitor also lost money on you...

      Now DRM is a little different, I find it annoying in most cases and believe that it doesn't really help stop piracy in most cases. And I am a software engineer, so I can relate to not wanting my stuff pirated. I know a lot of musicians who also beleive DRM is not the right way to solve the problem, we're all just waiting for a better alternative unfortunately.
      • There's another benefit to selling a console that gets modded- it pushes up the installed base numbers they use to make pitches to game companies and crow about their console's success in the media. The whole "I'll buy a loss leader console and never any games for it! Take that, evil megacorporation!" argument is stupid and will never make a meaningful negative impact on MS's bottom line.
      • They don't care if your mods help sell consoles.

        You don't mean that they don't care, right? You mean they aren't going to go out of their way to allow it. I'm sure they don't want you modding it to run Linux, because then, not only have you bought a $700 computer from them for $400 (or whatever the numbers are), but they've lost out on a potential sale of Windows.

      • You don't see how the market works. I've worked in it.

        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
  • by Doomstalk ( 629173 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:04PM (#13962967)
    Has anyone else noticed that 1up excels at taking up 2 or 3 pages of space in their articles, despite never actually saying anything? They read like one of those papers you write in school when you aren't sure what you want to say, but you started writing anyway because it's due the next morning.
  • Obviously (Score:5, Funny)

    by vulcan_pupil ( 718417 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:09PM (#13962996)
    Of course it's true, that's an assignment statement, not a comparison ;). Sheesh.
  • by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:16PM (#13963028) Homepage
    24: They both use electricity. 25: They both have the buttons on their controllers.

    WTF? The stupid article is more fortune-telling than anything else. There's nothing technical or logical about the article. It's basically looking for signs of omens. If Mars is aligned on Venus' right on the launch date, the XBox 360 is bound to succeed....

  • Why it will succeed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by squoozer ( 730327 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:19PM (#13963035)

    They saved the real reason it would succeed until the end. Piles and piles of cash. M$ would all but give the console away to make sure that it succeeded and that is the reason it will do well. People will have $10 worth of anything that is free.

    Perhaps the rest of the PC industry could counter this rise of the console by designing a standard PC spec for gaming. First create a few simple categories. I suggest "PC Gaming Machine 2005 Level 1, 2 and 3". In each category spec out three of four machines (eg one amd with a nvidia, one intel with nvidia, etc) built with decent components. Level 1 machines have top of the range components, level 2 is where most people will be, level 3 is entry gaming. The games publishers could just test their game against these machines specs and get a tick in the "PC Gaming Machine 2005 Level 2 Compatible" (or whatever) box.

    Simple, understandable and doesn't need to cost the Earth.

    • "Perhaps the rest of the PC industry could counter this rise of the console by designing a standard PC spec for gaming. First create a few simple categories. I suggest "PC Gaming Machine 2005 Level 1, 2 and 3". In each category spec out three of four machines (eg one amd with a nvidia, one intel with nvidia, etc) built with decent components. Level 1 machines have top of the range components, level 2 is where most people will be, level 3 is entry gaming. The games publishers could just test their game again
    • The problem with this is that different systems will of course run at different speeds, even if they have the same specs. It all depends on how well someone takes care of their computer.

      For example, my friend has a P4 2.1 Ghz, 512 mb Pc-2100 ram, 80 Gb HD, and a Radeon 9200 (128mb). I, on the other hand, am running on a P3 1Ghz, 386 mb Pc-133 ram, and a Radeon 9200 (128mb). I run Warcraft (and pretty much everything else) MUCH more smoothly.

      • Fair enough, if care for you machine and keep free from malware then yes it will probalby run faster. The point though is that jonny six pack doesn't understand what a processor is let alone the concept of malware.

        By giving them a really simple set of check boxes they can just look down and see if their machine _should_ be able to play the game or not. There is no need for them to learn what a MHz is or how it's defferent from MB etc etc. This could easily take some of the fear out of buying a PC.

  • Dreamcast: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by taxevader ( 612422 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:19PM (#13963038)
    Best. Console. Ever.

    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!
    • I don't understand the no-Blu-ray stance in a post largely complaining about DRM, because then you should say no HD-DVD too because they both use the exact same DRM system. Microsoft is a major proponent of DRM as well.

      I don't think you should be advocating one lizard over another, even if it's not the wrong lizard, it's still a lizard.
  • by Liquidrage ( 640463 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:22PM (#13963051)
    Listing fluffy similarities between two systems isn't "pretty scary". It's pretty easy to do when you set your standards for a similarity at such a meaninglessly low level.

    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.
  • Biased much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndreiK ( 908718 ) <AKrotkov@gmail.com> on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:26PM (#13963084) Homepage
    Hmm, I read it, but then put it down in disgust on reason number 7:

    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.
    • Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SharpFang ( 651121 )
      That point being given to the XBox? To put it bluntly, this is biased crap.

      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.
  • Yikes! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann.slashdot@ g m ail.com> on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:30PM (#13963102) Homepage Journal
    For those who read TFA... did you notice that the Time Magazine shown in #10 [nyud.net] has Bill Gates behind the 360 resembling the all-famous Borg image? *shudder*

    In any case, I'd rather have bill gates selling a famous videogame console rather than forcing a crappy operating system down our throats.
    • In any case, I'd rather have bill gates selling a famous videogame console rather than forcing a crappy operating system down our throats.

      Just what operating system do you think will be making the XBOX 360 tick?
  • rulr0z (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:32PM (#13963111)
    / You seem to try to create a gaming \
    \ console. May I help you?           /

            \     ____
             \   / __ \
              \  O|  |O|
                 ||  | |
                 ||  | |
                 ||    |
    • Best comment I've seen here in years :)
    • Re:rulr0z (Score:2, Funny)

      by 3770 ( 560838 )

      Great comment. It took me a while to figure it out though.

      So, to those that don't get it. That's clippy from the office suite.

      I'm afraid that you have created a monster though. This will be the new beowulf, natalie portman, hot grits, soviet russia plague.
  • ahead of its time... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ares Halcyon ( 632312 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @12:41PM (#13963153)
    So, if one of the biggest problems faced by the original Dreamcast was that is was ahead of its time for some of its features like online play, then I'd say the timing for the 360 is just about perfect!
  • I saw the 360 yesterday at Best Buy. Honestly, I wasn't all that impressed. It looks like they gave it a video card upgrade and put it in a new shell. It had a FPS war game demo on it (can't remember the name, maybe Medal of Honor 2? The game is out on the current gen's consoles). Naturally, there were a bunch of people around it because it's The Next Big Thing(R) supposedly. Same controller, new video card. I can get the same experience by putting a new video card in my computer, at equal or lesser
  • I was displeased with the sega saturn, i think that was a turn off for alot of people for the dreamcast. I really enjoyed the dreamcast, i spent countless days playing tony hawk pro skater, sonic, GTA 2, powerstone, Marvel vs capcom etc, when they said they were no longer going to support it, it was very disappointing, the graphics were good, i enjoyed the controler (compared to the N64 which i hated) I think giving up the gamesystem was a mistake for the dreamcast, they finally got one that people actuall
  • by craXORjack ( 726120 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @01:00PM (#13963252)
    Mountain Dew is in no way similar to Pepsi. Drawing a parallel between the two is absolutely ridiculous. Mountain Dew is gathered by hand only from the freshest clover leaves in the unspoiled Smokey Mountains of Tennessee. It was the official drink of the original olympic games. It is versatile. It can substitute for blood plasma during emergencies or natural disasters. Pepsi, however, is nothing but sugar water with brown food coloring.
  • by Okeeblow ( 928833 )
    TFA seems to really be picking on the Dreamcast, but I always loved it. Its controller is still my favorite. To this day I use it to play some amazing games via the VGA box, such as Sonic Adventure (the last really great Sonic game), Seaman, or Jet Set Radio.
  • by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @01:30PM (#13963404) Homepage
    The article also goes on to mention why the 360 will not fail miserably like the Dreamcast.

    Marketing ?
    and deeper pockets.


    There's also a big difference between DreamCast and Microsoft's consoles :
    - DreamCast : runs home brewed software out-of-the-box (although on CD-R and not on GD-ROM).
    Some free developpement kits where available for it (KallistiOS [allusion.net])
    Some were even blessed by Sega (some *BSD)

    - Xbox 1 : DRM filled shit. You must put Mod-Chip inside or exploit bugs to be able to do whatever you want to do with a piece of hardware you paid for.
    Microsoft has even tried to stop this, either suing Lik-Sang for providing mod-chips, or trying to lock user with software exploits out of XBox Live.
    Developpement has only been possible on the XBox because it is basically a repackaged PC architecture and because the Windows based software is filled with bugs. Developpers have asked to be provided keys to sign software for unmodded X-Boxes but no answers from Microsoft

    - Xbox 360 will surely have even more DRM barriers against homebrewer. And isn't PC architecture anymore


    BTW: DreamCast is not *powered* on Windows CE, but *compatible* with Windows CE. (according to the sticker).
    In fact, most of the commercial games are designed using Katana (Sega's own proprietary system),
    and most homebrewed software us KallistiOS.

    XBOX runs a modified Windows 2k and Microsoft is putting a great deal of efforts to be sure that nothing else runs on it.
    • That's right; weren't there only like a handful of games for the Dreamcast that actually used Windows CE (and if I recall, didn't most of those games suck)? Is there any truth to the idea that Microsoft's main concern was getting the PERCEPTION out there that Microsoft had something to do with it, maybe to clear the way for users to be more open to the idea of a Microsoft console a little while later?
      • by The Vulture ( 248871 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @03:08PM (#13963924) Homepage
        I started at Sega just before the launch of the Dreamcast, so I don't know the entire story (or even if this one is completely true). Nonetheless, this is what I heard:
        The team at SOJ (Sega of Japan) didn't want to make their own OS for the Dreamcast. They were uneasy about it, but chose Windows CE, as I guess they figured that it was similar enough to Win32. The fact that Microsoft was able to demo Internet Explorer on the Dreamcast was probably a big bonus, given Sega's desire to make the Dreamcast a big thing on the Internet.

        However, as time went on, SOJ noticed that Windows CE was big and bloated and full of bugs. There was developer backlash. Sega's own software development teams (AM) needed something better, especially if they were to make full power of the Dreamcast (there was an arcade system that was basically a Dreamcast on steroids, although the name escapes me now). Thus, Sega of Japan started to develop their own low-level operating system for the Dreamcast. By the time that this happened though, the contract was in place with Microsoft for Windows CE - part of the contract was that Sega had to make WinCE available to all developers and stamp the logo on the unit.

        My own observations:
        Most of the developers in the United States and Europe used Sega's OS - it just provided the low-level functionality that tbey were used to. The developers who were using WinCE usually had an existing code base that ran on Win32 on the PC, and they were looking for a quick port. For games that weren't really intensive, this worked fine, but for some others (I saw early versions of Half-Life on the DC, when it was already delayed by at least six months, and let me tell you, it had *major* problems+) it was a disaster. What I would tell developers who were asking me if WinCE was worth using: "It will get you a solid 15 FPS, and if you're willing to optimize your rendering code with some assembly (to make use of the SH4's vector functions), you should be able to get 30 FPS. You'll get your game up and running faster, but you'll spend more time optimizing it for speed."

        Version 1 of WinCE for Dreamcast was pretty buggy, version 2 fixed a lot of things, but even once they came out with the final version (I think 2.1), there were still lots of bugs. Developers were asking me if Microsoft would release WinCE 3, or at least fix some of the bugs. I tried to get the source for WinCE 2.1 for DC (so that I could try to at least maintain it myself for the developers) and got nowhere. Mind you, this was only a few months from Sega canning the Dreamcast anyway.

        Microsoft did what they could to get developers to use WinCE on the Dreamcast. They'd send out promotional material to every new (and existing) Dreamcast developer which included a T-shirt, a Leatherman tool and of course, the WinCE SDK CD. We got a lot of thanks for the free tool and a T-shirt, while the CDs went into the garbage.

        -- Joe

        + That's not to say that the sole decision to cancel Half-Life for the Dreamcast was because of WinCE performance. There were also some other issues outside of that, which I shall not discuss, but WinCE was a big factor.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Xbox beat out gamecube, in part, because the media sort of got on the bandwagon that the cube was a toy for kids where the PS2 and Xbox were made for adults. All the gamer boys seemed to eat that up, it stroked their ego or something. I think it set Nintendo in a position where they had to cost reduce it a ton and just set the stage against them. In reality, the cube is a great machine. My only complaint is multiple discs for some games. There are some great games on it, it's definitely on par with
  • by PhotoBoy ( 684898 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @01:39PM (#13963455)
    "DC: Had tons of amazing games...but no Halo 3
    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.
    • by Jubii ( 315611 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @04:36PM (#13964458) Homepage
      How the hell do they know Halo 3 will be huge?

      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.
    • How the hell do they know Halo 3 will be huge?

      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 St
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Sunday November 06, 2005 @02:40PM (#13963762)
    One interesting aspect of the 360 that may help it fare well is with a DVD drive instead of a newer drive like HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, piracy will be simpler - so more peeople may actually buy the console for that reason. Even pirates end up buying some games so it might help it out.
  • by YesIAmAScript ( 886271 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @03:18PM (#13963975)
    Xbox 360 would be Dreamcast 3.0.

    Back when Dreamcast was starting up, MS offered up their Windows CE as a platform to Sega as the DC OS. It came in late, so the first games didn't use it. But Sega was pressing their developers to use it, and MS was helping out a lot. Japanese DCs came with the text "designed for Windows CE" on the front.

    But something happened, Sega got word MS was doing all this because they were working on a gaming machine of their own, a "super Dreamcast". And MS was offering up CE so that when MS' box came out they would have a lineup of games ready to go, or at least easy to port. It would give them a huge legup on all the other competitors in the video game market (including Sega).

    So Sega immediately told their developers not to use Windows CE. Only one game came out with Windows CE, Sega Rally (the browser also used CE). And US Dreamcasts say "compatible with Windows CE" on the front.

    And not too long after, MS released their machine with a controller which was very similar to the DC controller. Same basic layout, with two additional buttons and the hole in the top for the memory unit display covered (Sega had moved away from the memory cards with displays by that time too).

    So, Xbox really was a super Dreamcast, or a Dreamcast 2.0 if you wish.

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson