Microsoft has had quite the adventure with Xbox, its foray into the console-gaming world. Though the company has had some successes, it's also had many failures with Xbox. Compared to Sony, the dominant player in the field, Microsoft has struggled to put up numbers that are even fractions of the competition. All that said, Xbox was clearly a learning experience for the company. It's an old adage that Microsoft doesn't get anything right until version three. But what does version two of the Xbox have in store?
Last week, we posted a two-part feature listing everything we know about the Xbox 2. By several accounts, the system is set to launch in Q4 2005. It'll be on the market before Sony's and Nintendo's new machines. In this installment of Spy/CounterSpy, two of our console editors argue whether a 2005 launch is the best idea for Microsoft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xbox 2? More like Xbox Too Early
Raymond Padilla, Senior Console Editor
Usually it's incredibly advantageous to be first. So many companies, products, people, and things have succeeded over the competition, simply because it was first. In the case of Xbox 2, I don't think it's a good idea.
First, there's the public perception of the move. Part of the allure of Xbox is that it is the most powerful console system on the market. While this may not matter as much to hardcore gamers (people that realize content is king), it matters a hell of a lot to the mainstream. Let's take a sample of the market for example -- sports gamers. There are a large number of people out there that buy nothing but sports games and the machine that runs the best-looking ones. These kinds of gamers love Xbox. They don't care about bigger software libraries or more unique titles; they want the machine that makes Madden or NBA Live look the best.
There are also many casual gamers that buy one system and want the most kick-ass box on the market. These people are also down with Xbox. They'll buy it simply because it's more powerful. And to them, more powerful means better. They don't know all the little nuances and quirks native to the other two machines at GameStop. The salesperson told them that Xbox does graphics better than the other two.
Releasing Xbox 2 in 2005 will continue Microsoft's horsepower advantage in the short term, but kill it in the long term. You can bet your bottom dollar (I'm still trying to figure what that means exactly. I heard in Annie. Sue me.) that Sony will spend a lot of time and money espousing how wondrously powerful PlayStation 3 will be. It will put a giant effort into making people think that PlayStation 3 is worth the wait and that consumers should hold off on Xbox 2 and Nintendo's Revolution. In the long term there's a very high chance that Xbox 2 will go from having the most powerful system in the generation to the least powerful of the next. Its competitors get an extra year or two of research and development to help ensure this (though Nintendo's seems to be anti-horsepower these days).
Then there are the actual games. From everything I've heard, Xbox 2 development kits have just started to trickle out this summer and many third-party developers haven't received them yet. This doesn't leave a lot of time to make games (let alone good ones). Presumably, one of the reasons XNA was concocted is to help shorten development times for the Xbox 2. In theory it should help, but there are many tools and resources that developers will need that haven't been created yet. This should lead to a launch lineup that will not change anyone's perception that launch lineups are weak.
Personally, I'll be happy if Xbox 2 comes out next year. It'll make 2005 more interesting and give me more things to write about. Objectively, I don't see that it's a good idea. It's too little time between systems for Microsoft. There are still lots of successes to be had on its first system. Why cannibalize those by releasing the sequel too early? I'm not saying that Xbox 2 will go the way of the Dreamcast (a good example of first not necessarily being best), but I think an extra year of seasoning would have made for a better product.
Tradition Suffocates Innovation
William Tuttle, Xbox Editor
Tradition. It's a good thing when it comes to holidays and family events, but it has no place in the world of technology. If a company is going to innovate and push an industry forward, they need to forget about traditions and make their own rules. With that said, I find it a bit surprising that so many people are complaining about Microsoft ignoring the traditional six year console cycle as they prepare to release their next console at the end of 2005.
There aren't any rules that say a company cannot release a console less than four years after their previous system hit the market, and even if there was, Microsoft has never been one to follow rules, which is part of what made them one of the largest tech companies in the world. Without innovation, the game industry wouldn't have become as huge as it is right now, and it certainly won't continue to grow. Microsoft realizes this, and it's preparing to take on the gaming behemoth that is Sony by striking first, much like Sega did when releasing their Genesis system towards the end of the Nintendo Entertainment System's run at the top of the game world.
In many ways, it's always best to be first. By putting out a powerful next generation console well before your competitors, you're more likely to capture the hardcore gamer market that simply has to have the newest and strongest machine available. And don't be fooled, there are more and more "hardcore" gamers being created every day. These are the people that set the trends that more casual gamers follow, and they are extremely important to the success of a console. If Microsoft can put out a machine that blows these people away, and they passionately spread the word like they usually do, a lot of people will follow their lead.
Now, there are also a lot of drawbacks to being the first console on the market, primarily that your competitors will be more likely to notice the success and flaws of your system, then design theirs accordingly. Graphics play a huge part, as well. Many gamers are so-called "graphics whores", who simply want the system that will make their favorite games look great. While there is a very strong chance that Sony's and Nintendo's next consoles will have better graphics than the Microsoft's, how many gamers will want to wait a year or more for the PS3 when all of their friends are enjoying the sure-to-be-amazing sights and sounds found on the Xbox 2? Sports gamers are a perfect example of this type of person, and you can be sure that just about any of them would rather play Madden 2006 on the Xbox 2 than on the PS2 (especially since Microsoft is already beating up on Sony in the online gaming market).
Some people are also worried that many developers won't have the money or resources to make both current generation and next generation versions of their games. This is true in many ways, but the biggest developers, like EA and UbiSoft, shouldn't have much of a problem developing games for both generations. In some ways, the shift may have already begun. At this year's E3, UbiSoft was showing demos of the gorgeous Splinter Cell 3, but it was only playing on a PC, and still hasn't been announced for any of the current consoles. Could Splinter Cell 3 be a possible launch title for Xbox 2? It might be the only console that can handle the game's advanced lighting techniques, judging by the irritating (and frequent) loading screens found the in PS2 version of the last Splinter Cell game.
The big question might be whether Microsoft is trying to permanently shorten the traditional console cycle. If they keep releasing consoles every four years, will Sony stick to their six-year guns, or will they try to keep up? And more importantly, will consumers feel like spending a few hundred dollars every 4 or 5 years on a new console? Many PC gamers spend that much upgrading video cards or processors (or even whole systems) every few years, so it's not a stretch to think that there are a lot of console gamers who would do the same. And they'll still never have to worry about the compatibility problems that plague their PC brethren.
No matter what happens, the next year is shaping up to be one of the most interesting in the history of console gaming. With all three companies striving to be the best, there's only one guaranteed winner: the gamers.
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/528/528105p1.html
that wasnt half bad to read, eh? I pretty much agree with most of their points.
