leo-j said: They bash sony because its nintendo's competition.

 Leo-j, it is better to not post and have people think you are a fool than to type up a post and remove all doubt.

Johnny, I'm afraid your speaking out of your butt.

johnlucas said: Though Sony has been utterly boneheaded in their decisions and direction the past few years, I personally feel Microsoft is the worst thing to happen to the videogame industry. •Microsoft wants to shorten game generations to 4 years instead of the usual 5+. Expect them to make the new XBox and have it on the market in 2009 should they decide to continue in this business. Since when is Microsoft planning this? They've stated many, many times that they are going for a 6-7 year generation, like the PS2 - they've planned the next one in 2011-2012. The Wii has far more going against it being a 4yr system than the X360. •After the original XBox which was more stable they somehow surpassed the shoddy craftsmanship record of the PS2 with the XBox 360. That is unexcusable to have that many systems break down that often. Simply unexcusable. Thats why they've undertaken adding so much within the past ~6mo to fix it all. •They insist on raising the pricing bar of game consoles. $300 (US) should be absolute CAP for a game console and really most don't even dig anything past $200 unless it's really worth it. Extra bad considering we're paying more money for shoddier merchandise. Blame Sega for this in 1996. And if $200 was the best, Why doesn't Nintendo sell at that? •Talk of microtransactions and in-game advertisement coming into the game thanks to them. That will kill this industry if it ever took root. People use pop-up blockers to AVOID ads on the internet and pay for HBO to escape commercials along with buying DVRs. Who wants ads in their videogame? And who wants to parcel out extras in the game with payment plans? That should be unlocked, not bought. Or like the intenet, we get lots of FREE games with the ads, and such. It's a blessing and a curse. What if you could download extra characters for Super Smash Brothers? •They're part of the reason game development costs keep rising which would one day be the achilles' heel of the business once 'costs in' keep growing in ratio from 'buys out'. More money pumped in for the same or lesser returns. Crash-worthy. Atleast they're working with other companies like Epic to make middleware more prominent in the industry to cope with costs. That and the add-on content can equal the playingfield. •Though they've refined network play and made it mainstream for consoles, they don't do much innovating in hardware or software. Nothing really comes from Microsoft itself but rather its bought and paid for 2nd parties some of which get incorporated as 1st when fully owned. Keeping the medium fresh is all important in the gaming industry. Sega, Nintendo, & SNK represented hardware makers who were also their own software makers. The REAL game companies. That's almost a lost element in gaming nowadays save for one who shall remain Nameless. Hard Drives? The whole online avatar tags (gamertags) that have seemingly gone to Wii (Miis) and PS3 (home)? Age of Empires isn;t innovative? Nintendo bought the rights for the Wiimote, btw, they didn't make the technology themselves. •All companies are in this for the money like any business but it seems that's ALL MS is interested in for the gaming business (maybe that's why green is the XBox's color). I don't think they respect the craft or the soul of this business. This is just another bauble in their corporate chest of jewels and their attitude towards this industry reflects this. All they're REALLY here for is for upending Sony from the home media convergence plan and something tells me as soon as they stop Sony their digs in the gaming business will release. Why else would someone lose billions and continue forward? This is just adding onto their monopoly and keeping them from being stagnant (the operating system empire won't last forever). And making gamers happy along the way. I guess thats why gamers have logged 1 billion+ hours on Halo 2. Do you think, even if 50 million people bought Super Mario Galaxy, that they'd equal the playingtime of Halo 3? Every company is here to upend someone else, and take over the market. Nintendo is trying to converge just like MS and Sony are - look at their online channels.

 

All M$ dissing aside, if people were asking for a price drop why is everyone so mad about the 40gig sku? Seriously, how many people here who own a ps3 use it for thier ps2 games? Maybe last year, but now? With all the games coming out? How many people on here use the 360 for their original Xbox games? So then why is the lack of BC such a "mis-step" for Sony?

fazz said: leo-j said: They bash sony because its nintendo's competition. Thank you for bringing the classical stereotype of the Sony fan to the spotlight. Thank you. Microsoft has been bashed because of that too. Why do you think I have not bought a X360 yet? Because they release SKU after SKU... Core, Pro, Elite, Falcon, Falcon Core, Falcon Pro, Falcon Elite, Falcon Royal, etc. I want them to decide NOW.

SKU after SKU?

You mean the Core, Premium, Halo (basically a limited edition Premium), and Elite?

The other models aren't SKU's, they are revisions/additions to hardware (ie: HDMI, heatsinks, etc). You do know the PS2 went though about 12 hardware revisions. I've long given up on the waiting game on electronics. Things are changed/improved all the time. If you're always waiting for the "next thing" you'll have spent all your time waiting while everybody else has been enjoying their games.

I think the reason Sony has received much more criticism lately is that all their different SKU's have been functionally different than one another. Whether you like the idea of choice/SKU's the reality is that, with the 360, one model could be upgraded to be the equivelent of a higher model. Granted the Core lacks HDMI that the newer models have the new "rumored" Arcade model will eliminate that discrepency. Right out of the gate with sony you got a 20gig and 60gig that were functionally different. No wifi and a few other minor details (I forget all the specifics). Then a new 80gig with limited BC (no EE), and now the 40 gig with no BC at all. You couldn't buy a 20gig at launch and suddenly add wifi to it. Or add a EE engine to a 80 gig.

Plus don't think that the SKU criticism is new by any means. Go back and read any message board on or around X360 launch time. I think you'll find plenty of criticism of Microsoft's decision to go with multiple models of a single console.

With anything, it's always "what have you done lately?" and with the state of things now you will find most of the criticism at Sony's feet.

Stop smokin crack, people complained about the BC, the failure rate and the 3 skus like a billion times. People have the right to be hard on Sony cause of all the bad crap they pulled.

Agreed, if you think MS hasn't received any criticism then you are being delusional lol

mrstickball said: Johnny, I'm afraid your speaking out of your butt. johnlucas said: Though Sony has been utterly boneheaded in their decisions and direction the past few years, I personally feel Microsoft is the worst thing to happen to the videogame industry. •Microsoft wants to shorten game generations to 4 years instead of the usual 5+. Expect them to make the new XBox and have it on the market in 2009 should they decide to continue in this business. Since when is Microsoft planning this? They've stated many, many times that they are going for a 6-7 year generation, like the PS2 - they've planned the next one in 2011-2012. The Wii has far more going against it being a 4yr system than the X360. •After the original XBox which was more stable they somehow surpassed the shoddy craftsmanship record of the PS2 with the XBox 360. That is unexcusable to have that many systems break down that often. Simply unexcusable. Thats why they've undertaken adding so much within the past ~6mo to fix it all. •They insist on raising the pricing bar of game consoles. $300 (US) should be absolute CAP for a game console and really most don't even dig anything past $200 unless it's really worth it. Extra bad considering we're paying more money for shoddier merchandise. Blame Sega for this in 1996. And if $200 was the best, Why doesn't Nintendo sell at that? •Talk of microtransactions and in-game advertisement coming into the game thanks to them. That will kill this industry if it ever took root. People use pop-up blockers to AVOID ads on the internet and pay for HBO to escape commercials along with buying DVRs. Who wants ads in their videogame? And who wants to parcel out extras in the game with payment plans? That should be unlocked, not bought. Or like the intenet, we get lots of FREE games with the ads, and such. It's a blessing and a curse. What if you could download extra characters for Super Smash Brothers? •They're part of the reason game development costs keep rising which would one day be the achilles' heel of the business once 'costs in' keep growing in ratio from 'buys out'. More money pumped in for the same or lesser returns. Crash-worthy. Atleast they're working with other companies like Epic to make middleware more prominent in the industry to cope with costs. That and the add-on content can equal the playingfield. •Though they've refined network play and made it mainstream for consoles, they don't do much innovating in hardware or software. Nothing really comes from Microsoft itself but rather its bought and paid for 2nd parties some of which get incorporated as 1st when fully owned. Keeping the medium fresh is all important in the gaming industry. Sega, Nintendo, & SNK represented hardware makers who were also their own software makers. The REAL game companies. That's almost a lost element in gaming nowadays save for one who shall remain Nameless. Hard Drives? The whole online avatar tags (gamertags) that have seemingly gone to Wii (Miis) and PS3 (home)? Age of Empires isn;t innovative? Nintendo bought the rights for the Wiimote, btw, they didn't make the technology themselves. •All companies are in this for the money like any business but it seems that's ALL MS is interested in for the gaming business (maybe that's why green is the XBox's color). I don't think they respect the craft or the soul of this business. This is just another bauble in their corporate chest of jewels and their attitude towards this industry reflects this. All they're REALLY here for is for upending Sony from the home media convergence plan and something tells me as soon as they stop Sony their digs in the gaming business will release. Why else would someone lose billions and continue forward? This is just adding onto their monopoly and keeping them from being stagnant (the operating system empire won't last forever). And making gamers happy along the way. I guess thats why gamers have logged 1 billion+ hours on Halo 2. Do you think, even if 50 million people bought Super Mario Galaxy, that they'd equal the playingtime of Halo 3? Every company is here to upend someone else, and take over the market. Nintendo is trying to converge just like MS and Sony are - look at their online channels.   As much as you dislike Microsoft: let me ask you. Would you prefer the gaming industry to have JUST 2 companies, in Sony and Nintendo? I sure don't.

Mrstickball must see himself as my nemesis I guess.

I don't mind them being IN the industry. As they are now their threat is limited. But I NEVER want them to RULE this industry. And let me tell you something. There will ALWAYS be a competitor of some kind as long as there is money to be made in this field. SOMEONE will take up the mantle if someone else drops.

Responding to your points one by one:

•The four year console cycle:

"Since when is Microsoft planning this? They've stated many, many times that they are going for a 6-7 year generation, like the PS2 - they've planned the next one in 2011-2012. The Wii has far more going against it being a 4yr system than the X360."

For your first point here's a few links with people discussing Microsoft's possible plans to jumpstart generations prematurely:

http://www.news.com/Commentary-Microsofts-Xbox-360-spin/2030-1069_3-5706144.html

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=26215

I have a very strong feeling that Microsoft IF they decide to continue in this business will try to jumpstart another generation to win attention from the competition. I was talking on the phone with a friend of mine and we were talking about all the consoles and he pointed out to me that the XBox 360 sold near 10 million in its first year yet has moved just over 2 million THIS year. Halo 3, the great success it was, only moved hardware up about 25,000 over Wii in this current ebbing period for Nintendo. I asked him if he thinks XBox 360 has peaked and he actually said he thought it already peaked last year with Gears of War. I don't quite agree with that but that's his opinion. Microsoft is strong here in USA no doubt but worldwide they are either modest or nonexistent in success. It's improving, yes, but what basically gives them strength is the USA where all the people are. This is what offsets Sony's PS3 who can't get in anywhere. 360 usurped their role and is gaining their audience.

With all this in mind I think they will try to steal the thunder once again because Nintendo has totally changed the game and will do so more broadly in the coming months and years. That old NES controller standard that has been refined time and time again over the past 25 years that XBox 360's using is gonna be a dinosaur and show its age very soon. I think Microsoft may incorporate some kind of motion sensing with a twist to their next machine. Perhaps even tech from that tabletop computer thing they've played around with. Businesswise I don't know how wise this is but then again I'm not blowing billions making videogames and ain't got it like MS to bling like that. If you'll lose 4 billion and keep going there's no limit to what you will do.

 

•The reliability argument:

"That's why they've undertaken adding so much within the past ~6mos to fix it all."

I'm sorry but this is simply inexcusable at the price they're setting. I would be F'n pissed OFF if I put in that much investment behind something so unreliable. Like say a new car I spend 6 digits on and everytime I look around there's a new repair. This shoulda been worked out from the GET-GO. BEFORE the launch. You have to allow human error of course. There will always be some manufacturing flukes. Man is in the ointment. But to have this be such a common occurence shows that shoddy craftsmanship is at hand and NOTHING bothers me more than that. Even the price doesn't bother me like stuff like that does. One Great Point about the PS3 is I haven't heard any common accounts of malfunctions and breakdowns. It's costly. TOO costly but you are getting your money's worth craftsmanship-wise. At least it works!

Here's an skit from G4 showcasing last generation's console endurance with the predictable hierarchy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXvTz65o3SQ

PS2 was last gen's flawed device and XBox 1 was pretty sturdy while launching at $300 in USA. Gamecube of course was the champ. Now on a company's first try I don't hold defects against them as much. Which is why I don't come down too hard on Sony with the PSP, their first handheld. And wouldn't have come down so hard if XBox 1 had flaws like that. But this is Microsoft 2nd try at this. They KNOW what to look for and how to put things together. So why is this system the most shoddy hardware of all time? European Union's Consumer Commissioner is getting on their case for God's sake! I don't want MS's practices in the OS world to infiltrate videogaming. I don't want endless patches and non-beta tested material coming out and being seen as normal. That is not how business is done nor should be done. I talked to an 84 year old man at work about craftsmanship and he told me his brother had a washing machine from 1958 that still works as good as new today. Nearly 50 years old and still WORKS. That's how things used to be done and that is what people at one time DEMANDED and expected. But people have lowered the bar and accepted cut cornered products without question. Consumers not customers. I have no sympathy for 360's hardware manufacturing issues especially after their 1st console was better made.

 

•The pricing argument:

"Blame Sega for this in 1996. And if $200 was the best, Why doesn't Nintendo sell at that?"

Sega? This goes back way beyond Sega. 1990's Neo-Geo $650, 1993's 3DO $700, 1991's CD-i $700, Atari 5200 even launched at $330 back in 1982. And you see what happened to them, don't you? Sega paid the price too which is why after all the 5th gen dropouts fell out of the market Sega became 3rd and last in that generation worldwide. $200 IS best. Some people won't buy a Wii right now because it's $250. Nintendo launched at $250 before with the deluxe edition of the NES. A game is included with Wii along with a lot of good free-to-use stuff. Essentially it's CHEAPER than the Gamecube OR the N64 was. You had to BUY Super Mario 64 or Pilotwings 64 for $60 in ADDITION to the $200 gamesystem making it REALLY $260. Not counting the controller pak which ran you another $20 for a total of $280. You can't save a game on Gamecube without memory card so after buying the $50 game you STILL have to buy the $20 card unless you like playing games from the beginning over and over again. That's $270. In actuality Wii is a better package deal that both of those. If counting like this Wii is ESSENTIALLY STILL $200.

Even AT $250 it's a much better purchase than $400 and $600 for a gamesystem. Always will be. Partially why it's selling so strongly and how it caught 360 so fast even after a massive year-long headstart. MS gets away with this partially because buyers have become more consumer than customer, they have a strong lineup of games and they are American U.S.-ran. But I STILL don't like that trend. Gaming is supposed to be an affordable luxury. I don't need VIP velvet ropes creating greater haves and have nots for what is supposed to be a mass market medium. Nintendo paid that price with those expensive cartridges on the N64 and thanks to Sony of PS1 era and some others now $50 is seen as cap for what a game should cost.

Videogaming = Cheap luxury. Nothing else. The medium that allowed you to get a full playing experience on a quarter. Cheap luxury. Nothing else.

 

•Microtransactions and in-game advertising:

"Or like the intenet, we get lots of FREE games with the ads, and such. It's a blessing and a curse. What if you could download extra characters for Super Smash Brothers?"

People hate ads. You would hate ads popping up on this site when you wanna post. I see some of that right now as a matter of fact. We succumbed on the TV front but damned if we're gonna have it everywhere. I DEFINITELY don't want that shit in my videogames. Outside of real world emulating racing games where billboards are used for environmental immersion I don't wanna SEE people trying to influence me to buy a buncha crap when I'm trying to escape through videogaming. The internet is the internet and even there we have some control over what we see. Pop-up blockers and spam guards. Sites with their ad-free memberships. They don't belong in videogaming.

I'm Link and I'm about to open the chest that gives me the Hookshot I need to get to the other ledge. The music hits: Dun-da-da-da Dun-da-da-da Dun-da-da-da Dun-da-da-da "Buy the new liquid clear Fresca available at Wal-Mart and select Target stores. Fresh the Fresca! (Do the Dew!)" TURN-OFF. That will not fly, brother. That plane's got no wings. That dog ain't gon' hunt, bruh.

Oh and download extra characters. Yeah no biggie as long as I ain't got ta buy 'em. Download? No prob. Pay for it? Kiss my ass. Your skill (or your cheat device) should unlock the hidden content available in a game. This should never change. I don't wanna encourage people making partial games where they nickel and dime us for every bit of armor, every powerup, every bonus stage, every secret character, every bit of extra text. That'll kill the industry dead if that took place. No blessing. All curse. 'F' the money.

 

•Game development costs:

Atleast they're working with other companies like Epic to make middleware more prominent in the industry to cope with costs. That and the add-on content can equal the playingfield.

See this is one department I blame both Microsoft AND Sony for. This one-upsmanship power race they're having can only make things worse long term. More and more and more tech and power and time and staff for the same, lesser or at best slightly better returns. That'll eventually run developers, publishers, and console makers out of business. EA's revenues and profits have been in decline for the past 2 years despite owning all sports licenses exclusively. Activision, EA's inspiration for forming in 1982, has passed them as #1 3rd party. All these mega publishers absorbing smaller companies squeezing all the art out of them and spitting them out like overchewed gum when it's all over ready to pounce on the next company to suck dry for the profit margins. Look at how it used to be Square and Enix and now it's Square-Enix. Look at how it used to be Namco and now it's Namco-Bandai. Look at how it used to be Sega and now it's Sega-Sammy. Merging because gamemaking is getting harder to turn a profit from because of how the industry is setting itself up.

Yeah that tiff between Silicon Knights and Epic Games over that Unreal Engine middleware surely won't spark a negative trend if you believe Silicon Knights complaints of Epic holding them back in order to make Gears of War a better received game. Making a bomb bigger than the atomic lost its purpose. Time to build a BETTER bomb instead. Don't get caught up in Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor's AWK AWK AWK power flexes. Make the money count. Still don't like incomplete games either. Add-on before you ship I say. Leave that mess for the PC world where it belongs.

 

Miyamoto says "Use the innovation Luke":

"Hard Drives? The whole online avatar tags (gamertags) that have seemingly gone to Wii (Miis) and PS3 (home)? Age of Empires isn;t innovative? Nintendo bought the rights for the Wiimote, btw, they didn't make the technology themselves."

Hard drives are INDEED Microsoft's contribution to the console world. Their PC in a console body mindset made that a natural progression. You think I don't give MS credit for nothing. That was a good thing they added. It's one reason why the only wrestling game I really liked in the 6th gen was Raw 2 on original XBox because its hard drive can hold so much data where I add the real theme songs of the wrestlers and so much more. Nintendo's Miis have been around since the 80's, bruh. They've been kicking that around for decades. They wanted it for the original Famicom. Can't speak for PS3's unique hybrid of Second Life and network play. Not enough info on that. Age of Empires came from PC, mrstickball. I'm talking consoles. Besides Ensemble made it and they're Microsoft owned. Still not really Microsoft. They buy up their developers. Microsoft Flight Simulator is homegrown. Halo is Bungie's and now with its success they're breaking apart from MS. MS knows who to buy, yes, but they have no real home team. It's not like Sega's AM-2 which was a spun off team of the larger Sega but more incorporated developers from the outside. Microsoft has no creative input on the design of these games like Nintendo does with its incorporated bodies like Retro Studios. It just writes the checks and presses the discs letting the devs make the games. Which is fine but it doesn't speak to a real home creative team like SNK, Sega, and Nintendo.

"Invented." Hmhmhmhmhm. I knew this would come into play soon when it came to the Wii. INNOVATE is NOT INVENT. It's to make NEW not to fabricate from nothing. NOBODY. NOBODY would EVER have come close to making a controller like that but them. No one had the wherewithal to even fathom that direction. A remote control like a TV remote used as a primary controller. And if you say they do, then why didn't they? I see the XBox 360 controller. I see the PS3 controller. They didn't do this. The Sidewinder didn't work right. There were NO viable motion sensing controllers before Wiimote. They took existing technology and shaped it into a whole new design. Existing concepts and recombined them into a new unique form. It's what they've always done. Even Sega couldn't match this hardware wise. They always followed Nintendo's lead. That's why Dreamcast has a controller pak slot known as VMU like N64 had that controller pak bay. Who finally made wireless control WORK reliably? Nintendo. Wavebird. If it was so easy why wasn't the XBox 1 equipped with this tech? Why wasn't the PS2?

The funny thing is that the Wii might just change computer gaming control. Now that's innovation. Undeniable. Nobody has the track record on innovation, a vital lifeblood for the videogame industry, like Nintendo. And that's just a straight up FACT. Thank God for that.

 

•The O'Jays say, "Money money money mooon-ey......Mooon-ey!"

"And making gamers happy along the way. I guess thats why gamers have logged 1 billion+ hours on Halo 2. Do you think, even if 50 million people bought Super Mario Galaxy, that they'd equal the playingtime of Halo 3? Every company is here to upend someone else, and take over the market. Nintendo is trying to converge just like MS and Sony are - look at their online channels."

You take this as if I'm raining on the XBox fans' parade. I'm happy that they're enjoying themselves and competition is necessary. I know why they're here but they're bringing some joy to people in the process. Nothing wrong with that. In their current place in the industry it's perfectly fine. MY contention of this whole post is that Microsoft RULING the industry would be a bad omen. Both Sony and Microsoft are offset by Nintendo's existence. As long as Nintendo survives this industry survives with it. Without them this thing goes down the tubes because the other companies don't have the proper knowledge and behavior to maintain this fragile garden. As long as Nintendo is here they can run free and the thing still lives on. I said time and time again that Halo 3 is an excellent game and questioned the negative attitude towards it on graphics and all the rest. I'm proud Microsoft made a big event with Halo 3's launch. It's record-breaking and very impressive. All that is well and fine by me but they should NEVER run this industry...just exist in it.

Super Mario Galaxy is magic and that game is gonna have the effect that Super Mario 64 and Super Bros. 3 and Super Mario Bros. and Donkey Kong and Pac-Man had on the public consciousness. Multiplayer online makes for long lasting gameplay but so does inspirational game design which is why Super Mario Bros. STILL sells out on the VC despite its many rereleases over the decades. Which is why an old 22 year old game is still playable today. Which is why a movie (King of Kong) was made using Donkey Kong as the plot point. Mario's not the only game in town and there's room for everybody but this is Mario's town when it's all said and done. Nintendo's town and convergence you haven't SEEN until they start breaking the current definitions of what a game is with stuff like Wii Fit which is about to shock the entire world. Thanks go to the competitors for bringing the best out of the best. Sony's PSP made the DS. Sony's PS3 & Microsoft's XBox 360 made the Wii. This is what I like to see but the greater rewards must stay with the caretaker of the garden. Or else paradise is lost.

John Lucas

 

Four Year Console:

Although I agree that MS shortend the Xbox generation, I just don't see how those links show or prove that Microsoft would shorten it to 2009, and initiate a 4-year cycle. That'd be 2-3 years before another next-generation system launched. Not only this, with the R&D costs of developing the Xbox 360 ($1 billion USD), I fail to see how they would want to drop that much money, for litterally no reason at all.

Again, why in the world would Microsoft spend $250m PER YEAR on developing consoles, if not more, when they could do it vastly cheaper by stretching the generations out? Time has proven that longer console cycles are better. Microsoft launched the X360 to gain that quick foothold (as article #1 stated), but I fail to see how Microsoft would trend to do that.

Not only this, your sales numbers are vastly wrong. Microsoft only shipped about million consoles in it's first year (Nov 05-Oct 06). There have already been 10 thousand discussions on why MS managed 10.4m consoles by Dec. 06 - they shipped vastly too many at that time, and have shipped so few since because there was no need for it. Secondly, look at the actual sales charts: The Xbox 360 is doing better in every region than it did last year, for the same period of time.

And again, if you want to argue consoles: which one was better designed for future specifications of gaming (to counter the PC market, and other innovations in other media outlets): The Wii or the Xbox 360?

 

I said blame Sega because they were one of the first major-brand companies to make a much higher priced console than the previous one, and actually had marketshare to risk (the 3d0, Amiga, and Neo Geo were made by companies that had no decent stake in the hardware market to lose).

Also, as much as we argue that $200 is best, within the past 10 years, no company has launched at $200 and won. The PS1 and 2 were both $300, not $200. The loosers were either more ($400 for Sat, DC) or less ($200 GC, N64).

Also, how the heck are you comparing Super Mario 64 to Wii Sports? Super Mario 64 was a top-end blockbuster game versus a cheap $10 minigame. Your using a hollow argument that the Wii is cheaper because it comes with a $10 game for $250 versus a system that came with no games for $200 - atleast you had a choice to go with budget titles, or buy a real good game.

And of course, from my angle, the Wii consumers are bending over and taking however Nintendo wants to give it to them. With the N64 and GC, you got very comparible, and in some ways better, hardware versus the competition in speficiations. With the Wii your getting something vastly, vastly inferior in hardware. Yes, your paying a whole $29.99 more for an Xbox Core, but your getting something that has 10x the specs.

 

Have you seen the ads that they already have ingame? They're already there, and as prominent as they will ever be. In Crackdown, you see ads for Dodge trucks on the side of a building. The fact is, ads are everywhere, in games, movies, TV shows, and every other way. Your trying to dramatize what ads are about for games.

And for buying extra content - as much as you dislike it, many people enjoy the fact they can pay $10 and double the size of their game. Remember expansion packs for PC gaming? Its the same thing. And alongside the pay-for content, we're getting free content. But since your a Wii gamer, you never will see that, will you? That's another thing Microsoft has atleast done: Given us free upgrades and content for our games. As much as you want to argue, I'm still able to download free Gears maps, extra difficulty settings for Blue Dragon, new co-op modes for Kameo, and lots of other stuff. Sure, some is pay-for, but some free stuff is better than the no free stuff your getting as a Wii gamer.

 

See, here's the issue: development costs will ALWAYS go up. There is a price difference between making a game on the PS1. vs. the Nintendo Wii. And unless the Wii2 has the same specifications as the Wii1 does, costs will go up. Nintendo is only slowing the boat down, but the boat is still going, and prices are increasing. Atleast MS/Sony are trying to find ways to cope with that by allowing for more development packages with Havok, UE3, Gamebryo, and such.

 

Oh also, a quick question: what about Wii Ware versus XBLA? Don't you think that it's another Microsoft innovation in the fact that Virtual Console is a ripoff of XBLM/XBLA on the Xbox, as well as Wii Ware being a ripoff of XNA and the explosion that XBLA has had in the past few months?

Ironically, thats something that Nintendo has ripped off of Microsoft. And IMO, as much as you can tout the Wiimote, and all the greatness of Nintendo, I have a feeling that the online play aspects that MS has brought to the standard console, as well as what Xbox Live Arcade and Marketplace have, are equally as great innovations this generation as a new controller.

 

mrstickball said: Four Year Console: Although I agree that MS shortend the Xbox generation, I just don't see how those links show or prove that Microsoft would shorten it to 2009, and initiate a 4-year cycle. That'd be 2-3 years before another next-generation system launched. Not only this, with the R&D costs of developing the Xbox 360 ($1 billion USD), I fail to see how they would want to drop that much money, for litterally no reason at all. Again, why in the world would Microsoft spend $250m PER YEAR on developing consoles, if not more, when they could do it vastly cheaper by stretching the generations out? Time has proven that longer console cycles are better. Microsoft launched the X360 to gain that quick foothold (as article #1 stated), but I fail to see how Microsoft would trend to do that. Not only this, your sales numbers are vastly wrong. Microsoft only shipped about million consoles in it's first year (Nov 05-Oct 06). There have already been 10 thousand discussions on why MS managed 10.4m consoles by Dec. 06 - they shipped vastly too many at that time, and have shipped so few since because there was no need for it. Secondly, look at the actual sales charts: The Xbox 360 is doing better in every region than it did last year, for the same period of time. And again, if you want to argue consoles: which one was better designed for future specifications of gaming (to counter the PC market, and other innovations in other media outlets): The Wii or the Xbox 360? ------------- I said blame Sega because they were one of the first major-brand companies to make a much higher priced console than the previous one, and actually had marketshare to risk (the 3d0, Amiga, and Neo Geo were made by companies that had no decent stake in the hardware market to lose). Also, as much as we argue that $200 is best, within the past 10 years, no company has launched at $200 and won. The PS1 and 2 were both $300, not $200. The loosers were either more ($400 for Sat, DC) or less ($200 GC, N64). Also, how the heck are you comparing Super Mario 64 to Wii Sports? Super Mario 64 was a top-end blockbuster game versus a cheap $10 minigame. Your using a hollow argument that the Wii is cheaper because it comes with a $10 game for $250 versus a system that came with no games for $200 - atleast you had a choice to go with budget titles, or buy a real good game. And of course, from my angle, the Wii consumers are bending over and taking however Nintendo wants to give it to them. With the N64 and GC, you got very comparible, and in some ways better, hardware versus the competition in speficiations. With the Wii your getting something vastly, vastly inferior in hardware. Yes, your paying a whole $29.99 more for an Xbox Core, but your getting something that has 10x the specs. ----------------- Have you seen the ads that they already have ingame? They're already there, and as prominent as they will ever be. In Crackdown, you see ads for Dodge trucks on the side of a building. The fact is, ads are everywhere, in games, movies, TV shows, and every other way. Your trying to dramatize what ads are about for games. And for buying extra content - as much as you dislike it, many people enjoy the fact they can pay $10 and double the size of their game. Remember expansion packs for PC gaming? Its the same thing. And alongside the pay-for content, we're getting free content. But since your a Wii gamer, you never will see that, will you? That's another thing Microsoft has atleast done: Given us free upgrades and content for our games. As much as you want to argue, I'm still able to download free Gears maps, extra difficulty settings for Blue Dragon, new co-op modes for Kameo, and lots of other stuff. Sure, some is pay-for, but some free stuff is better than the no free stuff your getting as a Wii gamer. -------------- See, here's the issue: development costs will ALWAYS go up. There is a price difference between making a game on the PS1. vs. the Nintendo Wii. And unless the Wii2 has the same specifications as the Wii1 does, costs will go up. Nintendo is only slowing the boat down, but the boat is still going, and prices are increasing. Atleast MS/Sony are trying to find ways to cope with that by allowing for more development packages with Havok, UE3, Gamebryo, and such.   Oh also, a quick question: what about Wii Ware versus XBLA? Don't you think that it's another Microsoft innovation in the fact that Virtual Console is a ripoff of XBLM/XBLA on the Xbox, as well as Wii Ware being a ripoff of XNA and the explosion that XBLA has had in the past few months? Ironically, thats something that Nintendo has ripped off of Microsoft. And IMO, as much as you can tout the Wiimote, and all the greatness of Nintendo, I have a feeling that the online play aspects that MS has brought to the standard console, as well as what Xbox Live Arcade and Marketplace have, are equally as great innovations this generation as a new controller.

Four Year Console:

So why did they do it for the original XBox itself with its tremendous R&D costs coming up to around $4 billion? They aborted the XBox and were flaky on the backwards compatibility to soften the blow. Yeah I know XBox was never gonna go any further in the 6th gen but they couldn't release a little later so as not to burn the buyers so soon? So much spent on the XBox which got a flat 4 years on the market. Not even a good 4+ rounding up to 5. November to November. 2001 to 2005. Check this out. It looks like XBox 360 is stalling even though it's doing impressive software numbers in the U.S. It's stalling in its 2nd year. As soon as I joined this board in March I had already been marveling for months how 360 seemed to be standing still on the charts while Wii was swiftly catching up. When I heard people talking about no chance of 360 getting beat within 2007 it compelled me to come in and make my first post because I couldn't believe the absurdity. The price cut smoothed the ketchup bottle flow but it's still slow for a system with such a lead and headstart. If this system has already peaked then Microsoft may not be able to make its money back for this system resulting in more losses for that division along with the ill-fated Zune.

I suggest one of two options will happen: Either Microsoft cuts its losses and shockingly leaves the industry (Sean Malstrom offered this theory which is very plausible when looking at the business sense) or they try to jumpstart another gen hoping to steal the thunder of the dominant console (Wii). Games games games is only part of the equation. They need to make money on this venture or stockholders will put the brakes on this amusement park ride of videogaming. Microsoft will either have to leave or convince them one more time that they can make good on this adventure. I STILL see Microsoft as the underdog in this industry. They had the most to prove which is what I said in that "Me from 2005: Future of Next-Generation of Gaming" post where I show my foretelling of this entire race before the gen even started. They proved a lot and congratulations go to them. Even without Japan they can carve out some kind of #2 revenue success if they pick up in other markets. But revenue ain't net profits. Sony's mistakes just made it that much easier for them to get over with the crowd. I feel that if Sony didn't mess themselves up MS woulda had a MUCH harder fight to prove their worth. But even now as it stands MS must break even at least and start profitting off of this. If the hardware base struggles to build like it's seeming to do now, then they will have a shallower pool to draw from and might not be able to make that software expense-cover plan work in the long run. And unlike Nintendo who could survive crunched in like that Microsoft's business plan would make that position fatal. It's a long road between here and 2010/2011. Can they last that long? We'll see.

 

Sega and pricing:

You left out Atari but blaming Sega is not smart seeing as that move further messed them up. Why would anybody want to emulate that? Microsoft and Sony thought they could get away with jacking up prices where others failed. It's worked to some success for MS but not so much for Sony. Even still price actually is holding the 360 back more than people think.

You're using the $200 launch price as a signal of failure??? That's backwards! It's not because they were $200 it's because of the timing of the market and the players available at the time. The momentum negative and postive each company had. Nintendo messed up in 5th gen by pissing off the 3rd party. That messed up their NES/SNES momentum and they got cornered. This bad aura followed them into the Gamecube generation which they are only now coming out from. Sega messed up their hard-won Genesis momentum with those 32X/Sega CD fiascos along with the doubling of the price with Saturn & Saturn's tougher development environment. Any goodwill Sega had was further stamped out when they abruptly aborted Saturn in Japan where it was most successful going for the Dreamcast which launched like it was supposed to at $200 US. But by that time Sega dissolved all of its momentum and was fighting to stay alive. Sony's positive momentum crushed everybody and their market timing made sure the PS2 was about the only game in town. It has nothing to do with pricing but momentum and capturing the public's mindshare.

$200 is STILL the magic number in U.S. for consoles. And really it's extra magic when it's UNDER $200 like Genesis was when it first launched which is probably part of why they stole a little of Nintendo's thunder. And please don't try that tired "minigame" routine on me. You're probably the kind of guy that says chess and dominoes are minigames. A game is a game is a damn game. Judgment calls don't make it any less so. Wii Sports is a REAL game and REAL people enjoy playing it. Moreso than most games out here. A system has sold millions on end because of this "non-game" (haha) packed in practically ALONE for all of 2007. Fully fleshed out features and many modes. 5 games in one. Designed simply to make accessible. Included in cost, kid, and it paid off. Blockbuster just LIKE SM64 whether you accept it or not. The snobbery certain gameplayers have picked up over the years has become sickening. People weren't always so close-minded at one time about videogames and what they should be.

Oh and this is so telltale. You kept saying "hardware". Hardware. Nobody plays HARDWARE. They play SOFTWARE. I'm not here to look at the circuitry and components in the machine but to play and enjoy the games on my TV screen. Every generation they forget. Every generation. Hardware means jack without the software to back it up. And NEVER EEEEEEVER has the most powerful system won because of power. It's usually the WEAKEST system that wins in consoles. Ask Mike Intellivision about it when it comes to Atari 2600 and his namesake. Your last gen example was the PS2, the weakest of all 6th gen even under Dreamcast. DS over PSP is your recent handheld example. And B&W no backlighting Game Boy vs. all the rest is your old school handheld example. Get your head out of the tech man! Hahahaha. It doesn't work. It never did.

 

Ads in gaming:

Crackdown, an XBox 360 game. I got Excite Truck on Wii. No ads whatsoever. Trauma Center. No public service announcements from the AMA. Godfather: Blackhand. No ol' timey soda pop ads sprinkled all throughout the backdrop. You might accept that mess laying down but I sure ain't. You think it's benign but it will ruin what gaming is about if it's left unchecked. Sponsors will start dictating what kind of direction a game should go in to best promote their product and crap like that. Imagine someone using an Egg McMuffin as a powerup where the Egg McMuffin is in pristine detail to look better than the rest of the game. The wrong kinds of folks will get involved if unchecked marketeering is going on.

Yeah many people enjoy a lot of dumb things. Some people enjoy injecting heroin into their veins. This is what I call the difference between a CONSUMER and a CUSTOMER. I don't EAT just anything they trot right in front of me. I'm very comfortable with technology but I never buy every latest tech gadget available. I to this day don't have a cell phone and don't want one. My landline works just fine. I use email and IMs to communicate as well through media wires. It's not that I'm a Luddite but that the tech has to have a real use in my personal life for me to snap it up. Blu-Ray and HDDVD are the real fads. Both of those media types will be outmoded by a leftfield-directioned new form of media storage which won't be anything disc-like in form and most likely smaller. It's a useless fight. Plasma TVs and all that. I wait to see which will be useful and which has the longest staying power.

Free extra content? Like I said before...cool beans. Extra content? No problem. As long as it's free. Asking me to pay for that? You can kiss my high yellow ass. That's just bogus. But if they wanna do it, be my guest. You just keep that mess over there and out of the rest of the industry. I pay for my games in full the FIRST time. You can save all that nickel-and-diming. It's one concession of many that I simply won't make. You gotta draw a line somewhere or you'll never draw a line anywhere.

Game development costs:

Yep they're going up because the process of making games has grown more complex. But this doesn't have to be an inevitably upward process and Wii made a stand precisely for that. Graphics is where all this is going anyhow. Not new styles of gameplay. Not totally new game logic. All for looks and cinemas. Wii Sports probably cost $1 or 2 million at best and has become a blockbuster that so many enjoy around the world. Some things just don't need all that overhead. But see it's not even the overhead that's the issue. It's the returns. They put all this work and toil behind this stuff and it's not even pushing sales past a certain barrier.

Perfect example: Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell on XBox vs. Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent on XBox 360.

According to VGChartz themselves Splinter Cell on XBox sold 2.93 million copies

http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=2467

But Splinter Cell Double Agent on 360 sold 1.02 million copies

http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=4610

Almost a THIRD of the amount of its console predecessor. But most likely because of higher graphical output with much more money put into the development.

Now you can say maybe the 360 one sucked and wasn't as good. But then that's even worse. The new system with all its power and tech isn't helping games become better. Yet all this expense is going in. That's a recipe for a crash, bruh. This kind of thing breaks the backs of a lot of companies. Very dangerous precedent and something that needs to be reversed. Even Moneybags Microsoft can run out of money eventually. Something has got to give.

Ending retort:

Now see if you read my "Me from 2005: Future of Next-Generation of Gaming" post that's somewhere around here you'll know that I counted XBox Live as one of the strengths of the XBoxes. It's what gives them an identity outside of Sony and makes them stand out. Network play is not new but XBox made it stick and created a unique lasting community with it. This indeed is their other big contribution to consoles and YES Nintendo had to be inspired by their efforts in creating the Virtual Console and WiiWare. Many companies like Sega with Dreamcast (who Microsoft learned the business from) and others worked with online but MS's experience in that field from the OS days brought it to the limelight. The PC world I've heard is not so impressed by Live but it's definitely made a mark on the biz. That is undeniable. In the end I was talking more about gameplay than networked interaction. I think the reason so many people are mad at Nintendo in how they're handling their online is because they want the fluidity of MS's service with Nintendo properties which would make the scene totally different from the MMORPG, FPS glut of stuff that usually takes place on networked play. Different styles of games.

Sony expanded the market and helped mainstream memory cards to consoles and introduced built-in backwards compatibility to game systems. Microsoft THANKFULLY brought in the worldwide launch and added hard drives and a integrated network play experience to consoles. I give credit where credit is due. But to hold down an industry like this you have to go beyond that. I just don't feel either Sony or Microsoft is up to the task of being the guardian of this industry. I feel their roles are best in participation but not domination. In all honesty even when Sony held the marketshare with the PS1 & PS2 they never really controlled this thing per se. They knew how to market and how to capitalize but a lot of things happened from the outside in rather than the inside out. Their divisional profit margins from all that dominance showed a company working double time for half-results. It was always a shaky position and something they couldn't maintain for long if they didn't change their game plan. We're seeing the results now.

Gaming has to stay fresh, stay uncluttered from rank unrelated commercial interests, stay affordable, and be reliable. If Microsoft is at the helm of this ship those things will no longer happen. If in full control Microsoft would be a nightmare for this industry. But luckily that is not the case and they can contribute and enrichen the game experience while the guardian maintains the fertile field. It simply must be that way.

John Lucas

I'm not about to get in this argument, but I want to address one totally peripheral thing that was said:

This is not really true. The Sega CD, for one thing, may not have been a great success, but it clearly shows that Sega knew which way the industry was going to go without having to take any cues from Nintendo.

But the biggest thing that Sega did a really good job on, that no one else did -- especially Nintendo -- until the Xbox came out, is online gaming. Even the Genesis had a service that let you play games for a monthly fee over your cable TV system, and the Saturn had proper online play (or so I've heard). Dreamcast had better online despite its short run than the PS2 EVER did, and it was only a natural progression of what Sega had been doing for so long.