Topic: Analyst: "Gaming has been a disastrous endeavor for Microsoft"

[Arbok]

Let's get this kettle going:

http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/32642

A financial analyst by the name of Roger Ehrenberg has wrote a pretty scathing report on Microsoft's progress with the Xbox, or lack there of as he puts it. The article focuses on the money side of things, with particular emphasis on the amount of money Microsoft has lost on the brand so far. To quote:

Quote
Well, after five years and over $21 billion invested all they've got to show for it is $5.4 billion of cumulative operating losses, and Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be the silver bullet to turn things around.

Overall, I thought it was a very good article, that talked about a lot of important points, some which are common fact now (like the Xbox selling better in the same time frame in Japan compared with the 360). My only problem with the article was that he started out by citing "Wikipedia.org" as one of his sources... bad idea there. So I'm interested to hear what others thought of it.

[Deguello]

He's right.  For all the hoopla and hullabaloo MS is getting from the gamer section, from a business perspective the Xbox 360 is a big flop.  It's almost like a CHARITY.

For reference, and AFAIK, MS has only ever had one profitable quarter, Q4 2004, They made about $54 million.  This required Halo 2 to sell about 4 million units.  The rest of the years losses brought their yearly total back down to loss.

Here's a record of all companies gains and losses:

FY*       Sony**              Nintendo    Microsoft
1998    974,000,000    629,000,000
1999   1,130,000,000    645,000,000
2000    730,000,000    421,000,000
2001    -409,000,000    726,000,000
2002    623,000,000    800,000,000   -750,000,000
2003    939,000,000    560,000,000   -1,191,000,000
2004    650,000,000    316,000,000   -1,215,000,000
2005    404,000,000    777,000,000   -485,000,000
2006    75,000,00         894,000,000   -1,262,000,000
2007   -1,057,000,000  1,150,000,000   -384,000,000
Totals  4,059,000,000   6,918,000,000 -5,287,000,000

See how MS has never made one cent on this entire endeavor?  If they do have a profit strategy, they had better enact it soon.  Microsoft has other troubles.

[Ian Sane]

"For all the hoopla and hullabaloo MS is getting from the gamer section, from a business perspective the Xbox 360 is a big flop."

Yeah but from the self-centered perspective of a gamer that doesn't matter.  Yeah the Cube was profitable but did that benefit the Cube owner?  It assured that Nintendo would continue to make consoles in the future but it didn't result in more games.  Meanwhile although the Xbox was losing money Xbox owners benefited as the console sold.  The third party support grew as the time went by.  You said it dead on about being a charity but I doubt Xbox owners cared if MS couldn't afford to continue in the next generation as long as they benefitted in the here and now.

Not that this is a good strategy for MS.  It's kinda insane.  It just makes for a more satisfied userbase.

I think their strategy was to force Sony and Nintendo out of the market and then once they had their monopoly customer satisfaction would go out the window and profit by any means necessary would take over.  Nintendo making a crazy comeback out of nowhere has probably f*cked all that up.

[that Baby guy]

I could have sworn I read a report that stated Microsoft was finally making a profit from the sales of a 360.  I guess not.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane I think their strategy was to force Sony and Nintendo out of the market and then once they had their monopoly customer satisfaction would go out the window and profit by any means necessary would take over.  Nintendo making a crazy comeback out of nowhere has probably f*cked all that up.

Correct.

MS's only winning strategy is to hold the market with an iron 90% while their "competition" holds a measly 10%. This is their strategy because that's what they did with the OS market and that's what they THOUGHT they were going to do with the gaming industry.

It was arrogant for them to assume they could just waltz into the gaming industry and buy the whole thing out in the first place, but what they REALLY failed to understand is that, every five years during the generation shift, EVERYTHING goes up in the air again. It's not like the OS market where people will be forced to buy their garbage every year: the game market actually functions on quality and every five years, you need to earn your customer base back ALL over again.

MS is too accustomed to a market which equates shooting fish in a barrel. The gaming market is the open range.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

On individual sales, maybe.  But paying off their initial investments?  Hardly.

They're finally getting some money back on each sale of bottled water.  But it hasn't paid off everything they spent to get the water into the bottle.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
I could have sworn I read a report that stated Microsoft was finally making a profit from the sales of a 360.  I guess not.

Could be possible, although I also assume such a statement would ignore marketing costs and other aspects of selling the system, which are probably tremendous.

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
It was arrogant for them to assume they could just waltz into the gaming industry and buy the whole thing out in the first place, but what they REALLY failed to understand is that, every five years during the generation shift, EVERYTHING goes up in the air again. It's not like the OS market where people will be forced to buy their garbage every year: the game market actually functions on quality and every five years, you need to earn your customer base back ALL over again.

Bingo, we have a winner. MS went into this stating they would be in the red for the first two generations and go into the black for the third... so it's very clear they had something close to this concept in mind. However, the goodwill they earned with the Xbox has not expanded their sales very much compared to the former in the same time frame, which had tougher competition from the PS2 as well.

I'm sure Nintendo leaping from third to a likely first, and Sony doing just the opposite, is having them now wondering if their strategy to tackle the market for the long term is actually going to pay off in the end.

[Smash_Brother]

Like I said, MS's strategy assumes that they are the market leader. Nintendo was brilliant for having a strategy which works even if they're last place because it allowed them to survive this long.

Ian is also right in that they didn't predict the Wii doing what it's doing now, and we're already seeing games which were originally 360-bound heading over to the Wii (NIGHTS, and I'm sure there are others).

If MS can't pull off first place this time either, then I wonder if they'll try a 3rd time. How long can they go on before someone at MS HQ says, "That's it!" and pulls the plug?

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Like I said, MS's strategy assumes that they are the market leader. Nintendo was brilliant for having a strategy which works even if they're last place because it allowed them to survive this long.

Ian is also right in that they didn't predict the Wii doing what it's doing now, and we're already seeing games which were originally 360-bound heading over to the Wii (NIGHTS, and I'm sure there are others).

If MS can't pull off first place this time either, then I wonder if they'll try a 3rd time. How long can they go on before someone at MS HQ says, "That's it!" and pulls the plug?

Hopefully not soon because I love the Xbox 360 and the original Xbox.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Like I said, MS's strategy assumes that they are the market leader. Nintendo was brilliant for having a strategy which works even if they're last place because it allowed them to survive this long.

Hmm... now that I think more about it, perhaps the latest, more expensive model of the Xbox 360 was an attempt to mover closer to profitability? A small glimpse of what could be in store if the company were at #1? I originally thought this was their attempt to fight off the PS3 by moving the 360 closer to its price range so that consumers don't disregard it (price = quality to many who don't research a purchase), however it could have been just the company moving slowly toward their desired price for a system like this instead. Getting the market ready, if you will, for the price hike of its successor, assuming they take #1.

Who knows though, but it sure did make them seem even less desirable to joe average who now sees an even more expensive model, making his choice harder and making the Wii's price point seem ever better.  

[that Baby guy]

Well, I disagree, to an extent.  IIRC, Microsoft never made a profit on the individual Xbox sales, but now, they are making profit on each 360.  This means, that relative to last generation, rather than losing money on three main things, advertising, box sales, and wooing third parties, they now only lose money on luring 3rd parties and advertising.  This switch from loss to at least breaking even on box sales happened dramatically faster than anyone expected, I'm sure.  It doesn't hurt to suspect that Microsoft does have a plan here, and it is a great possibility that they do, when you look at their relative success against the PS3.

I think it depends on whether or not Microsoft can establish that the Wii and 360 cater to different markets.  If they cannot remain individual entertainment systems, then they don't have much hope.  A lot of that depends on whether or not Nintendo can garner what was going to be exclusive support for the system, which is still up in the air.

To sum it up, Microsoft's existence in the gaming sector will probably be entirely dependent of keeping their games away from Nintendo, so they are their own entity.  If we see R* games on the Wii, if we see DMC whatever on Wii, and games to that extent, they won't have anything.  If they can maintain those licenses to only the more hardware intensive systems, Microsoft can make it.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
It doesn't hurt to suspect that Microsoft does have a plan here, and it is a great possibility that they do, when you look at their relative success against the PS3.

Sony tripped on their own feet and are a bad example here with the PS3. The best one is to compare the 360's sales to the original Xbox's in the same time frame, which looks bad for the company, especially considering the 360's massive head start. Let's not ignore the fact that the PS2 is still outselling the 360 in most markets too.

[that Baby guy]

What are the sales numbers?  I found a comparison chart for the first four months, but I know Microsoft was limited in supply for 360s that time.  Does anyone have a comparison chart for the first year and four months?

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
It doesn't hurt to suspect that Microsoft does have a plan here, and it is a great possibility that they do, when you look at their relative success against the PS3.

Sony tripped on their own feet and are a bad example here with the PS3. The best one is to compare the 360's sales to the original Xbox's in the same time frame, which looks bad for the company, especially considering the 360's massive head start. Let's not ignore the fact that the PS2 is still outselling the 360 in most markets too.

Why is PS2 outselling 360 that important? The system still has a sizeable game library is less than half the price of the core Xbox 360 model!

[MaryJane]

I'm just going to add my two cents in and remind everyone that as of now Microsoft IS #1 in the "next-gen" console race. At least for now. However, it is likely that once Nintendo can ship as many Wii consoles as there are X360's sold, they will no longer have that advantage. Every move they make from now until then, they are making as the current market leaders.

As someone mentioned before me, if MS can keep Nintendo in the "new-gen" territory they will have a much better chance at success. If there isn't a difference in game titles between them except for 1st party titles, Nintendo is the clear winner.

[ShyGuy]

The PS2 outselling the 360 wouldn't matter if Microsoft was only interested making a profit selling its product. They are interest in being #1, so having the PS2 #1 in a competitive field is a bad thing.

[Ceric]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane I think their strategy was to force Sony and Nintendo out of the market and then once they had their monopoly customer satisfaction would go out the window and profit by any means necessary would take over.  Nintendo making a crazy comeback out of nowhere has probably f*cked all that up.

Correct.

MS's only winning strategy is to hold the market with an iron 90% while their "competition" holds a measly 10%. This is their strategy because that's what they did with the OS market and that's what they THOUGHT they were going to do with the gaming industry.

It was arrogant for them to assume they could just waltz into the gaming industry and buy the whole thing out in the first place, but what they REALLY failed to understand is that, every five years during the generation shift, EVERYTHING goes up in the air again. It's not like the OS market where people will be forced to buy their garbage every year: the game market actually functions on quality and every five years, you need to earn your customer base back ALL over again.

MS is too accustomed to a market which equates shooting fish in a barrel. The gaming market is the open range.

I can't believe that because I'm pretty sure that MS is turning a profit in the PC accessory arena as well and I'm fairly sure they don't dominate that arena or come even close.

*shrug*
If the whole IPTV thing gets popular I can see their being a turn around on that side of things.  Though MS is probably thinking from a broad perspective.
Also I do believe that they are no longer losing money on each console sold.  Thats already better then last go around.

I'm not getting into the quality debate again.  I know who you are referencing.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
What are the sales numbers?  I found a comparison chart for the first four months, but I know Microsoft was limited in supply for 360s that time.  Does anyone have a comparison chart for the first year and four months?

They were roughly a million ahead from the total sales of the first Xbox last month... or projected that way, the NPD will give a clearer image when it comes out for last month.

I could stir the kettle further by raising into doubt what the defect rate is on the 360 compared to the original system, and how that might further play into the actual consumer base of the two... but there isn't much data there to go off of anyway.

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Why is PS2 outselling 360 that important? The system still has a sizeable game library is less than half the price of the core Xbox 360 model!

Because it has been a year now, and it's still happening, and not just in one market. On the other hand, the Wii IS outselling the PS2.

EDIT: Or was, until last month in the US when the PS2 took 2nd.

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
The PS2 outselling the 360 wouldn't matter if Microsoft was only interested making a profit selling its product. They are interest in being #1, so having the PS2 #1 in a competitive field is a bad thing.

Bingo. That is their #1 objective. Let's not ignore the recent reports either that Microsoft might have dumped a ton of consoles onto the market to meet their "10 million" shipped target last holiday... which sales still haven't caught up to that mark yet:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360-Microsoft-Mugged-Their-own-Sales-Figures-51980.shtml

Clearly this company is out for market share and perception at this point, and being beaten by a last generation console more than a year after launch doesn't look good, period. It's not a strong sign that Microsoft's offering is going to take #1 for this generation, as many had predicted if the PS3 had stumbled.  

[that Baby guy]

You forget there is a question mark, there.  That is just speculation.  Additionally, around holiday times, the console makers usually attempt to flood the market with their console, so everyone gets one.  That article is purely speculation, and has little basis to support an argument, especially considering the behavior the article suggests Microsoft is taking is the same approach Sony has always used in respect to consoles sold.

[Jin-X]

See "MS lowers June shipment forecast" and the fact that they still haven't sold 10 million.

[couchmonkey]

The silver lining in the MS cloud is that the company is preventing Sony from taking control of the set-top-box market.

Looking at Sony's strategies, perhaps PS3 would have been a failure no matter what...then again, if there was no 360, maybe Sony wouldn't have felt the need to advance the arms race quite so much, and there also wouldn't be any cheaper alternative for "next gen" graphics.  From Microsoft's perspective, it's worthwhile to continue jabbing at Sony, otherwise people might have a mass-market videogame system that surfs the web, answers email, downloads television, movies, music and games, all from the living-room couch.  What do you need a home PC for anymore?  Word processing and doing taxes...but a used PC with Windows 2000 can handle that job for years to come.

Microsoft is already feeling some pain because the PC market doesn't have much room left for expansion - the last thing it needs is for that market to start eroding.

I guess the other thing is that although I totally agree with this guy so far, he's taking a bit of a limited view.  Microsoft has built up some brand popularity and if the company keeps at it, the whole thing could become very profitable in a couple of years.  In fact, looking at Deguello's handy-dandy stats, 2007 has produced the smallest loss so far and with Halo 3 coming I wouldn't be surprised to see MS break even for once.  

All that said, I'm still glad to see someone calling MS out for all the money it has lost instead of applauding it for (barely) buying it's way to second place last generation.

Edit: relevant to this topic: the cash-grabbing Elite is receiving all kinds of preorders, apparently.

[Shift Key]

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
The silver lining in the MS cloud is that the company is preventing Sony from taking control of the set-top-box market.

After sitting through a speech from a Microsoft tech "evangelist" at GO3 a few weeks ago, it surprised me how much Microsoft is focusing on the services and products around the home. Microsoft TV, Microsoft File Server, mobile phones, computers with Vista as well as the 360 indicate that they are looking to fill as many gaps in the average home. The set-top box is just part of it, but having all these items integrated is the selling point that Microsoft have that Sony doesn't.

I doubt that the losses of the original Xbox and now the 360 are concerning to the company, as they can afford to spend the money to build up the brand name and reputation. If the 360 hangs around for longer than the average console lifespan, it could certainly become profitable with the right games. Halo 3 will be a big hit later this year (they put out two new maps for Halo 2 as a download during the week and were promptly downloaded like mad) and the userbase will increase.

And yes, I read somewhere that Microsoft is now making some money from each console sold. Not bothering with finding the link, but that will certainly help with the long-term picture.

[Smash_Brother]

Microsoft is facing a bigger threat on another front right now.

If Apple does what they're rumored to be doing, then they've succeeded in eliminating the key difference between macs and PCs. It all boils down to the fact that Intel hardware in Macs is the same in PCs. Right now, I reboot my OSX laptop, hold option (or alt, for you PC types) and it boots up in XP and runs PC games better than most PC users machines will, all natively off of the Intel hardware.

The next version of OSX was delayed for reasons which people are currently speculating over, and one of those reasons is that Apple will have a version of Windows XP running in the background of OSX, meaning that Apple users can boot PC apps natively, meaning that the difference between XP and OSX is OSX's stability and that's about it.

It changes things pretty dramatically when buying a top-end Mac also equates buying a top-end PC. I know there's a vocal minority who hates macs, but this feature is aimed at working professionals who want to run applications from both OSes but don't want to pay for two computers, especially when they're moving around and need a portable computer and don't want to need two of them.

That doesn't hurt MS immediately because you still need a copy of Windows, but after people have started using OSX (like Penny-Arcade, for example), they tend to stay with it and will gravitate toward the Mac versions of these programs.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Apple gaining notoriety is proof that MS doesn't have a monopoly and that companies can be competitive, it is just harder. But that is for another day and another topic .

[SixthAngel]

What still gets me is the ridiculous amount of money ms has invested.  They will not recoup so much money unless they have a total monopoly of the market and if they looked at the trends they would know that it is pretty much impossible to have an iron clad grip on the market.

A huge problem with ms trying to create their consoles into set-top boxes and broaden it to other areas is that xbox is mainly doing well (and not very well) in the us.  It is absolutely tanking in japan (a huge money sink) and I don't think it is doing all that fantastic in europe.  This gives so many other companies the ability to enter the market they hope is coming and makes the xbox seem more ridiculous as a trojan horse.  This limitation also basically eliminates their chances of ever doing fantastic with the xbox.  Making a trojan horse device expensive, and specifically aiming at hdtv owners ontop of the previous limitation is also pretty foolish.  A niche product can only let the new product be niche as well.  Even the game library on xbox show how limited the users are, the only high selling games all tend to come from the same genres and ideas.

They are trying to get into tons of new areas but none of them seem to be taking very well.  They want to get the whole windows connects everything going but outside of a pc does anybody care about windows?  On a different device it loses its monopoly and even the cusomers' familiarity since it has a different interface.  Does zune still exist?

I had the first xbox and I wouldn't really care if they didn't make another console.  All the games they get will still be made, just for other systems.  The microsoft gamestudios will still be open and probably will stay the same quality since they existed before the xbox was even an idea.  Their consoles aren't exactly full of innovations either.   The xbox success is very insular.  

[Shift Key]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
The next version of OSX was delayed for reasons which people are currently speculating over, and one of those reasons is that Apple will have a version of Windows XP running in the background of OSX, meaning that Apple users can boot PC apps natively, meaning that the difference between XP and OSX is OSX's stability and that's about it.

Its been delayed because of the QA team working on the iPhone instead.

Quote
However, iPhone contains the most sophisticated software ever shipped on a mobile device, and finishing it on time has not come without a price — we had to borrow some key software engineering and QA resources from our Mac OS X team, and as a result we will not be able to release Leopard at our Worldwide Developers Conference in early June as planned.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ - [Apr 12, 2007]

And by "boot PC apps natively" I'm guessing you mean "runs an emulated Windows environment within OSX" and that's already available through products like Parallels, Virtual PC and CrossOver. The buzz word  at the moment is virtualization but that's associated more with high-powered servers which run multiple instances of operating systems on top of the base OS. What these programs do is emulation - they don't have the grunt to do virtualization.

[Kairon]

Yres, it's a disaster but... thjey've got so much money!

The only way to escape MS' attention is to convince the beast that what it wants can't be found here... but elsewhere!

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[that Baby guy]

Power Tools are the next generation Xbox.  Power Tools.

[Louieturkey]

MS is also in trouble in the PC market.  Dell recently announced that they are going to start putting Linux in their PCs as well as Alienware PCs.  So the OS market is starting to getting very competitive.  MS' strategy didn't call for them to lose the OS market I'm guessing.

[Shift Key]

Quote
Originally posted by: Louieturkey
MS is also in trouble in the PC market.  Dell recently announced that they are going to start putting Linux in their PCs as well as Alienware PCs.  So the OS market is starting to getting very competitive.  MS' strategy didn't call for them to lose the OS market I'm guessing.

Erm, not so fast.

Quote
Dell has heard you and we will expand our Linux support beyond our existing servers and Precision workstation line. Our first step in this effort is offering Linux pre-installed on select desktop and notebook systems. We will provide an update in the coming weeks that includes detailed information on which systems we will offer, our testing and certification efforts, and the Linux distribution(s) that will be available. The countdown begins today.

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/ideastorm/ideasinaction?c=us&l=en&s=gen

That was at the end of last month. Besides continuing to offer XP and Linux distribution(s) (the frontrunner so far is Ubuntu) alongside Vista, there's not much else to report on this. Dual-boot is certainly being considered as an option, so you have the choice to try out Linux alongside Windows if you have programs that are Windows-dependent.

The whole brew-ha-ha is at www.ideastorm.com if you want to see what possibilities are available but currently there's nothing definite. Just a lot of discussion and potential.

[Kairon]

I know the next major computer purchase I make will be a mac.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Shift Key]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I know the next major computer purchase I make will be a mac.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Give several reasons why.

You can't just throw words around like that. Someone may get hurt.

[18 Days]

I will answer for Kairon
Because he is intelligent.

[Shift Key]

Quiet, you bandwagon-leading whore. Go worship some hippies.

Kairon doesn't need a puppet-master.

[nitsu niflheim]

lol, you two made this thread fun! =D

[Ceric]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Microsoft is facing a bigger threat on another front right now.

If Apple does what they're rumored to be doing, then they've succeeded in eliminating the key difference between macs and PCs. It all boils down to the fact that Intel hardware in Macs is the same in PCs. Right now, I reboot my OSX laptop, hold option (or alt, for you PC types) and it boots up in XP and runs PC games better than most PC users machines will, all natively off of the Intel hardware.

The next version of OSX was delayed for reasons which people are currently speculating over...

Quote
"Apple Statement
iPhone has already passed several of its required certification tests
and is on schedule to ship in late June as planned. We can't wait
until customers get their hands (and fingers) on it and experience
what a revolutionary and magical product it is. However, iPhone
contains the most sophisticated software ever shipped on a mobile
device, and finishing it on time has not come without a price — we had
to borrow some key software engineering and QA resources from our Mac
OS X team, and as a result we will not be able to release Leopard at
our Worldwide Developers Conference in early June as planned. While
Leopard's features will be complete by then, we cannot deliver the
quality release that we and our customers expect from us. We now plan
to show our developers a near final version of Leopard at the
conference, give them a beta copy to take home so they can do their
final testing, and ship Leopard in October. We think it will be well
worth the wait. Life often presents tradeoffs, and in this case we're
sure we've made the right ones. [Apr 12, 2007]"
--http://www.apple.com/hotnews/

Shift Key beat me to it...anyways still I won't edit the bottom.

The iPhone is why Leopard is delayed.  Clear and simple.  Also Apple has stated many time that OSX will not be coming to the Generic PC market anytime soon.  When I can by OSX for my home built computer then we'll talk.  Also my experience with Macs where the opposite.   I was psyched to use one until I had to consistently use one.  Now I'm may...  The things I like I rarely have a need to use while the things I use a lot I don't really like.

Also on the Dell side of things they use to ship out almost all of their systems with an option to have Linux and dropped it when they weren't making enough money to justify the testing and support.  Though you can get most machines with Dos (aka OS Free).

Though if its such a losing strategy to try to have everything play together nice and connect then why is Apple trying to do the same thing with the iTV?  In all actuality when looking at the thing what pops in my mind is, "Why not just hook a Mac Mini to your TV?."  The device seems to be just a portal to your iTunes.  Not to mention I think the iPod is relatively unhealthy for its market as well.   Broadening out with the iPhone.  Every company is finding it needs to get out of its niche.  For most people who just surf the web and type documents Windows 98 would still be fine today if it was still supported officially.  Thats the problem with that type of market.  

"Why do I need a new Toaster when the one I've had for 15 Years still toasts toast? "

[Smash_Brother]

I'm mistaken: the delay is irrelevant. There are many as of yet undisclosed features of Leopard, and even if one of them isn't native Windows, that doesn't mean it's not in the cards

Quote
Originally posted by: Shift Key
And by "boot PC apps natively" I'm guessing you mean "runs an emulated Windows environment within OSX"

No, because "emulated" implies that the application being run is being sustained through virtual fabrication of the resources which the application utilizes so that it can operate. There's a colossal difference between an IBM G5 processor emulating an Intel processor and having an ACTUAL Intel processor. Emulation is slow, sh*tty and unreliable.

I'm referring to the latter where the Windows environment is running natively off of all the same hardware it would typically have in a PC anyway but is still contained within OSX. No "emulation" actually occurs.

Apple has already expressed a considerable amount of interest in ensuring that Macs can also run Windows, as is evidenced with Boot Camp (which I use but seldom need). The next logical step beyond Boot Camp is to run Windows in the background so it can still be accessed and used to boot applications but doesn't sit as the main GUI.

[18 Days]

I've been lobbying for OS/2 Warp support.

[Smash_Brother]

Shame they ended support just last year.

[Ceric]

I'm going to say this and don't take it the wrong way.

Running Windows XP in the background would be a resource hog with little gain for most.  With how much of the API that has been reversed engineered and like, I try just incorporating that into OSX.  Sort of like what Wine is attempting to do.  Actually I could see Apple taking Wine, at its core OSX is a *nix, and adapting it to Aqua till they could fully roll their own.

Also their is emulation even in the PC world.  Virtual PC does not allow direct contact with the host hardware unless you specificly change things so it will.  Its a layer of protection w/ the theory that your using a VPC because you don't want to or can't risk a real one.  Though as mentioned Native is almost always better.
 

[Mikintosh]

*knows next to nothing about operating systems*

Xbox 360 (2nd place in the US, dead last in Japan) + Zune (8% of the market) + Vista (everybody hates it) = Sad portents for Microsoft.

Everyone thinks that Microsoft has an infinite amount of money; they just have a lot. And that's driven by Windows XP sales, which I'm sure have been hurt by Apple/Linux/the wide-spread belief it's bug-ridden. If Microsoft had put the thought into any of these three projects enough to make them superior to what was already on the market, it could've covered up the failures of the other two. MS needed Xbox 360 to be #1 here and at least selling moderately in Japan, Zune to be neck-and-neck with the iPod, and Vista to be the heir apparent to XP. None of those happened. I'm a lifelong Windows user (my sister has a Mac thhough I don't feel the same tempation), but I don't plan on buying any of those. Maybe 360 when it's gone down to $250, but I don't see that happening soon.

Soon the shareholders are going to hold the company accountable, and there's gonna be change. I'm sure the Zune'll be killed eventually, but I think 360'll be the last MS system, Halo 3 or no. Actually, if Sony & Microsoft team up on a Play-Box 4-720 (or something) in the next generation, I think that'd be their only hope.

[Ceric]

Not everyone hates Vista.  Just most people who haven't used it or are used to a 2nd interation OS's (Think 98, Service Packed XP or 2000, OSX10.2>).

Personally I like Vista.  Once I have the money I'll actually get a copy for my Home Machine.  I also like Linux when I'm not the one administrating it, I like Gnome for the Desktop but I like the KDE apps.  Lets face the facts people Zune will never be Neck to Neck with the iPod until Apple truly slips up.  Fact of the matter NO player will be neck to neck to the iPod until Apple Slips up.  Though I can see in a year or two with a few simple changes MS will have their own Zealots much like Apple has almost always had.

Things like:

expanding the Zune use of Wifi to what is being done with the Sansa Connect

Merge the Zune and 360 Marketplace

Offer Lossless Music

Offer Shows and Movies in HD

Offer a Zune Pass that allows you to watch any video (After the Zune and 360 Marketplace are "Merged")

Have a good selection of Shows and Movies
Offer those things and they have me.  Add in IPTV with Tivo like functionality and that be great.  

[Mikintosh]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Not everyone hates Vista.  Just most people who haven't used it or are used to a 2nd interation OS's (Think 98, Service Packed XP or 2000, OSX10.2>).

Personally I like Vista.  Once I have the money I'll actually get a copy for my Home Machine.  I also like Linux when I'm not the one administrating it, I like Gnome for the Desktop but I like the KDE apps.  Lets face the facts people Zune will never be Neck to Neck with the iPod until Apple truly slips up.  Fact of the matter NO player will be neck to neck to the iPod until Apple Slips up.  Though I can see in a year or two with a few simple changes MS will have their own Zealots much like Apple has almost always had.

Things like:

expanding the Zune use of Wifi to what is being done with the Sansa Connect

Merge the Zune and 360 Marketplace

Offer Lossless Music

Offer Shows and Movies in HD

Offer a Zune Pass that allows you to watch any video (After the Zune and 360 Marketplace are "Merged")

Have a good selection of Shows and Movies
Offer those things and they have me.  Add in IPTV with Tivo like functionality and that be great.

Well, I was talking about the general perception of Vista being...hard to run? I'd get it if my laptop had more than half the bare minimum of RAM it needed.

I think the Zune's going down for a hit. It's not user-friendly, doesn't work with iTunes (obviously), and isn't half as sleek or attractive as the iPod. Tying it in with the 360 might pacify current customers, but it won't help the overall business.

Sadly, Microsoft will never have its "zealots" because it gave up the special kind of culture Apple has created for itself years ago when it began to strong-arm Windows into every computer and generally just became a corporate behemoth that people put up with because they make useful software. And even that's starting to become eroded.

[Ceric]

*shrug*
I know that the machine I run it on with the minimum specs at work runs it as well as XP.

[Shift Key]

tldr warning

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

No, because "emulated" implies that the application being run is being sustained through virtual fabrication of the resources which the application utilizes so that it can operate. There's a colossal difference between an IBM G5 processor emulating an Intel processor and having an ACTUAL Intel processor. Emulation is slow, sh*tty and unreliable.

I'm referring to the latter where the Windows environment is running natively off of all the same hardware it would typically have in a PC anyway but is still contained within OSX. No "emulation" actually occurs.

You're waving a lot of hands around in here. Let me give you a heads-up on operating systems - I might be a bit rusty as it was a couple of years ago that I studied this.

When you boot up, you load a segment of code called the kernel -  the foundation of any operating system - into the main memory of a computer. This becomes the interface between the hardware and the programs that are run by the user. The kernel allows programs to access parts of the hardware, such as the processor or a network interface, but through a series of system calls. These system calls differ from kernel to kernel depending on the designer - Windows, Mac, Linux, etc do not have the same kernel. There are some similarities but you cannot simply drop in a new kernel and expect it to work correctly.

Now, if someone wants to run a different kind of operating system, they have two choices. One is that they can reboot and load the different kernel into memory. Or the second choice is to run the operating system within the current operating system. This isn't as easy as you think, even with the same computer architecture.

Software (lets call this the environment manager) has to be used to convert the kernel calls of the new operating system into system calls that the original operating system can execute. The software never has access to the hardware as it is running as a userspace program which talks to the original operating system. Unless OS X is keen to open up their kernel to system calls from userspace programs, this is the way that all emulation/virtualisation programs will access the OS.

In this case, if you were running a Windows program you would need to have a Windows installation (with the required libraries and kernel that Windows applications interface with). The program makes calls to the Windows OS, and the operating system then "thinks" it is talking to the real hardware, but it is tricked into talking to the environment manager. The environment manager then takes the Windows system calls and maps them to the relevant OS X system calls, and the calls are executed by the OS X operating system.

Not anywhere along the line is this process "natively executed" because any other operating system has to be run within a software environment in order to correctly handle the system calls of other operating systems. That's why its emulation - but it was "slow, sh*tty and unreliable" in the past because of the processing power required to do it. These days, the software and hardware power is more suited to the task.

Virtualisation on the other hand is a broad term which involved producing "customised hardware configurations" on top of the original hardware. Different architectures can be run on the same system, with an operating system assigned to each configuration. The configurations are managed by software, which then talks to the original operating system in order to execute code and access hardware.

Feel free to correct me on this, but I don't see Apple pulling any rabbits out of their hat regarding running Windows code natively. And that's because its not a hardware issue, its an operating system issue. They're already including BootCamp with Leopard so I don't see them making huge steps without negotiating a lot of technical and legal issues.

Quote
Well, I was talking about the general perception of Vista being...hard to run? I'd get it if my laptop had more than half the bare minimum of RAM it needed.

Having used Vista on and off for the last two months, I will say that it is a disappointment. They've taken what was at its core the most popular Windows OS (XP) and then made it an annoying experience. From a power user's perspective, I feel like I'm computer-challenged when I use it.

It does things that I don't want it to do. Like setting the home page in IE7 to some MSN site. I swear it changes itself at random intervals.

It does things that I have no control over. The default shutdown is not a true shutdown but a terrible excuse for hibernation - and even that takes forever. Just turn the monitor into a black screen, wait a random period of time, check if the hard drive is still working, wait a bit more. And this was hyped as a real feature of Vista - fast startup and shutdown, when in essence it doesn't do either.

And when I want to do something then it feels like I'm fighting the OS in order to get there. User access controls are a nuisance, and even when I switch them off there is still a popup every time I start Vista telling me this fact.

And when I want to find out information that is important to administrators (like how long a disk defragment will take) it tells me "This could take minutes or hours." No numbers, no little graphic of moving colours around the hard drive space. Nothing. Not good enough.

I believe there was too much of a focus on minor things like visual effects and keeping information away from users that they've made the system aimed towards people who don't wish to be in control of their computer. Just sit back and enjoy the ride, sponsored by Microsoft. Oooh look, pretty colour schemes.

I will be removing it for XP when I get a couple of hours free. Unless they change the OS significantly, with a real focus on usability rather than "shiny things" then I won't be trying it again.

[Ceric]

Quote
I believe there was too much of a focus on minor things like visual effects and keeping information away from users that they've made the system aimed towards people who don't wish to be in control of their computer. Just sit back and enjoy the ride, sponsored by Microsoft. Oooh look, pretty colour schemes.

You may thank Apple for that.  Anyways, I'm waiting for them to finish up Monad,Methinks its something like powershell now, and for Longhorn Server.  Monad, for all intents and purposes, moves the Windows Command line more toward the *nix command line.

On the whole User Access Controls personally haven't found them that annoying.  I agree with the idea but the implementation will probably be toned down a bit.

[Shift Key]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
You may thank Apple for that.  Anyways, I'm waiting for them to finish up Monad,Methinks its something like powershell now, and for Longhorn Server.  Monad, for all intents and purposes, moves the Windows Command line more toward the *nix command line.

On the whole User Access Controls personally haven't found them that annoying.  I agree with the idea but the implementation will probably be toned down a bit.

A good command line is something I've been hanging out for ever since I got into Linux. It just makes things so much easier. And I'm definitely a keyboard fan over a mouse - mice are so inefficient (that's for another rant).

"You are making this change to {some sort of ID here}. Are you sure?" in several popups is not a good implementation.
The UACs need to be changed significantly. Make it useful or get rid of it.

Either let the OS work out which changes will be made and show them in a single popup, or don't show them at all. Because you know that most people will just click them like mad to get them to go away - possibly making bad changes. And that's what the UAC popups are meant to prevent, right?

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Shift Key That's why its emulation - but it was "slow, sh*tty and unreliable" in the past because of the processing power required to do it. These days, the software and hardware power is more suited to the task.

That would classify as emulation, but I'd think that Apple would try to do it, if not booting the apps then at least giving users a way to switch between the OSes at the push of a button instead of having to reboot the machine.

Some of the earlier Macs actually accomplished this by having a PC motherboard included in the chassis.

As for the change to Vista, they'll force people into it the same way they always have: by forcing developers to upgrade to the latest versions of Direct X and other libraries which only run under Vista.

[Shift Key]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
As for the change to Vista, they'll force people into it the same way they always have: by forcing developers to upgrade to the latest versions of Direct X and other libraries which only run under Vista.

That's alright. I can work under XP or Linux depending on what I need to do. I don't play PC games any more these days anyway.

Hell, I've still got a 2k box that's humming along fine in the next room. I'm more stubborn than the average bear.

[Smash_Brother]

Amen to that.

One of the reasons I like Apple is because their support for legacy hardware is nothing short of excellent.

Their current OSX releases will still run on our iMacs: that's 9 years ago.

I know it's the other side of the fence, but since Apple is a hardware developer, it would benefit them to force users to upgrade more often but they genuinely avoid doing that.

Yeah, they're a bit slow by todays standards, but the new OSX running on old iMacs basically equates employing senior citizens.

[MarioAllStar]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Anyways, I'm waiting for them to finish up Monad,Methinks its something like powershell now, and for Longhorn Server.  Monad, for all intents and purposes, moves the Windows Command line more toward the *nix command line.

PowerShell seems pretty interesting. On one hand, the idea of using objects seems a lot cleaner than passing text around on Unix, but then again text is easy to work with. If I need something more complicated, I use Perl for scripting.

I wouldn't mind a simple standard for Unix where data could be passed in "tables" as a midpoint between text and full-on objects. For example, the "ps" command could optionally give its output in a table form to make accessing certain process information easier (i.e., select the PID of all processes owned by root). XML could fit something like that pretty well.

[Ceric]

I agree about the keyboard.  I use it as much as possible.

Doesn't DirectX 9 run on 2000?  MS tends to keep support if a platform is popular in the right segment, business.

Personally I tend to script in Python or whats native.  I'm not really a fan of XML.

Quote
Their current OSX releases will still run on our iMacs: that's 9 years ago.

Congratulation you are one of the lucky ones. So you have a G3 iMac?  Rumor has it that won't work for Leopard.  You may now be mad at Apple for not supporting your 9 year old box.

Seriously though I'm hoping that OS's will reach a stable point where one can be around for 10+ years with only minor revisions (Service Packs not whole OS Upgrades).  Though that would probably make it even harder for me to find work...  

[Shift Key]

Quote
Originally posted by: MarioAllStar
I wouldn't mind a simple standard for Unix where data could be passed in "tables" as a midpoint between text and full-on objects. For example, the "ps" command could optionally give its output in a table form to make accessing certain process information easier (i.e., select the PID of all processes owned by root). XML could fit something like that pretty well.

Well that's nothing special, UNIX just uses some fancy delimiters (like tabs, i forget what those obscure ASCII characters are) being used to align everything and make it look like a table. But its still raw text, so you can certainly play around with pipes and produce something like that already. Grep is your friend. Grep often. Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of processes that could be combined through pipes into a command to do what you want, but it wouldn't be XML data. Just plain text - but you could certainly parse that further.

But not now, there's more important work to do

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Doesn't DirectX 9 run on 2000?  MS tends to keep support if a platform is popular in the right segment, business.

Well my brother still plays Guild Wars on a 2000 box so I think that's right. But I can't pry him off there for long enough to confirm this. I wouldn't say 2k was a popular gaming platform but considering its core (it was based off of NT, and XP borrowed a lot from 2000) then I'm not surprised its still being supported. It still gets security updates even though its been out for longer than the 5 year "support window" that Microsoft were threatening. Or maybe that was for non-security patches.

[Ceric]

I remember when 2000 came out.  It wouldn't play games worth squat if at all.  Once it became apparent that it starting to be preferred in the home segment over ME the support got in their and it became much more compatible.  Some of the die hard 2000 people weren't initial adopters and didn't have to go through that time.  I can say the same about the original OSX I mean initially it was a leap it got significantly better with each release.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Congratulation you are one of the lucky ones. So you have a G3 iMac?  Rumor has it that won't work for Leopard.  You may now be mad at Apple for not supporting your 9 year old box.

Seriously though I'm hoping that OS's will reach a stable point where one can be around for 10+ years with only minor revisions (Service Packs not whole OS Upgrades).  Though that would probably make it even harder for me to find work...

They did around 10.3, actually.

Any updates seen after that are either free downloads for security or browser updates or the version releases which add new features.

In either case, we haven't updated the thing since 10.3 and there's never been a need to do so.

[Ceric]

I can see that.  The last release didn't add anything really important from a home perspective. (It gave better support of some of the Weirdness we do at the TTU Comp. Sci. Mac Lab.)

[Smash_Brother]

Yeah, you're not going to be rendering anything on a G3 iMac so it's good as a web surfing/email machine.

Like I said, employing senior citizens.

[Galford]

How did this become a Mac vs PC thread? Oh well...

I said it before and I'll say it again, The 360 is MS's entry into the living room or all-in-one market.  Everyone in the consumers electronics industry is trying to do this.  The cable companies are doing this with there digital cable boxes, Apple is doing this with their iPod, AppleTV and iphone and the Japanese are doing this with their consoles.

To everyone who is purchasing a Mac, you are going from a horizontal monopoly to a vertical one.  Macs are great till you walk off the farm and do something Furher Jobs doesn't like.

About MS spending billions, how is a company suppose to break into the console market without money hats?  Someone please answer me that.

[Kairon]

I just want to own a time machine! That's why I want to get a mac.

Oh, and about MS... no ones concerned that they spent money. Everyone's concerned when they start MAKING SOME.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Mikintosh]

Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
How did this become a Mac vs PC thread? Oh well...

I said it before and I'll say it again, The 360 is MS's entry into the living room or all-in-one market.  Everyone in the consumers electronics industry is trying to do this.  The cable companies are doing this with there digital cable boxes, Apple is doing this with their iPod, AppleTV and iphone and the Japanese are doing this with their consoles.

To everyone who is purchasing a Mac, you are going from a horizontal monopoly to a vertical one.  Macs are great till you walk off the farm and do something Furher Jobs doesn't like.

About MS spending billions, how is a company suppose to break into the console market without money hats?  Someone please answer me that.

Be known for making their own games which can carry a system, a la Nintendo and Sega. MS & Sony can't generate that kind of brand loyalty (which they need in the long run) because they're mostly propped up by 3rd and 2nd parties whose series are not tied to their systems like Mario and Zelda are to Nintendo's and Sonic was to Sega's. If this was the Capcom Xbox 360, and had exclusive Resident Evil/Devil May Cry/whatever, it'd probably be doing better.

And the living room market is a nowhere possibility, a lesson Microsoft should have learned with WebTV or whatever that was back in the 90s. The more you try to make one device service multiple purposes (see Plane-Car!(R)), the more the public perceives that it is worse at any of them. Like Sony, Microsoft cannot give up an idea which they think will take them into the stratosphere even if the attempt costs them billions of dollars and ultimately fails.

Apple's fine because, with the exception of AppleTV (which will also go nowhere, I bet), all of their products are accessories. The Zune would've been a great idea if had come out before the iPod. But MS doesn't have that kind of insight; at best, they refine existing products from other companies into something more streamlined and pleasant to use. At worst, they become so arrogant that they think they can slap the Microsoft name on a shoddy or bloated product and for it to sell like hotcakes because the stock's so high. But that's not a given.

[Ceric]

I have to say the Microsoft has made more games that have a more diverse following longer then Sony.

Also as mentioned Vertical Vs Horizontal approach.  (This is in relationship to Media Players.) Fuhrer Jobs wanted a closed system while Father Gates wanted to provide an essential piece, the software and certifications, and let other work out the hardware and additional software.  Looking at each respected backgrounds you can see why they would think like that.  Apple made its success off of a closed system with its PC's.  Their where Apple Clones developed at one time.  It didn't work out for Apple and they pulled the plug on it.

In all actuality Apple sort of lucked out on that one.  I doubt they really stepped back out of their mindset to take in the broad picture, either one of them.  Just so happens to be that while People love choice some things they just want to work.  Locking people in one type of player and one Music store is fine with most people as long as they have a very diverse and large choice of media so they never truly feel like their chained down.  Most people don't care about the format of the data as long as it has contents that they want.  While thats terrible for innovation and true progress it is comfortable and stable.

At the time different approaches and Apple read they market a little better and it was more in line with their philosophy.  Though the real props need to come in how they used that new market to bring their original core market back from a depression.

[UERD]

I think it's still too early to count Microsoft out of the race just yet. They have a decent number of units in the market right now, and are holding their own in the short-term (although in all fairness, the XBox was released significantly earlier than either the Wii or the PS3). We'll have to wait at least until the next generation before we can get a real clear feeling as to how viable the XBox is going to be in the long run.

Still, I'm not sure MS really has the 'killer IPs' necessary for long-term XBox growth. I mean, the biggest XBox exclusive game franchise right now is easily 'Halo', which is entering its third incarnation. Gears of War is also pretty popular. The issue is that most of the XBox's most prominent IPs are first-person shooters, and this doesn't really look like it's going to change very much: look at the failure of 'Kameo', and the dearth of RPGs. The success of the XBox up to this point is, I feel, predominantly due to Halo (which was an extremely well-received game) and XBox Live (which is a well-received online service). The XBox Live type of online service is really most useful for action games such as FPSes (like Halo 2 and Gears), after all.

The XBox isn't popular in Japan because Japanese gamers don't seem to be as infatuated with FPS games as American gamers, and because of the dearth of the genres that the Japanese market has traditionally favored (such as name-brand RPGs and stuff). Right now, the XBox has kind of been 'pigeonholed' as the console for the American gamer who likes shooting stuff up and perhaps playing sports games. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that, it doesn't really leave much room for growth. There are only so many consumers who are willing to play FPSes, car racing games, and sports simulators. Unless they can break out of that rut, there's really not that much hope for them taking over the industry, let alone becoming a perennial market leader. I mean, yes, the XBox is a media center, but it's primarily a gaming machine, has been promoted as such, and exists in the public consciousness as such. I doubt a significant number of people are going to buy XBoxes because they want to watch HD-DVD movies or surf the web on their TVs- unless MS realigns the public perception of the XBox as primarily a media center (a move fraught with risks and ill-advised in its own right), people are going to buy XBoxes for the games, and the media center functionality is going to remain strictly ancillary.

[IceCold]

UERD nailed it. The 360 is ultimately a niche console right now. Microsoft has realised this, and has tried to fix it with Kameo, Viva Pinata, Blue Dragon &c.. but all things considered, the attempt has failed.

I've said it before - it's like Nintendo with the GameCube.

[KDR_11k]

I think the 360 is here to stay, it's getting lots of games even of the kind that's aimed at Japan (Trusty Bell anyone?) and I think most devs consider it the platform for good graphics since Sony dropped the ball so hard they left a hole in the floor.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Galford Macs are great till you walk off the farm and do something Furher Jobs doesn't like.

It is SO hard to resist the urge to make a joke about PC users and concentration camps...

Quote
About MS spending billions, how is a company suppose to break into the console market without money hats?  Someone please answer me that.

Same way Nintendo made their way back in: an innovative design with quality 1st party software.

But I agree that you'd need about a billion dollars to make your own console to start with.

[Ceric]

I also like to add that MS could do find with the 360 with just the US/Canada region.  It is obvious that a lot of games that would be considered more "American" are going to the system.  Take "Too Human" for example.  From what I read it just screams American RPG.  Which in its own right is rarely what people consider a "Traditional" RPG.  Even the little XBLA games scream "done by an American developer with America in mind."

Which I think is fine because we have been dominated by Japanese games for a long while.  Unfortunately their are only a few genres that are developed here in the States/Canada because of the dominance in the other that Japan has enjoyed.  Though I think now given time we will start to see the "American" take on other genres come about soon.

I'm sorry I can't talk about European games because I'm not familar with the area.

[Spak-Spang]

See I believe that Japan's companies and developers can learn much from the American developers.  Look at Xbox Live...nothing Nintendo or Sony is doing even comes close to the perfection that is that online community and gaming experience.  The overall package of the Xbox 360's online package is incredible.

And that is what Microsoft is banking on for success...the MILLIONS of players world wide that enjoy the online gaming experience.  Sure right now it is more strictly American audience in mind, but Japan is a hard country to crack, because they are very loyal to their brands, and have such varying and odd tastes in games.

I really believe that this generation will have two players in first place.  Nintendo and Microsoft.  Japan will be dominated by Nintendo, and as such Nintendo will do pretty well all over the world.  But, I foresee Microsoft taking the US market and splitting the European market with Nintendo.

[Ceric]

Talking about XBox Live.  I agree mostly with this editorial I found today.

Also I agree with Spak-Spang post as well.

[couchmonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

Quote
Originally posted by: Galford

Quote
About MS spending billions, how is a company suppose to break into the console market without money hats?  Someone please answer me that.

Same way Nintendo made their way back in: an innovative design with quality 1st party software.

But I agree that you'd need about a billion dollars to make your own console to start with.

Not to mention Sony with the PSX...it takes a major investment to get into the industry these days, but Sony didn't lose billions on PSX...in fact it was responsible for 1/3 of Sony's revenues in the late 90s.  Sony read the market.  Nintendo is currently the one that read the market and is coming back.

Microsoft reads the market after the fact.  It has awesome first-person shooters and online gaming: both of which were established years ago on PC.  Now Microsoft is pouring tons of money into RPGs, a genre which was #1 in Japan, but is slowly constricting.  At the same time, Viva Pinata and Kameo take aim at the "Nintendo market", which has been shrinking for three generations.  What's the point?

Next up?  Peter Moore and others have been talking about how MS needs to get more family-friendly, non-gamer products on the market, similar to Wii. I have five words for Microsoft: Brain Trainer Portable for PSP.  At least the company seems to be reading the trends faster (1-2 years instead of 5 or more) but you can't win first place by copying first place.

Edit: I think 360 could still prove to be fairly successful.  Sony has messed up a lot, Xbxo 360 basically has a permanent price advantage on PS3, so Microsoft can sit back and make a bit of profit for a change.  Xbox 360 is in position to be the winning "premium" next-gen console this generation, and that could be enough to justify a "720" in a few years.

[KDR_11k]

you can't win first place by copying first place.

Pfft. Worked for Sony.

[couchmonkey]

Ha ha, it's true that Sony copies a lot of technology and some game concepts, but Sony also understood that Nintendo was on the outs with third parties and with an aging male demographic.  It targeted teen/adult gamers and made life good for the likes of Square and Capcom.  It also got a little lucky with Nintendo's screw-ups.

Microsoft's strategy is focused on being the best at the exact same stuff as Sony.  It puts tons of money down on exclusive games aimed at Sony's demographics: the whole Mistwalker deal is a perfect example of trying to buy Sony's customers directly.  Sony never had to do that, it just grabbed up all the third party support.

Now Sony is in a bad position, but Microsoft doesn't seem to have any plans to capitalize on it.  Where are the price cuts?  They don't matter, as long as Sony is selling so poorly, Microsoft will just sit there and profit.  It doesn't even care that Nintendo is swiping all the marketshare out from under it as long as PS3 sells worse than 360 and third parties port their PS3 projects to 360.

[Spak-Spang]

Yes because we all know Sony is the BEST at online gaming and communities.

Sony is the BEST at creating American flavored franchises, and gathering PC and American developer support.

Sony is also the BEST at promoting HD gaming, even though Xbox 360 did it first.

People need to start giving Microsoft some credit.  Yes, they have bought their way into the market...but you know what.  Microsoft did what they had to do to get in.  And now they are pushing forward in areas that Sony and Nintendo haven't yet.

And Ceric:  I completely agree with that editorial you posted.  Very informative.

[IceCold]

Couchmonkey is dead on with his analysis - there's no doubt that Microsoft will do fairly well this generation, and keep that core audience they have. But it'll be tough for the 360 to break out and become mainstream.

[Mikintosh]

Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
People need to start giving Microsoft some credit.  Yes, they have bought their way into the market...but you know what.  Microsoft did what they had to do to get in.  And now they are pushing forward in areas that Sony and Nintendo haven't yet.

True. Actually, if it was between Sony & Microsoft, I'd want Microsoft to keep going against Nintendo in the next generation. However, the failure in the Japanese market is like someone letting the air out of your tires; the car'll still run, but not nearly as fast. NOTE: I do not own a car.

[Kairon]

I'm scared of Microsoft though. Call it irrational prejudice against Microsoft if you will... but I am!

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Ceric]

Corporate Racist.

[ShyGuy]

I want Sega to return.

[Spak-Spang]

Yes, because we all can see all the great decisions and games Sega has been making recently.

Sega tried, but it kept digging itself a grave with very bad decisions, and their games were never good enough to lift them out of that grave.

Now if Sega would return who would trust buying that system?  I wouldn't.  I would just believe that the hardware would die in a year or less.  

[Mikintosh]

2009 will mark the launch of the EA Gamestation 09, which will be rereleased every year with minor changes to the color of the controllers.

[couchmonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Yes because we all know Sony is the BEST at online gaming and communities.

Sony is the BEST at creating American flavored franchises, and gathering PC and American developer support.

Sony is also the BEST at promoting HD gaming, even though Xbox 360 did it first.

People need to start giving Microsoft some credit.  Yes, they have bought their way into the market...but you know what.  Microsoft did what they had to do to get in.  And now they are pushing forward in areas that Sony and Nintendo haven't yet.

And Ceric:  I completely agree with that editorial you posted.  Very informative.

The fact is, there are things Microsoft does really well...but we all know those things aren't selling a ton of consoles.  Microsoft has been the best at online for years now, so where is the payoff?  Why isn't 360 outselling Wii or PS2?

From a gamer's perspective, I respect Microsoft's dedication to online gaming, and I respect all the money and effort it is putting into expanding its userbase - Blue Dragon and Viva Pinata are 80 times more interesting to me than Halo, even if they turn out to be commercial bombs.  As a gamer, I wish Nintendo had done that with N64 and GameCube.

Then again, if Nintendo had done that, maybe it would be on the verge of bankruptcy right now.  From a business perspective, the Xbox is a failure so far.  I'll be fair: in the "big picture" maybe Xbox has a future.  But up to this point, the Xbox division has lost tons of money and has failed to rack up anywhere near the sales of popular systems like PS2, Super NES, or even N64.

[Amodaus1]

I'll throw my hat in this. Mainly i agree with couchmonkey, Microsoft has implemented some nice on-line and is now trying HARDER to diversify their games, but from a marketing sense. Come now Otogi / Panzer Dragoon / Jet Set Future / GunValkyrie / Ninja Gaiden / Phantom Dust (which had on-line and kicks Halo's ass all over) were all titles on the original Fat Box which had a very Japanese Flavor and were outside the Shooter American demographic. Problem was not many people outside the gaming community knew, cause MS didn't bother marketing it around the US just in Japan. This holds very true for Phantom Dust, which is a microsoft funded game, made in microsoft studios, but had to be brought over by majestco to the US (I won't get into how awsome this game is, but it is extremly good and different).

Now with the 360, its like they woke up. Now they see some need to diversify so they are marketing it, The pinata, the kameo, the blue dragon. But kameo and VP failed hard, and the only other japanese sucesses stories on the 360 that i know of are Dead Rising and Lost Planet, and one is a zombie game which American players seem to like regardless of who developes it. So if blue dragon comes, and fails to deliver, I question whether Microsoft will continue this diversity marketing approach when Gears of War brings home more cash, and Tom Clancy "insert something" WAR game and GTA style clone too.

Spak-Spang the way I see it is they do on-line better than sony, but Sony doesn't make you pay. They promoted HD before sony, but lets look at the fact that most gamers play in SD and the fact that throught the history of console gaming it's usually the system with the LEAST power that gets the most development and usually wins that generation (I know the SNES was techincally superior then the Megadrive but the Neo-geo and turbo-gfx16 were superior to the SNES, and the NES was competeing with the MegaDrive for a while). The only reason everyone is jumping on the "HD" bandwagon is cause sony is doing HD, if Sony said screw it to HD (like if they never made Blu-ray or sold HD TVs) then 360 would be getting less support, becuase companies wouldn't be intrested in taking on higher operational costs with greater risks, for less return. Everyone says HD is the way to go, cause the publishers still see Sony as a power house, and IF the PS3 ever picks up steam, they have the tools and experience from the 360 to switch over to PS3 development whenever they want.

Seriously, the HD support is all bells and whistles, the PS2 was damn weak, with craptastic on-line, only 2 controler ports (which severly limits multi-player in house too) and it mopped the floor with gamecube and xbox, AND IS currently mopping the floor with the 360. Only once in the 360's life did it manage to come ahead of the PS2, ever.

Anyway back to the point. Original XBox was what i call niche gaming, 10 years later, when no one can play Halo cause it burns their eyes, is too "ugly" or is to slow compared to "modern gameplay"(which are some complaints of old Golden Eye fans i know) no one will remember the few good games from it, because there are few. For finacial, Xbox Fat was a MASSIVE failure. I know i read it before, and i'll try to find the link, but MS isn't all rosey about Xbox brand either, the company has some internal quarrels over the system. Seems like some people there don't like blowing billions, and they want to terminate the console, which is why some people point out the 3 console plan that MS stated a while ago. If MS doesn't make it out of the Red with the 360, they still may throw up 720, but if that doesn't make bank, I'm sure people inside the company will pull the plug. Also aren't 360 sales rate on par with Xboc original sales rates? If so, Xbox original total worldwide sales are less than N64 (like 18 million or so less), and that was considered a failure by many.

EDIT: Yeah also about that MS on-line you gotta wonder if console gamers really like on-line, or do they just hate paying for it. It'd be intresting to see next year what percentage of PS3 user play on-line matches. Cause I know MS stated that they hit 6 million LIVE users, but never broke down stats for gold and silver accounts. All they said was that 70% of these users used marketplace, and 70% of that 70% downloaded LIVE arcade games. So if they have those kind of stats, where are the GOLD stats, or % of users who acctually play on-line? My guess is that its low, or even the rate at which the original box's LIVE was at. Thats speculation of course.

[KDR_11k]

I don't think MS will remain at its place in Japan. The failure of the PS3, their much better third-party relations and their large western userbase make the thing a good target platform even for games that would've gone on the PS2 last gen. Many devs that were hurt by Sony's policies are jumping to MS, the only reason Earth Defence force never got a US release on the PS2 was because of Sony's rejection policies.

The 360 is picking up more jRPGs than the PS3 and Wii right now. I don't think it'll be that long until it picks up enough steam to run past the PS3 again. I don't think it'll happen that quickly but I also don't think that the PS3 will win or taht the Wii will leave the 360 devoid of any life.

turbo-gfx16 [was] superior to the SNES

WTF? The Turbografx was stuck somewhere between the NES and SNES techwise. That thing isn't outperforming anything. However, there are many claims that the Megadrive outsold the SNES and the MD was definitely a weaker system.

[UERD]

Right now, the heart of XBox Live really fits into its 'core competency' game types. The matchmaking type of online offered by Live is really most suited for games where there are large numbers of discrete matches, such as RTS and FPS games. Seeing as how RTS will probably never find more than a niche market among console owners (the nature of real-time strategy gameplay almost requires a mouse and keyboard), FPS and related-style games are the ones that XBox Live is most suited for (as well as the sports games and maybe the adventure games, not sure whether there has been multiplayer GTA). Games like Zelda or any non-MMO role-playing game really don't benefit very much from Live, and MMORPGs are usually going to be run in-house anyways. So, Live's gaming features are great, but they're not going to really expand the XBox's breadth. If Microsoft wants to drive growth and diversify its games portfolio, it really shouldn't be focusing on Live, which plays into the XBox's most popular game types to begin with.

I personally feel that paying to play online is pretty terrible. Blizzard's b.net didn't become popular by charging a monthly fee- when you purchased Starcraft or Warcraft III or Diablo II, you were getting unlimited multiplayer online right out of the box for your $25 or whatever. Then again, Live's big innovation is providing a unified interface that's easy to use for all these different games that are online-capable.

Is there really a point to making super-powerful consoles? I'm pretty sure Sony screwed up big-time. The PS2 was $300 when it launched, and had good graphics for its time. It had a controller and the prospect of fun, exclusive games. $300 really isn't a lot for a graphically-impressive dedicated gaming machine. Now Sony's PS3 is $600 or so, which brings it within the price range of a really cheap computer. What can it do? It plays games with good graphics (like the PS2), it has a controller (which is almost the same as the PS2's), and you can watch movies on it. The problem is that consoles can't really compete with computers based on the criterion of pure processing power or online play, two things which the computer will almost always have the long-term advantage (seriously, do you think PS3's graphics will still compare favorably to those of a high-end PC in '6 or 7 years'?). They need to do things that computers can't. They need to have same-room multiplayer games, games which require the special controller, etc.

I'm not sure the direction that these two companies are taking is the right one. For $500, I could buy upgrades for a relatively new computer (graphics card, RAM, etc) that would turn it into a high-end gaming PC. And all those shooters that are on XBox right now? They're coming to PC eventually, and there are lots of PC-exclusive shooters. GTA is on PC, and you can get the sports games for PC as well. And you can't really argue the control angle, because mouse-keyboard is at least as effective as a gamepad (if not much more so) for FPS gameplay. So, what are the incentives for me to buy the console? If Sony and Microsoft really want to make a compelling case, they'd better have more than 'it's easier to hook up to a HDTV than a computer'.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: UERD
They [consoles] need to do things that computers can't. They need to have same-room multiplayer games, games which require the special controller, etc.

Wow, I never thought of it like that before. That was actually an awesome little nugget of perspective in your also very good post!

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Ceric]

I've been saying for a while that MS is trying to expand its base.  Also I like to play Phantom Dust.

[Spak-Spang]

CouchMonkey:  I just don't like people not acknowledging that Microsoft has actually been good for the gaming industry.

Also, I think Nintendo has been trying to bring more variety for gamers.  In fact, I believe each new console they have tried to do it better, but sometimes have just failed.

Nintendo 64 brought us Nintendo published FPS, Fighting Games, Platformers and Rare.

Unfortunately, we didn't compete with RPGs, and Sports games well.

The Gamecube brought us Silicon Knights and the survival horror franchise in force.  We had good sports offerings and new Nintendo franchises like Pikmin, Geist, and Battalion Wars.

Unfortunately, we still didn't capture the hearts of 3rd party developers.

Now with the Wii, Nintendo seems to be reaching for those 3rd party developers with open arms...and at the same time, offering us new stuff.  Wii Sports, Online gaming, Still more serious games Day of Disaster and Project Hammer.  

No unfortunately yet...and hopefully we won't have one.

Microsoft started out solely appealing the the American base...and in many ways courting computer gamers.  It was a market that really hasn't been truly marketed for in the console market.  

I truly believe that only two items are keeping Microsoft from busting into this next generation market.

1)Price.  The Xbox 360 is still an expensive system, and Microsoft has raised the costs of games, controllers...basically everything.

2)Hardware problems.  The hardware problems really hurt Microsoft's reputation this generation...and people are still unsure if they got it fixed.  The problem with aiming for the educated older gamer, is that they know when you screw up.  They surf the net and actually do some research.

[couchmonkey]

Hey Spak, I agree with your two points at the end, but I also strongly believe, like a lot of others here, that the Xbox just doesn't appeal to a wide enough audience. Look at the big games for 360: Halo 3, Mass Effect, BioShock, Gears of War, Lost Planet...they're all sci-fi alien shooters.  I know those games don't all follow the standard formula, but casual customers can't tell that at a glance.  (Edit: it's not unlike Nintendo's "for kids" image...Wind Waker may be an awesome game, but at a glance it's just one more Nintendo game for kids.)

About acknowledging that Microsoft has actually been good for the gaming industry...that's an interesting point.  I  never meant to deny that, I'm just saying the company hasn't done well for itself.  As for being good for the industry...well, I think it has definitely pushed online ahead, which is great for gamers.

There's always the "Microsoft will try to take over everything and doom us all" perspective, which might be what you're talking about...and that's all speculative, right?  We can't say Microsoft has hurt the industry by doing that if it hasn't done it yet.  I think it probably would if it could, after all, what company WOULDN'T?  Nintendo was like that back in the day.  That probably would hurt the industry, but it hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will this generation.  

[SixthAngel]

The good thing MS did was bring online to consoles faster.  Unfortunately they charge money for peer to peer play.  They basically took the pc model and moved it to consoles plus paying, not a very special feat.  It is pretty obvious by the games on the system.  The big games and usual third party games are pc ports, pc developers, and typical pc fair like fps. The games outside of this category are usually bankrolled by MS such as Viva Pinata and Blue Dragon.  As everyone here should know from the Gamecube adding one or two games from a different genre doesn't change people's perspective (especially when they tank).  People are buying 360 for fps and similar games, my friend has one and all of his games are either fps or third person shooters.

All signs point to them still not breaking into Japan.  They are doing worse then the original xbox and have had games come out aimed at Japan such as Blue Dragon.  It is seen as the rated x console over there now as far as I know (not all that much about it).  Japan is far more then rpgs, and Nintendo and Sony will have the rpgs soon.

[MLS_man_64]

Videogame Microsoft looses 315M, sales down.

"Microsoft says the drop in sales came primarily because of decreases in the sale of Xbox 360s"

"Sales of Xbox and PC games decreased 44 percent over the company's first three quarters"

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13698

[Kairon]

Good news! I think this is the smallest loss that MS's Home And Entertainment division has experienced yet!

... or is this SPECIFICALLY the videogame division instead of that entire part of MS?

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[couchmonkey]

It's the whole division, I think Microsoft uses it to hide which products are losing the most money from investors.  (I know, totally conspiracy-theory, but seriously, everybody wants to know whether Zune or Xbox or whatever other stuff is rolled into this is losing more money, don't they?)

It's true that this is a relatively small loss, but it's still 1/3 of a billion dollars, and to top it off, 360 sales are pretty weak.  I guess the company is waiting for Christmas, but that price drop is really looking good right now.

[Smash_Brother]

Have we seen this?

“Strong companies confident in their strategy and performance don't do these things," the Ehrenberg blog says. “They don't have to. What kind of a message does this type of behavior send to the investor community and, more importantly, your customers? Weakness. Fear. Short-term thinking. Nothing that represents a positive signal for a better, brighter tomorrow.” Roger Ehrenberg, president and COO of investment analyst service Monitor110 financial blog, got his information from the Apple-focused Blackfriars' Marketing. They imply that “Microsoft threatened to withhold copies of its Vista operating system--released in January--from retailers who didn't play along and choke down excess Xbox 360 inventory.”

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Have we seen this?

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
Bingo. That is their #1 objective. Let's not ignore the recent reports either that Microsoft might have dumped a ton of consoles onto the market to meet their "10 million" shipped target last holiday... which sales still haven't caught up to that mark yet:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360-Microsoft-Mugged-Their-own-Sales-Figures-51980.shtml

Yep

[Smash_Brother]

k

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
k

Touché

[Smash_Brother]

Indeed.