Topic: Nintendo to go the way of Sega + Nintendo is for kids

[AgentSeven]

Actually, the numbers for Sega Net were practically higher than both the ps2 and X-box online plans combined.

As for whoever said that "X-Box live was a success in the USA," you are grossly misinformed.  Also do your'e own fact checking.  99% of what I say can be confirmed with very little searching.  I'm not here to help the lazy and the underinformed.

As for the other %1 of what I say, well my track record is good, so you'll just have to take the "leap of faith."  Informed readers know, I only speak the truth.

The real loser here is the X-box. (Even though I love mine.) It's lost billions and it's online plan is a joke.  I won't even get into how well the system has been cracked by hackers and pirates.  Not to mention the fact that the PC divsion of M$ hates the X-Box and they see it as "Mircrosofts Vietnam."
One M$ rep I spoke with at E3 actually said "F*** the X-box!"  I don't mean to use that language, but that's what he said.

Meawhile, GameCube has NOT been hacked.  The cost of goods per system is LESS than $50 a unit and they have made nothing but profit from day one.  

Whose the real winner here?  Let's not even count the MASSIVE sales of the GBA..

(I guess I won't even mention the serious production problems the PSP is having.  Expect those "Disc read errors" to start pouring in just after launch....)

[mouse_clicker]

Online games getting hacked is nothing new- in fact, it happens to just about every game that can go online, so that's not exactly a reason to come down on Microsoft. True, they failed to protect the plan, even with a closed network, but it's not like their failure was any more spectacular than everyone else's. And while XBox Live might not have done near as well as MS would have liked, I DO admire their attempt and XBox Live IS a very good system. Online gaming will eventually reach a time where it can be profitable, and Microsoft, in my opinion, made a very good attempt at laying the groundwork for that time.

[Shift Key]

AgentSeven: It's funny you should mention the 'hackings'."
I read an article here about how Microsoft has gotten around the Linux hacking of Xbox very easily. Basically, an update done through the Live network closes the loophole that enables Linux to run. While it is very hard to fix modded systems (which is their own fault since they went with the DVD-ROM format), it shows they can keep up with their opponents.

I wouldn't exactly call Xbox the 'big loser' - sure it has lost Microsoft billions of dollars, but the money isn't a problem. You ever heard of the saying, "Sometime you've got to spend money to make money"? This is what Microsoft has had to do to get a footing in the industry.
Sony did the same thing with the PS1, and look where they are.

Quote
The cost of goods per system is LESS than $50 a unit and they have made nothing but profit from day one.

FALSE: Nintendo had to make a small loss ( < $10 per unit) at launch because of these price wars. But over time, the costs went down and so they managed to make a profit.
I could find you a link, but frankly i can't be f***ed.

And I said "I've heard XboxLive has been successful in the USA, and that's about it." because:
1. I don't live in the USA.
2. I don't care much for the XBOX outside of gaming news and occasional playing a friend's system.
3. I have better things to do then hunt down stats.

Just letting you know

[ghostVi]

Well, I've herd both ps2 and xbox online plans are a disaster so far. Can't get the numbers to prove it, but it was an awfully small percentage of the user base that actually does play online..... If someone has a reliable source please correct / confirm this, I'm curious...

Same point about the xbx hacking - they patched only online users, that's nowhere like putting xbx Linux out.

[AgentSeven]

Let me get this straight.  X-Box loses over 3 Billion and it's called "spending money to make money?"

I hate to dump on the box, it's superior to the "Crap-Station 2" in almost every way, but still, it's the clear loser in this three way race.  In the end, business is about profit.  Nintendo has made the most profit so far, so in my book, they win.  GBA Sales, GC sales, and don't forget but the N64,GBC, and the SNES are still making money for Nintendo.   You can say $ony has it's other electronics and that M$ has Windows, but they don't count.  We're only talking about video games.

By the way, GameCube's cost of good is indeed LESS than $50.  It's not common knowledge and often times,  companies will claim that their cost off goods is higher than it actually is.(For Tax purposes, they do this even in Japan.)  However in reality the GC costs Big N LESS than $50.  It's not the sort of thing you'd read in Barron's or the WSJ, but it's true.

As for the Linux exploit, I've actually seen Linux hacked X-Box's running bootleg software without the need of a mod chip.  That's a serious problem.  I also want to be on the record as saying that I am %100 against piracy.  It has substantially hurt this industry.  Fixing this problem through X-Box live isn't going to do much, especially when %90 of X-Box owners don't even use X-Box Live.  The article Shifty quoted was "damage control."

I also stand by my earlier statements that X-Box Live and the Ps2 online campaigns are complete and utter failures.  The retail chain that I work for, which is a susbstantial one with locations around the world, has discontinued all future orders of LIVE Kits and PS2 modems.  This summer a friend of mine was able to pick up a ps2 modem on clearance at Wal Mart for $10!!  We  also know about the X-Box live 2.0.  They are calling it an "upgrade" but what it is really is a product re-launch.  Gee, successfull
products don't often require relaunches, do they?

[KnowsNothing]

AgentSeven, you anger me.

I think I remember the percentages being low for Xbox live nd Ps2's modem, but I think it was still mariginally succesful.  They managed to hook players by at least offering games with the capabilty, and although the percentages were low, it was still succesful for a first online attempt on both parts.

They were not "complete and utter failures" IMO.

[Matrix]

500, 000 Live kits for a console with 10 million users is a pretty big failure.

[the_zombie_luke]

How is Microsoft going to make a profit on their next system? By losing $150 on each system sold again?  Even Microsoft can't lose money forever.  The only product Nintendo lost money on was the Virtual Boy, and even then, the loss was minimal. I think Howard Lincoln said in Game Over that the Virtual Boy lost much less than the Saturn. I'm so sick and tired of seeing so many stories on the Web about how Nintendo is doomed just because they're not a conglomerate.  Good games will stand the test of time, while Sony and Microsoft won't.

[mouse_clicker]

Matrix: I believe that was 500,000 in the first month, not total.

[KnowsNothing]

Yeah, Matrix, those numbers seem a little lower than what I remember.  But I dunno, I usually don't pay any attention to numbers.

[Plugabugz]

I remember reading a Microsoft press-release recently that Xbox Live has 50,000 customers - In Europe.

50k against the UK alone (which is 'apparently' the biggest country for sales minus Japan and America) is still disappointing.

[mouse_clicker]

But the UK is only one country out of many in Europe alone. Besides, I remember reading that XBox live hasn't done anywhere near as well in Europe as in North America.

[AgentSeven]

500,000 in the first month?!  Excuse me while I LMAO!

Not hardly.  That's just like the lie that says are 50 million Ghey-Station 2's worldwide.  Also quite laughable. (Maybe 50 million shipped, but certainly not sold through.)

As we know, X-Box live is "re-launching" it's product line with the new 2.0 version.  A re-launch in not something a successfull product needs.    

[mouse_clicker]

500,000 in a month is indeed incorrect (I never said I was right), but it's not 500,000 total right now. XBox Live sold 150,000 units it's first week alone, reached some 250,000 by January of 2003 and was at roughly 350,000 units ( in America) by March- I can find no more recent sales data than that, but gonig by that trend, XBox Live would most certainly have sold more than 500,000 worldwide by now, especially including Europe and Japan (while sales there were bad, they add to the growing number). I'm not trying to get the impression across that Xbox Live is a smash success, just that it's not doing as bad as Nintendo fanboys will make it out to be.  

[KnowsNothing]

Exactly.  If I were in Nintendo's shoes, I honestly can't say what I would do.  and it's a good thing I don't need to.

Would I go online and risk having a failed attempt with losses?  Or would I wait for Sony and MS to test it, and have my first try succesful?   dunno.

[mouse_clicker]

Exactly- Nintendo's letting Sony and MS spend the time and money working out all the kinks of finding a suitable online system, then they'll come in with their own based off of what Sony and MS have done. It will be at a loss of an installed user base, though, which both MS and Sony will already have.

[AgentSeven]

Actually, $ony and Microsoft let SEGA work out the kinks in their networks.  In fact $ony's online structure was desingned by SEGA! (Get the facts straight and give credit where it's rightfully due.  All $ony did was to copy Sega.)

As for the 500,000, that's total BS.  It's a marketing figure.  Until you can prove it with a verifiable number, I just don't believe it.  My store chain has barely sold 5% of the  X-Box live kits we ordered.  In fact many we're sent back to our vendors.  I have spoken with other buyers who have had the same troubles, including some who work for Toys R us, one of the biggest retailers of video games world wide.  

[mouse_clicker]

If anyone can find sales data for XBox Live that extend up to and including August, please post them. I could be wrong, but since 100,000 XBox Live units were sold between January and March, making for roughly 33,000 units a month,, that would put the total number just over 500,000 units in America. When you include Europe and Japan, that number would undoubtedly be higher. I could still be wrong, but my logic says otherwise.

Also, I never said Sony's network was wholey original, just that Nintendo would benefit from not having to work the kinks out of it themselves.

[MadMan]

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
When you include Europe and Japan

So at most 150,000 from Europe, and 2 from Japan.  That still undoubtedly puts them at revenue way below the line of what it takes to maintain XBox Live.  And the more people who buy it, the more games that use it, the more servers Microsoft has to make and maintain.  It will take them a long while to even break even on the project.  They probably won't even make any money off of it this generation.

[Plugabugz]

We can't compare as to how good nor bad this is, because there hasn't been anything on a commercial scale as this. Sega's and Nintendo earlier attempts exempt.

[mouse_clicker]

Obviously, MadMan- I never said XBox Live was actually making money for Microsoft. In fact, I'm positive they're losing a LOT of money on it. I was just pointing out that sales of XBox Live aren't as low as fanboys would have you believe. Sales wise it's probably one of the most successful online systems yet, but Microsoft better have a plan for making money off of it soon or it's not going to stay around for long.

[Shift Key]

Quote
Good games will stand the test of time, while Sony and Microsoft won't.

I can think of at least two things wrong with that statement.

1. Good games DID stand the test of time. They stood out and above the other games. And you didn't see ads for these games splashed across magazines or the TV. You heard about them from word-of-mouth. And that's why they don't stand the test of time today. You ask the average PS2 gamer or XBOX gamer about, say Duck Hunt, and you'll get a very puzzled look from 95% of them (that's an estimate AgentSeven, get a life). They get lost among the hype for the next Rockstar game, or the next Halo game. Because good games don't always come from sequels. Usually sequels are a lot like the originals except better graphics or more stuff. Just look at movies. I could list off sequels that shouldn't have been made from off the top of my head, but that's another story.

2. Sony and Microsoft won't stand the test of time.
That's awfully optimistic talk. Blinded fanboyism methinks.
Sony and Microsoft aren't going anywhere. Sorry for the blunt truth, but both companies make billions of dollars profit each year and aren't likely to change. Sure, one is making a loss, but for a first attempt in a market with two seasoned rivals, i'm sure they didn't expect to make an initial profit, particularly from the XBOX console. They're going head-on in a cut-throat market, attempting to get into the living rooms of families in the place of a PS2 and a GC.
They made some mistakes, big deal? Remember Radarscope? The ill-fated arcade game Nintendo made, then pulled because it bombed. And what did those cabinets become? Donkey Kong. The game that gave Nintendo its first big hit in an industry dominated by an Atari console and other big developers. Now you can't tell me Microsoft isn't allowed any optimism at all. That's stupid.
And Sony? Why would Sony want to leave the industry that they changed forever. Sure, you may not see that it is all for the best, but what is? The industry surely wouldn't be worth $27 billion annually without Sony, and this revolution has breathed life into the industry and is producing some real gems.

These are my opinions. Sometimes sitting on the fence is best if you want to see both sides of the field.
Flame away.  

[mouse_clicker]

Shifty: It doesn't matter how much Microsoft or Sony make NOW (in fact, I'm fairly certain they're making next to nothing, if anything at all, in videogames), because that's no insurance that they'll stay around for ever. It's not much support for the notion, either. Huge companies that once dominated their respective industries have shriveled up and blown away since then- look at Atari. Just because Sony changed the industry doesn't mean they're going to make money off of it. Sega changed the industry and they're doing pretty bad right now. Nintendo changed the industry more than anyone else, yet there's constant talk of them going under. Why is that? I agree that MS and Sony aren't likely to leave for a while, but just because someone is speculating they WILL be gone eventually doesn't make them a fanboy or the statement biased.  

[AgentSeven]

Something is seriously wrong here.  I'm actually going to agree with Mouse!

Microsoft is screwed, there's no other way to put it.  They have lost OVER 3 Billion dollars on the X-Box.  Plus there is a "Civil War" going on inside the company over M$'s future, and whether or not it should include future "X-Box" systems.  I've said this before, when I was at this years E3, I spoke to a Microsoft Rep from the companies PC division.  His words concerning X-Box we're, "F*** the X-Box!"
Again, I appologise for the language, but this is exactly what he said.  That's not exactly what I would call "towing the company line."

(Now I hated saying all of that, even though it was all true.  I love my X-Box and it is a nice compliment to my GameCube.)

As for $ony, they are the single reason that we are headed for an enourmous video game industry crash.  Their policy of "style over substance," "dump bin games," and "endless clone games and sequels" has seriously dilluted this market.  The industries numbers are down, people are being laid off, and companies like Square are posting their biggest losses ever.  (Some people blame $ony's involvement with Square for those losses.)

There was a time when the PSX was the retailer's "darling."  My own company bought so deep on PSX games that we still have dump bins FILLED with even some of the most popular titles.  Now, the image of $ony being the "Cash Cow" is starting to change.  Everytime I visit one of my companies stores and I see those dump bins, I'm starting to understand why.

Now, neither company is just going to dry up and blow away.  Still it will be interesting to see who survives the crash.  Now maybe people will understand why Nintendo has taken such a conservative approach to the game industry over the past 5 years.  They can see the writing on the wall.  When you are a 115 year old company, you tend to think in terms of decades rather than just years.

[mouse_clicker]

I have to pretty much agree with Agent, as well- Microsoft may have expected to lose money on the XBox, but they've lost MUCH more than they had originally planned. Like I said, investors are considering pulling their support out from under the XBox if Microsoft doesn't start making some money on it soon. Eventually they will start making a profit (most likely on the XBox 2), but it's going to take a long time and MS's supporters may not be willing to put out for that long. Microsoft's not stupid, they DO know how to make money, and pouring money into something that's not returning any of it does not fall under that category.

And while I may have respect for Sony in what they HAVE done for the industry, like Shifty said, I do also agree that a crash will inevitably result, largely through their actions. It's not necessarily a bad thing, though, for reasons I've stated in other threads (mainly that it'll weed the bad from the good, as the last crash did).