Support NeoGAF

[Lukas]

While all the other consoles are negative something

Do you think thats good for MS or bad, I would say with titles like Ninja Gaiden, Rallisport 2, Pandora Tomorrow, Riddick, and Full Spectrum Warrior in just the second half of 2004 it should be more like +101%

I guess MS has no chance this gen of even reaching half of the PS2 userbase despite how many good games it gets. Its just over, even if the Xbox gets AAA after AAA month after month until the release of Xbox 2 I dont see it ever selling more than 15 million in the US.

Owell, GL next round MS.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

It's good for the platform and MS. But because MS made such awfully restrictive deals to make the system hardware, they won't be making any money off of the console sales.

 

[Solid]

 

[human5892]

Well, obviously the Xbox will never catch up to the PS2, nor get anywhere close. That much is clear.

However, Microsoft has done a decent job with the Xbox in some respects -- they carved out a place for themselves in a crowded market between two much more established competitors, although at the cost of billions of dollars in losses. I think they've also secured more third-party backing (and thus more quality exclusive software) than almost anyone would've predicted when the Xbox project first surfaced. They've also got some brand-recognition and loyalty out there, albeit on a fairly small scale when compared to the Playstation name.

Overall, you can't call the Xbox a failure, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to use the word "success" either.

 

[Lazy8s]

Considering the Xbox platform is a twenty year project and knowing MS's persistence and willingness, I'd say this has been a resounding success for them. They don't usually get it this right, this soon.

 

[StoOgE]

The real test of wether or not the Xbox was a success will be Xenon's launch. The Xbox launch was powered more or less by a single game, because no one knew what to expect beyond that from MS.

Nintendo has the advantage of selling consoles at launch even without Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Mario Kart, etc. because people know that they are coming some time down the road. Sony has the same with Gran Turismo, etc.

Next time out will be the first time MS will have developed something like this.. of course, the expectation of the same game that powered the Xbox's launch is going to power Xenon's launch as well

 

[Lukas]

what do you mean, Bungie said there will be no Halo 3

I bet Perfect Dark 0 will be the Xbox 2 launch

 

[Kobun Heat]

I think you can pretty much spin this in whatever direction you want.

 

[COCKLES]

Halo 3 is a certaintity. But we won't see it for XB2 launch. Probably Christmas 2006 / early 2007.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a Halo 1.5 appear sooner. Original game with upgraded visuals and XB live mode as a stopgap - perhaps coded by a 3rd party like gearbox using Bungie's tools and code.

MS need to take a hard look at what sells and what doesn't on XB. Look at all the stuff they have wasted resources on that just doesn't sell with XB buyers:- ie: the cutesey platformer mascottys, which sadly, I think will also include Kameo.

 

[sohka88]

To me the xbox is a failure.

They will end up selling around 22mill and lose billions. People call the n64 a failure (and I think it was) and it sold 32 mill. At least it made money though.

I just don't see how any one can call it a success.

 

[Baron Aloha]

what do you mean, Bungie said there will be no Halo 3

Funniest thing I've heard all day. No Halo 3? HA!

 

[DopeyFish]

Funniest thing I've heard all day. No Halo 3? HA!

ok, bungie won't be the ones making halo 3 how about that?!

 

[Solid]

Wouldn't be surprised to see a Halo 1.5 appear sooner. Original game with upgraded visuals and XB live mode as a stopgap - perhaps coded by a 3rd party like gearbox using Bungie's tools and code.

Yeah. I wonder why MS hasn't milked Halo more? They could of included the E32k3 demo with the game when it became a Classics title. Or just included some more multiplayer maps and stuff. I'm sure many (and we know there's many) Halo fans that would buy that edition. Me included.

 

[COCKLES]

To me the xbox is a failure.

They will end up selling around 22mill and lose billions. People call the n64 a failure (and I think it was) and it sold 32 mill. At least it made money though.

I just don't see how any one can call it a success.

Well depends on what you mean by failure / success.

For the gamer it's an unqualified success. XB Live, Halo series ect.

Difference between Xbots & Ninrods, is that Xbots don't have an emotional contract with the company that makes their machine in same way Nintendo fans do. In the end if MS loses millions and millions, so fucking what? As long as their selling the machine at a cheap price and bringing out great games, then I'm sorted - I couldn't give a fuck for their shareholders.

 

[jarrod]

To me the xbox is a failure.

They will end up selling around 22mill and lose billions. People call the n64 a failure (and I think it was) and it sold 32 mill. At least it made money though.

I just don't see how any one can call it a success.

Actually, I think N64 sold 34 million (it was Genesis who sold 32 million iirc).

 

[Prine]

In the end if MS loses millions and millions, so fucking what? As long as their selling the machine at a cheap price and bringing out great games, then I'm sorted - I couldn't give a fuck for their shareholders.

Indeed.

 

[StoOgE]

the N64 I wouldnt call an out and out failure.. but even if you think so there are different circumstances.

Nintendo was just coming off of the most successfull console of all time, had the name brand recognition (hell, Nintendo was synonomous with the word game), had the biggest game franchises, and their main competitor (Sega) had just managed to take themselves out of the race (the saturn NEVER had a chance to do shit) and was beaten badly by an upstart.

MS, in their first system is getting crushed by Sony and fighting neck and neck with Nintendo... and the gamecube is more of a failure even though the worldwide numbers are close... because Nintendo is Nintendo.

At least, thats my take.

 

[human5892]

the N64 I wouldnt call an out and out failure.. but even if you think so there are different circumstances.

Nintendo was just coming off of the most successfull console of all time, had the name brand recognition (hell, Nintendo was synonomous with the word game), had the biggest game franchises, and their main competitor (Sega) had just managed to take themselves out of the race (the saturn NEVER had a chance to do shit) and was beaten badly by an upstart.

MS, in their first system is getting crushed by Sony and fighting neck and neck with Nintendo... and the gamecube is more of a failure even though the worldwide numbers are close... because Nintendo is Nintendo.

At least, thats my take.

The SNES was not the most successful console of all time. At that point, it was the NES.

 

[jarrod]

Nintendo was just coming off of the most successfull console of all time,

Actually no, that would've been a generation earlier.

had the name brand recognition (hell, Nintendo was synonomous with the word game),

Sega was also synonomous for "videogame"in the early/mid 1990s. In fact, Sonic had replaced Mario as the most recognizable IP in the same timeframe.

had the biggest game franchises,

Well, technically Nintendo still has the biggest franchises around, despite their marketshare.

and their main competitor (Sega) had just managed to take themselves out of the race (the saturn NEVER had a chance to do shit)

Actually, Saturn wasn't really in trouble until 1996, while N64 was on the market. Saturn had an excellent Japanese start and huge western support initially. Sega's complete mismanagement had more to do with Saturn's failure than anything.

MS, in their first system is getting crushed by Sony and fighting neck and neck with Nintendo... and the gamecube is more of a failure even though the worldwide numbers are close... because Nintendo is Nintendo.

Meanwhile Nintendo's first system managed to revive a dead market with their first platform while Sony completely dominated with their first platform. Spin can go both ways.

 

[----]

To me the xbox is a failure.

They will end up selling around 22mill and lose billions. People call the n64 a failure (and I think it was) and it sold 32 mill. At least it made money though.

I just don't see how any one can call it a success.

Fortunately you're not MS. MS cares about gaining market share right now.

N64 even though Nintendo made a lot of money off of software for it, represents a lack of growth for Nintendo in the industry. NES(~90%) to SNES(~50%) to N64(~35%) to GC(~15%) has represented a consistent loss of market share. MS started out with 0% of the market this generation, everything they have they've taken from Nintendo. If Microsoft can take the 20% market share that they have now and turn it into 33% market share next generation that would still be significant progress for the company towards it's goal of eventually leading the industry. Focusing on profit alone and not focusing on market share at all represents a very short sighted, short term plan. MS has a very long term plan for Xbox which is necessary to achieve their goal. It would be very easy for MS to make profit, it's the amount of profit they hope to be making some day in this industry which requires decades of planning.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Of course they're not going to catch Sony. Who cares?

But, anytime you can displace the #2 company that's been in the industry for over 20 years then I think you can call that a resounding success.

 

[jarrod]

NES(~90%) to SNES(~50%) to N64(~35%) to GC(~15%) has represented a consistent loss of market share.

Not to nitpick but SNES was closer to 65% of the market. An in looking at things closer, N64 was actually a growth over SNES in America (had it not faltered in Japan, N64 would've sold on par with SNES).

 

[B E N K E]

If MS can go into the next generation selling close to the numbers of Sony each month I think they are happy. They're not closing the gap, but in th US at least they will be perceived by consumers, retailers and so on as almost equal to Sony. Nintendo has been losing ground all year long after a great rebound thanks to the price cut late last year. Nintendo cannot afford to rely solely on software to turn it around in a similar fashion late this year, despite Matroid Prime 2 and Resident Evil 4, Xbox with Fable, Halo 2 and Doom 3 and to an even greater extent PS2 with GT4, GTA: SA and MGS3 will punish the cube when it comes to high profile games this holiday season. Nintendo needs another price cut around october or november, or some intelligent bundle. A Mario Pak for 99 dollars with Mario Kart and Super Mario Sunshine and memory card?

 

[kaching]

I think you can pretty much spin this in whatever direction you want.

Case in Point:

Considering the Xbox platform is a twenty year project and knowing MS's persistence and willingness, I'd say this has been a resounding success for them. They don't usually get it this right, this soon.

Until they confirm backwards compatability for Xenon, "the Xbox platform" does not exist as a potential multi-generation entity. With Xenon sounding like a back-to-the-drawing board "Do Over" of the game console concept for MS, if the goal of the twenty year project is to try something different every generation, then yes, I'd say they're succeeding based on early indicators

That's not to take away from the quality product that's appeared thus far on the current Xbox platform. It's neither a resounding success or an abject failure, once everything is balanced into the equation.

 

[citan]

I don't think MS did as well as everyone says they did, Nintendo has been out seeling MS for most of the year. And I can only think of 2-3 good games on the Xbox, whereas I have almost 40 total games for the PS2 and the GC (about evenly devided). I also think that if Halo wasn't as overrated as it is, the XBox wouldn't have done well at all.

Don't get me wrong about Halo, I think it's a decent game, just not anywhere near as good as something like Metroid Prime, or Time Splitters 2

 

[Kiriku]

ok, bungie won't be the ones making halo 3 how about that?!

Rare. Discuss.

 

[garrickk]

Microsoft "fails" in everything they do unless they have a monopoly (2 product families out of 13).

Their business models don't even predict profits in the future. They claim they are working towards profit, but the likelyhood and possibility isn't there.

Take a look at Xbox Live, which is a fantastic service - and it should be.

They claimed in 2002 that they would invest 2 billion into Live over a 5 year period. Okay, nice. It's an expensive system to build and implement. But, with subscription rates averaging $55 a year, at the most 1 million subscriptions a year (maybe more), over 5 years, with luck, that's only $275,000,000 in revenue, and a lot of that goes to retail stores, packaging, etc. That's almost a loss of more than 1.725 billion. They are losing more than 86% of their investment. If they had averaged 3 million subscriptions (unlikely and not predicted), they still would have lost 59% of their investment - at least.

They are just buying mindshare/fans for their system of control. Gamers sort of benefit. We get a massive amount for our money, but they are going to force companies out of the market (hardware and software) that actually have to be profitable.

I really believe ANY company with as much money has them could have done as good of a job or better.

 

[Greekboy]

I guess MS has no chance this gen of even reaching half of the PS2 userbase despite how many good games it gets.

Combined with the GCN they probably won't. You needed to make a topic to realize this?

 

[----]

Not to nitpick but SNES was closer to 65% of the market. An in looking at things closer, N64 was actually a growth over SNES in America (had it not faltered in Japan, N64 would've sold on par with SNES).

SNES and Genesis split the market selling about 20 million units a piece in the US. N64 sold more units, but it had far less market share for it's generation (~35%). Market share isn't about how many units you sell, it's about how many units you sell compared to your competitors. That is what's necessary in order to get 3rd party support and the top exclusive games.

Basically the topic post is complaining about Xbox not being able to achieve 32% market share this generation (aka half of the PS2's userbase). Which is silly because Xbox has over 20% of the market. Hardly a failure in the video game industry. Very few companies in the world could have achieved this much this quickly. THQ's CEO is only predicting MS will reach 33% market share next generation.

 

[DopeyFish]

Rare. Discuss.

 

[----]

I don't think MS did as well as everyone says they did, Nintendo has been out seeling MS for most of the year. And I can only think of 2-3 good games on the Xbox, whereas I have almost 40 total games for the PS2 and the GC (about evenly devided). I also think that if Halo wasn't as overrated as it is, the XBox wouldn't have done well at all.

Don't get me wrong about Halo, I think it's a decent game, just not anywhere near as good as something like Metroid Prime, or Time Splitters 2

Um GC hasn't outsold the Xbox even once this year in the US. What have you been smoking?

Nobody cares how many games you have for your systems or what you think of Halo.


Jan 2004: 131,000 (GC) < 192,000 (XBOX)
Feb 2004: 137,000 (GC) < 204,000 (XBOX)
Mar 2004: 163,028 (GC) < 198,445 (XBOX)
Apr 2004: 96,050 (GC) < 297,351 (XBOX)
May 2004: 77,827 (GC) < 216,997 (XBOX)
Jun 2004: 109,000 (GC) < 262,000 (XBOX)

 

[----]

Until they confirm backwards compatability for Xenon, "the Xbox platform" does not exist as a potential multi-generation entity. With Xenon sounding like a back-to-the-drawing board "Do Over" of the game console concept for MS, if the goal of the twenty year project is to try something different every generation, then yes, I'd say they're succeeding based on early indicators

That's not to take away from the quality product that's appeared thus far on the current Xbox platform. It's neither a resounding success or an abject failure, once everything is balanced into the equation.

Wow really? I guess SNES, N64, and GC aren't Nintendo systems since they don't play each others games. Consumers go where the brand name, the expected games like Halo, and the service (Xbox live) goes. Xbox project does not hinge on backwards compatibility. The goal of the 20 year project is to gain a leadership position in the video game industry, regardless of what hardware strategies that requires. It has absolutely nothing to do with being able to play your old games on new hardware. Stop confusing issues. I personally want to see backwards compatibility very badly in Xbox 2, but it has nothing to do with the "20 year plan."

When you look at where 3rd party support is for Xbox, how many people are on Xbox Live, the mainstream recognition of the Xbox and Halo brand, and the consistent slow but steady growth of their market share I think it's hard to imagine that Microsoft is viewing the Xbox as a failure at all. That's not to say that they aren't going to try a new strategy next generation. Sony took an entirely different strategy with PS2 than it did with PSone. Sony dumped Crash, aimed the console at adults, added USB and Firewire ports, drastically changed the look of the console, and focused on tons of non-game related uses for the new console. Which essentially became the impetus for why Microsoft felt it was necessary to enter the game industry. If Sony continued on their path quickly erroding Nintendo and Sega's market share, they'd eventually have a monopoly on the software and hardware in the computer connected to everyone's living room tv. Microsoft decided they weren't going to sit back and watch Sony obtain that unchallenged monopoly. And it's worth noting that while Microsoft hasn't taken any of Sony's market share, they've also kept Sony from gaining any market share this generation. It's very likely, almost a 100% certainty, that Sony's PS2 market share would be much greater today had Xbox never been created. Keeping Sony's dominance from growing into a real monopoly is also considered a win for Microsoft's top execs.

 

[Lazy8s]

kaching:

Until they confirm backwards compatability for Xenon, "the Xbox platform" does not exist as a potential multi-generation entity.

A platform doesn't need any specific standardization outside of brand association to be considered as such. If consumers know Xbox is where to go to get innovation, graphics, Halo, or whatever in gaming, it's a platform in that sense.

With Xenon sounding like a back-to-the-drawing board "Do Over" of the game console concept for MS,

Not at all. The concept of Xbox, indeed what it was named after, is a closed platform for Direct X. That isn't changing.

if the goal of the twenty year project is to try something different every generation,

They're building on their Xbox brand momentum, not trying something different. Overhauling the hardware between generations is what all console manufacturers do - Xbox 1 was a rush job; Xbox 2 has had more time to be designed smarter with future cost reduction in mind.

 

[jarrod]

SNES and Genesis split the market selling about 20 million units a piece in the US. N64 sold more units, but it had far less market share for it's generation (~35%). Market share isn't about how many units you sell, it's about how many units you sell compared to your competitors. That is what's necessary in order to get 3rd party support and the top exclusive games.

If you're talking strictly US figures, then your other percentages are all low. N64 had about 40-45% marketshare then from 1996-2000 (about 21 million to PS1's 26 million iirc), NES was closer to 95% in it's day (30+ million to less than 2 million for SMS iirc) and GameCube's closer to 20% of the market. Even if N64 had managed a majority though, 3rd parties would've still stayed away thanks to costly cart manufacturing.

 

[kaching]

----,

I guess SNES, N64, and GC aren't Nintendo systems since they don't play each others games.

Did I say anything about Xbox1 and Xenon somehow not being MS systems? I simply said that until BC is confirmed for the second generation of xbox-branded consoles there's no such thing as a monolithic Xbox platform that spans generations, other than possibly the reuse of the brand name. There's a distinct functional break without BC.

Xbox project does not hinge on backwards compatibility.

Didn't say it did. The concept that Lazy referred to of a single xbox platform over the course of the project does though.

The goal of the 20 year project is to gain a leadership position in the video game industry, regardless of what hardware strategies that requires.

Or despite what hardware strategies that are employed. If MS manages to forge a strong leadership position in 20 years without ever having bridged the gap between generations with BC, then that'll be something to talk about, but it certainly won't be representative of a cohesive platform/hardware strategy.

Sony took an entirely different strategy with PS2 than it did with PSone.

"Entirely different" would mean they didn't include software and hardware BC to the PSOne. But Sony gave people the ability to build on their PSOne experience, not simply sever the link and try something completely different. Someone could technically pick up a PS2 simply to continue with the PSone experience and do nothing else. That's not an "entirely different strategy" on Sony's part.

Sony dumped Crash

Crash wasn't a Sony property. It was created by Naughty Dog who chose to cede control to their publisher of the time, Universal.

aimed the console at adults

This strategy started with the PS, not the PS2.

added USB and Firewire ports,

How does this represent an entirely new strategy in any way when the PS2 still has standard PS gamepad and memory card ports that support both PS and PS2 peripherals? This is just an extension of the strategy, not a different direction. Different direction would mean they ditched the standard PS ports altogether and chose USB/Firewire exclusively for peripherals.

And it's worth noting that while Microsoft hasn't taken any of Sony's market share, they've also kept Sony from gaining any market share this generation. It's very likely, almost a 100% certainty, that Sony's PS2 market share would be much greater today had Xbox never been created.

I'm not really sure how you arrive at the almost 100% certainty of this. Why Sony when it could just as easily be Nintendo who they took the marketshare away from? Who's to say a 2-way battle between Sony and Nintendo again this gen wouldn't have seen the marketshares fall out roughly the same way they did last gen?

 

[DarienA]

Sony dumped Crash

I don't remember Sony owning Crash....

And it's worth noting that while Microsoft hasn't taken any of Sony's market share, they've also kept Sony from gaining any market share this generation. It's very likely, almost a 100% certainty, that Sony's PS2 market share would be much greater today had Xbox never been created. Keeping Sony's dominance from growing into a real monopoly is also considered a win for Microsoft's top execs.

The above made me laugh, because looking at the sales figures I'm not really sure if it's anything to trumpet....

 

[Izzy]

It would have been excellent, had they not decided to launch Xenon in 2005. That, and the lack of BC in the next gen part is bound to hurt XBox's momentum.

 

[jarrod]

Taking this marketshare line a bit further, wasn't Microsoft's initial aim with XBox to prevent the PlayStation brand from becoming a potential threat to their Wintel empire by increasing competition? And by weaking Sony's only signifcant competitior (Nintendo) and splitting that company's marketshare, hasn't the whole XBox experiment essentailly run counter to that initial strategy? In effect Microsoft hasn't weakened Sony, but rather Sony's competition?

 

[kaching]

A platform doesn't need any specific standardization outside of brand association to be considered as such. If consumers know Xbox is where to go to get innovation, graphics, Halo, or whatever in gaming, it's a platform in that sense.

That's not a platform, that's a brand strategy - a marketing ploy rather than a product solution. MS themselves have much of their success in business to thank because of successfully bridging the functional gap between discrete generations of their products with BC - Windows, Office, etc - and not just trying to bridge that gap with a brand association alone.

Not at all. The concept of Xbox, indeed what it was named after, is a closed platform for Direct X. That isn't changing.

Well, except for the fact that it's now a closed platform for XNA. And part of the brand association you claim is all that is important for establishing a platform currently includes a high capacity fixed storage solution of at least 8gig in the box at initial purchase for the Xbox brand. This isn't assured for Xenon yet, among other things. You can try to dance around the hardware aspects of what makes a platform but gamers are going to be more concerned about losing that nice big HDD rather than whether or not Xenon continues to be a closed platform for a particular SDK.

They're building on their Xbox brand momentum, not trying something different.

Of course they want to try to build on Xbox brand momentum but just because they choose to build on a brand doesn't mean they present a contiguous platform. What good is the association of Xbox with Halo for someone who buys into the Xbox brand for the first time with the Xbox2 if they can't play the first two titles in the series and have to wait at least a year to see an update on the series for the piece of hardware they bought?

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Difference between Xbots & Ninrods, is that Xbots don't have an emotional contract with the company that makes their machine in same way Nintendo fans do. In the end if MS loses millions and millions, so fucking what? As long as their selling the machine at a cheap price and bringing out great games, then I'm sorted - I couldn't give a fuck for their shareholders.

exactly why it sells better than the GC. But you know a lot of this forum....GAFFERS CRY!! GBA is important, GC NOT!!!1!

 

[Lazy8s]

kaching:

That's not a platform, that's a brand strategy

That's not an argument; that's semantics, like calling the PS2's ability to play PS games just a compatibility strategy. The nature of a platform is relative to its context: to consumers, Xbox is the platform where they can expect to play the next Halo first; to developers, Xbox is the platform where they can program for the Direct X environment; to retailers and publishers, Xbox is the platform that will offer a market opportunity powered by Microsoft.

There’s nothing inherent in the concept of ‘platform’ that ties it only to hardware compatibility. If there was, how could that be defined? The PS2, incidentally, does not offer backward compatibility to all PS software and hardware. So, if backward compatibility is necessary for a platform, where is this arbitrary line supposed to go?

a marketing ploy rather than a product solution.

The games are the reason for console hardware to exist. Exclusivity of appealing titles is a marketable solution for such a product.

MS themselves have much of their success in business to thank because of successfully bridging the functional gap between discrete generations of their products with BC - Windows, Office, etc - and not just trying to bridge that gap with a brand association alone.

You’ve missed the whole difference in strategy between Microsoft and Sony. Sony is the one changing their development environment each generation. MS’s whole plan, rather, is to base a system on their standardized development environment, Direct X. So, MS sought to create a common development platform with Xbox whereas Sony just relies on marketshare/mindshare (fueled by a “marketing ploy”) to keep the publishers coming back.

From a consumer point of view, though, Sony has provided a standardized platform, and that’s where it really counts the most. Consumers know they’ll get to play the latest Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo on a PlayStation branded machine. They’re also able to continue playing their old games on their new machines through backward compatibility.

Well, except for the fact that it's now a closed platform for XNA.

XNA is built around Direct X.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

That's not an argument; that's semantics, like calling the PS2's ability to play PS games just a compatibility strategy. The nature of a platform is relative to its context: to consumers, Xbox is the platform where they can expect to play the next Halo first; to developers, Xbox is the platform where they can program for the Direct X environment; to retailers and publishers, Xbox is the platform that will offer a market opportunity powered by Microsoft.

Exactly.

 

[SA-X]

Halo 3 is a certaintity. But we won't see it for XB2 launch. Probably Christmas 2006 / early 2007.

I don't mean to be an ass but that seems a little early. Christmas 2007 seems a lot more realistic. It took Bungie 3 years to make Halo 2 so I don't see how they could make Halo 3 in a shorter amount of time on a newer system.

 

[segasonic]

I also think that if Halo wasn't as overrated as it is, the XBox wouldn't have done well at all.

Don't get me wrong about Halo, I think it's a decent game, just not anywhere near as good as something like Metroid Prime, or Time Splitters 2

Well guess what... People buy Halo because they like it, not because it received good scores in magazines. And it's funny you name TS2, one of the most overrated pieces of shit as a counter-example for Halo.

 

[sonycowboy]

You’ve missed the whole difference in strategy between Microsoft and Sony. Sony is the one changing their development environment each generation. MS’s whole plan, rather, is to base a system on their standardized development environment, Direct X. So, MS sought to create a common development platform with Xbox ...

XNA is built around Direct X.

I hear this over and over again and it's such complete BS. MS's "vision" is not to create a standardized environment or else they would embrace open source options such as OpenGL. MS's vision is to leverage their monopoly power to gain advantage in this market.

DirectX was designed to tie developers to Microsoft's software platform. You had to use Microsoft tools, develop for a Microsoft platform, and heavily invest your companies resources in the Microsoft hegemony. It's what they've done in the PC software world forever.

They are not trying to make life easier for developers or publishers or to give gamers the "ultimate" experience. You make them sound like Mother Teresa.

whereas Sony just relies on marketshare/mindshare (fueled by a “marketing ploy”) to keep the publishers coming back.

Do you really believe this crap?

The original playstation was a revolutionary system from a hardware standpoint. It introduced 3D graphics that for a time were superior to what you could get anywhere, PC included. The reason they succeeded wasn't because of "mindshare" but in spite of it. They did a great job marketing, but they did a better job of partnering with 3rd parties who Nintendo had been treating horribly.

Fast forward to the PS2, which I'm sure was your actual point, although your comment neglected what Sony contributed last generation and why many publishers had a reason to "come back".

The PS2 again was hailed as revolutionary hardware. The processor design won many, many awards in 1999/2000, hardly pointing to Sony merely "relying" on marketshare/mindshare. They raised the bar by adding DVD to spur the adoption rate, a move which Microsoft thought was pretty good.

I'm sick of Sony bashers crying about how Sony succeeded. Deal with it. They didn't succeed because they "tricked" everybody. The succeeded because they did a great job across the board, from hardware, to partnering with publishers, to marketing, and by running the business effectively. I'll agree that the PS2 could have been easier to develop for and that their 4MB VRAM were mistakes, but in the grand scheme of things, they are minor relative to the vast amount of success they've had.

I respect what Microsoft has been able to do, but it's ridiculous to try and advance the theory that Sony backed into the lead and Microsoft is "doing everything right" and is doing it all "for us". They're both in it for the money and they've both made mistakes.

Sony has clearly kicked everybody's ass for the past 10 years and is the reigning champion until someone can knock them off. Until then, you've got to give them their props.

 

[open_mouth_]

Microsoft is kicking as and taking names like they said they would... err

 

[human5892]

The PS2 again was hailed as revolutionary hardware. The processor design won many, many awards in 1999/2000, hardly pointing to Sony merely "relying" on marketshare/mindshare. They raised the bar by adding DVD to spur the adoption rate, a move which Microsoft thought was pretty good.

I'm sick of Sony bashers crying about how Sony succeeded. Deal with it. They didn't succeed because they "tricked" everybody. The succeeded because they did a great job across the board, from hardware, to partnering with publishers, to marketing, and by running the business effectively. I'll agree that the PS2 could have been easier to develop for and that their 4MB VRAM were mistakes, but in the grand scheme of things, they are minor relative to the vast amount of success they've had.

I respect what Microsoft has been able to do, but it's ridiculous to try and advance the theory that Sony backed into the lead and Microsoft is "doing everything right" and is doing it all "for us". They're both in it for the money and they've both made mistakes.

Sony has clearly kicked everybody's ass for the past 10 years and is the reigning champion until someone can knock them off. Until then, you've got to give them their props.

So true. I see people giving both subtle and not-so-subtle jabs to the PS2 and GBA all the time, trying as hard as they can to insinuate that both platforms somehow stumbled their way to the front through competitor's mistakes, or trickery, or what have you. The fact of the matter is, both Sony and Nintendo kicked ass and did a hell of a lot right, and that's why they're up front today. Don't try and knock them down because it rubs you the wrong way.

 

[Prine]

Well guess what... People buy Halo because they like it, not because it received good scores in magazines. And it's funny you name TS2, one of the most overrated pieces of shit as a counter-example for Halo.

I cant believe he had the nerve to compare that piece of shit Timesplitters to Halo.

 

[IJoel]

I think you can pretty much spin this in whatever direction you want.

Holy crap, I agree with Kobun.

 

[Lazy8s]

sonycowboy:

I hear this over and over again and it's such complete BS.

The following argument you've constructed is entirely unrelated to the topic. Trying to rationalize which conglomerated, profit-based corporation is more righteous would be fruitless, especially with the companies in question.

MS's "vision" is not to create a standardized environment or else they would embrace open source options such as OpenGL.

Direct X is a standardized development API. Microsoft's plan is to use their Microsoft-controlled standard. Closed and open source have nothing to do with standardization.

They are not trying to make life easier for developers or publishers

A standardized development environment provides familiarity for developers, saving them time and ultimately money for publishers.

Do you really believe this

That Sony switches their development architecture each generation? Yes, that's exactly what they do. Publishers and their developers come back because this is a business, and PlayStation allows them to make money. Marketshare/mindshare. The "marketing ploy" reference was to equate such a strategy with kaching's notion of 'platform'.

The original playstation was a revolutionary system from a hardware standpoint. It introduced 3D graphics that for a time were superior to what you could get anywhere, PC included.

This matter is largely irrelevant considering the industry is first and foremost a business, yet I'll disagree here about technological progression. The Saturn came out earlier and was more capable in a lot of ways, but the PS was definitely more elegant. A very good system from Sony.

They did a great job marketing, but they did a better job of partnering with 3rd parties who Nintendo had been treating horribly.

Right, and they brought a new, smarter production and distribution model for software into the game industry, too.

The PS2 again was hailed as revolutionary hardware. The processor design won many, many awards in 1999/2000

The only relevant point to make about this is that the architecture was overhauled from the PS era, not providing any standardization. As for the view on technological progression, it wasn't the state of the art in technology in a lot of ways. PowerVR better fit that billing.