Euphoria14 said: Rath said: makingmusic476 said: They decided to enter into the console business at the end of the ps1 days, and Sony didn't start with their media center approach until the PSX, which didn't launch until the very end of 2003, was extremely expensive, and was only sold in Japan. I don't think anybody was worried about Sony replacing PCs in 1999 when MS first decided to make the Xbox. The PSX is the original playstation, the PS1 is the 'slim' model. At least I'm pretty sure thats the way it went. The PS2 was announced before the Xbox and I think that around that time MS might have seen the potential threat to its business, the PS2 boasted some multimedia capabilities (the DVD player in particular) that might have seemed threatening. Even if they didn't see the threat then (which I still believe they did) they have still helped to fend it off now that it is apparent that it is a threat. The dethroning of the Playstation is a victory for MS. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSX_(DVR)   If they were so worried about the DVD player inside, why not just make DVD players? Maybe because they wanted in on the gamers? Not to mention... since when were PC's the media center in the Living room? Why do we buy TV's and stereo systems again? I don't watch my movies and listen to music with friends and family in front of a computer... we do it on the couch in front of the TV. They just wanted in... simple as that.

 Microsoft wants the PC to be the hub though, streaming movies to TV's, music to stereo systems, etc.  This can be done now, but people don't like it because it becomes too much of a pain in the ass.

 I could easily hook my PC up to my TV, I don't because I am lazy and I like physical discs for my movies.  DVD players are $30 the cables needed to hook up my PC to my tv are $25.  I get DVDs and CD's at Wal Mart for $5-7.50, why would I want to pay $20 bucks a month or $1 per song, it's so much easier to just buy it at a store I am at anyway - plus I like having the box/discs and not having to have all the special security features and give up my privacy.

steven787 said: Euphoria14 said: Rath said: makingmusic476 said: They decided to enter into the console business at the end of the ps1 days, and Sony didn't start with their media center approach until the PSX, which didn't launch until the very end of 2003, was extremely expensive, and was only sold in Japan. I don't think anybody was worried about Sony replacing PCs in 1999 when MS first decided to make the Xbox. The PSX is the original playstation, the PS1 is the 'slim' model. At least I'm pretty sure thats the way it went. The PS2 was announced before the Xbox and I think that around that time MS might have seen the potential threat to its business, the PS2 boasted some multimedia capabilities (the DVD player in particular) that might have seemed threatening. Even if they didn't see the threat then (which I still believe they did) they have still helped to fend it off now that it is apparent that it is a threat. The dethroning of the Playstation is a victory for MS. Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSX_(DVR)   If they were so worried about the DVD player inside, why not just make DVD players? Maybe because they wanted in on the gamers? Not to mention... since when were PC's the media center in the Living room? Why do we buy TV's and stereo systems again? I don't watch my movies and listen to music with friends and family in front of a computer... we do it on the couch in front of the TV. They just wanted in... simple as that.    Microsoft wants the PC to be the hub though, streaming movies to TV's, music to stereo systems, etc.  This can be done now, but people don't like it because it becomes too much of a pain in the ass.  I could easily hook my PC up to my TV, I don't because I am lazy and I like physical discs for my movies.  DVD players are $30 the cables needed to hook up my PC to my tv are $25.  I get DVDs and CD's at Wal Mart for $5-7.50, why would I want to pay $20 bucks a month or $1 per song, it's so much easier to just buy it at a store I am at anyway - plus I like having the box/discs and not having to have all the special security features and give up my privacy.

 Try getting the average consumer to understand it all. There lies the problem.

They also do not know much about Ad's and spam blockers and such. We all know people will probably get Netflix, but the instant view selection is horrid. Then what if they watch it and the connection drops? As I have seen in the LIVE market place, why pay $7.64 ($6.25 fee for 500 points + Tax + $1 charge fee) for a 24 hour rental when my Stop and Shop has 24 hr disc rentals for $1 + tax from Red Box? If I keep it another day I pay another $1, if I want to watch the downloaded movie again... at least $3.50 worth of points. $1 more and I get an additional 4 or more days of rental at Hollywood video.

1 rental gets me a bargain DVD I can watch time and time again. I just can't ever see the PC taking over out living rooms. Unless people enjoy throwing away money.

Is it convinient at time? Of course. Is it logical to spend more when a MUCH LESS expensive option is widely available? No. Specially when it provides nothing of an improvement.

I see a big difference in quality from a streamed video from a DVD and/or Blu Ray, which also costs alot, but I have Netflix, so $14.99 a month (4 or so downloads at most considerining MS points right now) gets me unlimited BD rentals and arrive the next day. 

People love throwing money away, but this still hasn't seemed to pick up.

@ Steven787

I personally hope it doesn't. I think it would be worst case scenario.

Privacy is lost and if people hate DRM so much... this is even worse. Don't count on backing up anything.

I also heard something about ISP's considering internet plans based on how many GB you can download per month with $19.99 getting you around 15GB. There lies another thing we could possibly need to pay more for if this does take off. If someone wants to watch movies but does not own a PC, now they are forced on 2 purchases instead of just picking up a disc player.

I do not understand why anyone would support this.

If people wanna know why obesity runs rampant in the US, blame is on people being so damn lazy.

Of course not all cases, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I watched friends put on so much weight because they just don't do anything.They expect everything to be made easy for them, regardless of how much it drains their wallets.

Anyways, I don't want to start going off topic due to laziness and not doing anything like exercise. Instead I will be lazy myself and go play my 360. :)

There is nothing wrong with this comment...at all.  He was asked a question then he answered it, thats how an interview works. 

The benefits of the Xbox as a long term business strategy have yet to be proven worthwhile.  Until it is proven worthwhile its just a lot of hot air.  Basically the people arguing that Reggie's comment is wrong because of the "strategy" are saying "Well Reggie is wrong about this because the plan was for it to be more effective and even though it hasn't been super effective yet we should all pretend that it will be in the future."  

Reggie's comment is made in the hear and now, and as of right now this whole thing looks pretty horrible from a shareholder's view....particularly the RRoD issues and the warranty payouts, the recent fall in sales, and the rise of PS3 sales etc... If I was a shareholder I would consider this to be a pretty ugly scenario.  I don't doubt MS has a plan and/or an ace up the sleeve but a regular shareholder won't know anything about it.

  

 

makingmusic476 said: Rath said: makingmusic476 said: They decided to enter into the console business at the end of the ps1 days, and Sony didn't start with their media center approach until the PSX, which didn't launch until the very end of 2003, was extremely expensive, and was only sold in Japan. I don't think anybody was worried about Sony replacing PCs in 1999 when MS first decided to make the Xbox. The PSX is the original playstation, the PS1 is the 'slim' model. At least I'm pretty sure thats the way it went. The PS2 was announced before the Xbox and I think that around that time MS might have seen the potential threat to its business, the PS2 boasted some multimedia capabilities (the DVD player in particular) that might have seemed threatening. Even if they didn't see the threat then (which I still believe they did) they have still helped to fend it off now that it is apparent that it is a threat. The dethroning of the Playstation is a victory for MS. No, this is the PSX. :P Edit:  And this is what it looks like.

And to be exact, PSX stands for Playstation X, the second one in the PS family, which is known as the "original Playstation". PSX was named PlayStation X, because they already had Play Station, which could play SNES games and CD-games. So the Playstation family goes:
Play Station
PlayStation X
Playstation 2
Playstation Portable
PLAYSTATION 3

And actually the PS2 was originally planned to be upgraded to multimedia STB, kinda like what the PS3 is.
Xbox apparently got started after DC started to die, since DC would have easilly got full support from M$, without them really investing much to it and DC would have been easilly upgraded with add-ons. When Xbox looks like a panic manouver, 360 is much better designed as a whole (outside the HW failures).

@Topic: Reggie stays pretty neutral just by stating the obvious.

bdbdbd said: makingmusic476 said: Rath said: makingmusic476 said: They decided to enter into the console business at the end of the ps1 days, and Sony didn't start with their media center approach until the PSX, which didn't launch until the very end of 2003, was extremely expensive, and was only sold in Japan. I don't think anybody was worried about Sony replacing PCs in 1999 when MS first decided to make the Xbox. The PSX is the original playstation, the PS1 is the 'slim' model. At least I'm pretty sure thats the way it went. The PS2 was announced before the Xbox and I think that around that time MS might have seen the potential threat to its business, the PS2 boasted some multimedia capabilities (the DVD player in particular) that might have seemed threatening. Even if they didn't see the threat then (which I still believe they did) they have still helped to fend it off now that it is apparent that it is a threat. The dethroning of the Playstation is a victory for MS. No, this is the PSX. :P Edit: And this is what it looks like. And to be exact, PSX stands for Playstation X, the second one in the PS family, which is known as the "original Playstation". PSX was named PlayStation X, because they already had Play Station, which could play SNES games and CD-games. So the Playstation family goes: Play Station PlayStation X Playstation 2 Playstation Portable PLAYSTATION 3 And actually the PS2 was originally planned to be upgraded to multimedia STB, kinda like what the PS3 is. Xbox apparently got started after DC started to die, since DC would have easilly got full support from M$, without them really investing much to it and DC would have been easilly upgraded with add-ons. When Xbox looks like a panic manouver, 360 is much better designed as a whole (outside the HW failures). @Topic: Reggie stays pretty neutral just by stating the obvious.

I take it you didn't click the link? The PSX is a essentially a PS2/PC/DVR with a 250gb HDD that was released only in Japan at the end of 2003.  It was also the first of Sony's devices to use the XMB.

The original PlayStation is sometimes referred to as the "PSX", because the project was known as the PlayStation Experminet back when Sony was working with Nintendo. 

 

why are people getting mad by his comments, both sony and MS said negative things about the wii