Topic: Microsoft's Xbox Kinect - Nov 4th 2010

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't think having 3 console makers in the market place is natural, or something that is really even desirable. Competition is a good thing, and we don't want to have just one console maker, but you can get that with 2 players. So having 3 or more is not needed, and it creates some problems with splitting the market up and so on. So it would probably be a good thing for the industry if one of the companies dropped out. That isn't going to happen with Nintendo, because they are always making profit and that's the only thing they do so they would have to go out of business entirely before they would drop out. So that leaves either Sony or MS. In the long run I predict one of them is going to realize its a waste of money and go back to their original core businesses instead.

If NATAL ends up being a flop the one who drops out will probably be MS. They've made mistakes before of entering into markets where they thought they would make tons of money but ended up failing. Another example that comes to mind is  WebTV which they bought from Phillips back in the 90s. They thought it was going to be the next big thing, so they bought it and it ended up going nowhere. NATAL is probably going to end up like that too.

[Arbok]

Despite Xbox being clearly a strong brand name in the console industry, when does MS pull out?  At some point it has to make money.  The idea was to lose money in the shortterm to gain a market foothold for the longterm.  Well they got the market foothold they wanted but it still has to make money or the plan has failed.

The original plan was actually two generations of loses, followed by profit in the third. So the console after the 360 is meant to strike gold.

Problem is that plan was constructed in a very different atmosphere, with Sega out and Playstation 2 breaking records... not to mention a better economy. The market has proved far less brand loyal to consoles than originally thought, since Nintendo went from third to first in the span of a generation while Sony did the inverse.

Suddenly that slow burning market foothold idea doesn't seem so good, as the market has proved more volatile than anyone could have guessed when Sony was on top. Success one generation does not promise it the next, so all this money thrown into the Xbox brand is likely making investors less than thrilled as this revelation has become all but clear.

[Guitar Smasher]

I think the point of the article was not that xbox can't make money, but that many investors feel the capital invested into the xbox division could have brought much bigger returns by now if it had been invested in other sectors.  Microsoft as a company wants to take over the living room, but the investor wants to see maximum return on his investment.

Oh, and I think I posted this a while before, but my prediction is someone gets fired over Natal.  Someone near the top.

[TJ Spyke]

Yeah, the XBOX thing is just a huge money pit for them that hasn't made any profit in all that time. They should never have gotten into the console business in the first place. Maybe NATAL will deal them a blow that will FORCE them to drop the Xbox and go back to making buggy Windows OSes as they are known for.

The Xbox division has actually been profitable for them for about 3 or 4 years now. The whole reason they even got into video games was to stop Sony from taking over the living room.

[NWR_insanolord]

Oh, and I think I posted this a while before, but my prediction is someone gets fired over Natal.  Someone near the top.

J Allard, the man in charge of the Xbox division of Microsoft, was recently fired, so this may have already happened. Though, in my opinion, that was an incredibly stupid move by Microsoft. Allard was the smartest person in that company. If anything, he should have been promoted; I've said for a while they should be grooming him to take over as CEO once they realize Steve Ballmer is an idiot.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Yeah, the XBOX thing is just a huge money pit for them that hasn't made any profit in all that time. They should never have gotten into the console business in the first place. Maybe NATAL will deal them a blow that will FORCE them to drop the Xbox and go back to making buggy Windows OSes as they are known for.

The Xbox division has actually been profitable for them for about 3 or 4 years now. The whole reason they even got into video games was to stop Sony from taking over the living room.

I don't think so Tim [/Al Borland]

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=18481.msg582963#msg582963

If you factor in the $1.2-$1.5Billion MS set aside for the 360 Warranty before the division split and shuffle, they will be turning their first profitable year this year FY2010.

Sorry I couldn't find the more recent quarterly reports, but that one is still recent enough.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Survey Says..........

Sony's PlayStation Move and Xbox 360's Project Natal motion control solutions have been garnering a lot of the spotlight from core gamers and the press, but a new study reflects currently low purchase intent for the new devices.

Research firm OTX's U.S. tracking study GamePlan Insights polled a group of 2,000 gamers between May 23 and June 5, 2010, and found that 8 percent of the Xbox 360 market intends to buy Natal, and 6 percent of the PlayStation 3 market intends to purchase Move.

Of the people that are already planning on buying Natal and Move, 25 percent plan to preorder the controllers.

The low purchase intent figures reflect the current lack of information about compatible games for the devices. Microsoft and Sony are expected to reveal more motion-compatible games at next week's E3 event in L.A., where the controllers will be a central attraction, after which purchase intent may rise.

The GamePlan Insights study also said that 15 percent of the Xbox 360 market is aware of Natal, while the same percentage of the PS3 market is aware of the Move.

The study showed that Natal intenders have an average age of 25, versus 28 for the Move. Also, 30 percent of Move intenders are female, compared to 20 percent for Natal.

Natal intenders are also closely aligned with core Xbox 360 game tastes, with four out of five saying they like play shooter games a lot.

"While we are still months away from launch, the current data suggests that Natal gamers are definitely Xbox 360 purists, while Move gamers have a stronger interest in other platforms," OTX said.

Move intenders' tastes are more varied across genres like action, role-playing and shooters, which rank closely together as the top three preferred genres, OTX said.

The study revealed the top five games that Natal and Move intenders are currently interested in, exhibiting the gaming tastes of these early adopters:

Titles with strongest overlap among Natal intenders:

1. Gears of War 3 – X360 (47%)
2. Fable III – X360 (42%)
3. Call of Duty: Black Ops – X360 (38%)
4. Halo: Reach – X360 (34%)
5. Dead Space 2 – X360 (26%)

Titles with strongest overlap among Move Intenders:

1. LittleBigPlanet 2 – PS3 (42%)
2. Gran Turismo 5 – PS3 (32%)
3. SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs – PS3 (30%)
4. The Legend of Zelda 2 – Wii (26%)
5. Super Mario Galaxy 2 – Wii (21%)

^Atleast the 360 audience is loyal.... for shame PS3 owners.... for shame.

I wonder how much E3 will influence those numbers.

[Ian Sane]

I don't think having 3 console makers in the market place is natural, or something that is really even desirable. Competition is a good thing, and we don't want to have just one console maker, but you can get that with 2 players. So having 3 or more is not needed, and it creates some problems with splitting the market up and so on.

I agree that two is more ideal.  Though the funny thing is there has pretty much always been at least three different console makers competing.  Atari was competing with Mattel and Coleco.  We talk about the 16-bit era being all Genesis vs. Super Nintendo but the TurboGrafx-16 was there the whole time along with all sorts of obscure stuff like the 3D0 and Jaguar.  Even during the NES "monopoly" the Sega Master System and Atari 7800 were there in competition.
 
Since Atari got serious competition it pretty much went:
Atari-Mattel-Coleco
Atari-Nintendo-Sega
NEC-Nintendo-Sega
Sony-Nintendo-Sega
Sony-Nintendo-Microsoft
 
There is always some third place chump trying to hang on with a console that seems irrelevent but has too many notable exclusives for hardcore gamers to completely ignore.  MS just took Sega's old spot.

[broodwars]

I'm surprised that possible Move functionality for Resident Evil 5 and Dead Space isn't in the Top 5, considering how well it worked in RE4.

[BlackNMild2k1]

MS: Natal is the Future and the Future is Now.... No Seriously. It's Gonna Change your Life!

The future of home entertainment - like that seen in sci-fi movies - will be in stores this Christmas. That future is Project Natal, says Chris Lewis, VP, Interactive Entertainment Business, EMEA, Microsoft.

"Ten years ago we launched the original Xbox, and ten years on we are launching Project Natal, which will free people from the controller for gaming and entertainment," Lewis told MCV. "It will work with every Xbox 360 and when you get to use it across different games and entertainment experiences it really is revolutionary."

Lewis concluded: "We've all seen similar things in films set in the future, but that future is here and will be on the shelves for Christmas."

Microsoft is lifting the lid on Natal during a special showcase event on Sunday evening. Look out for coverage shortly after.

[TJ Spyke]

Yeah, the XBOX thing is just a huge money pit for them that hasn't made any profit in all that time. They should never have gotten into the console business in the first place. Maybe NATAL will deal them a blow that will FORCE them to drop the Xbox and go back to making buggy Windows OSes as they are known for.

The Xbox division has actually been profitable for them for about 3 or 4 years now. The whole reason they even got into video games was to stop Sony from taking over the living room.

I don't think so Tim [/Al Borland]

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=18481.msg582963#msg582963

If you factor in the $1.2-$1.5Billion MS set aside for the 360 Warranty before the division split and shuffle, they will be turning their first profitable year this year FY2010.

Sorry I couldn't find the more recent quarterly reports, but that one is still recent enough.

You just proved me right, the Xbox division has been profitable for about 2 years now. Setting aside the money for the warranties has nothing to do with that, the actual products have been making them money for awhile wow.

Also, J. Allard wasn't fired. He quit his position as senior vice president (but is staying with Microsoft as an adviser to CEO Steve Ballmer).

Ian, are those rankings just your personal opinion? Atari systems were basically dead by the time NES launched. Atari did try to re-launch the 7800 after the NES came out, but it sold like cat turds because it's graphics were ugly and it got almost no games, the NES had like a 90% markershare. NEC was never ahead of Nintendo (the only region that TurboGrafx-16 even slightly did well in was Japan, where it actually outsold Genesis). Also, it was 3DO (the letter "O", not the number "0").

[BlackNMild2k1]

How does showing that they haven't been profitable for the last 3 to 4 years prove your point that they've been profitable for the last 3 to 4 years now?

And setting aside that money put it as a loss in another department when they made that shuffle so that it appears that they are making profits when not factoring that pre-dept.

add up the profits that they show and subtract the debt they set aside, and you have no actual profit until the final quarter of their FY2010.  That's pretty much 10 years with no profits and explains the investors concerns with being in the console business.

Add in all the losses from the original Xbox and things look even worse as they still have $7+Billion in losses to make up before Xbox as a brand is profitable at all.

[NWR_insanolord]

The investors don't care about the lifetime profitability of the brand. They care about yearly profits. Microsoft knew they were going to be billions in the hole from the launch of the brand, and they never expected to make that back any time soon.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I agree, but the profits are slow to come and are just now trickling in with yet another hardware launch on the horizon. I understand their skepticism towards digging a deeper hole for a whole that is already way too deep.

[NWR_insanolord]

But Microsoft is making progress. They're going to be profitable, and they would have been profitable for a while now if not for the whole RROD thing. They'd be crazy to pull the plug now, when things are finally starting to come around.

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't think having 3 console makers in the market place is natural, or something that is really even desirable. Competition is a good thing, and we don't want to have just one console maker, but you can get that with 2 players. So having 3 or more is not needed, and it creates some problems with splitting the market up and so on.

I agree that two is more ideal.  Though the funny thing is there has pretty much always been at least three different console makers competing.  Atari was competing with Mattel and Coleco.  We talk about the 16-bit era being all Genesis vs. Super Nintendo but the TurboGrafx-16 was there the whole time along with all sorts of obscure stuff like the 3D0 and Jaguar.  Even during the NES "monopoly" the Sega Master System and Atari 7800 were there in competition.
 
Since Atari got serious competition it pretty much went:
Atari-Mattel-Coleco
Atari-Nintendo-Sega
NEC-Nintendo-Sega
Sony-Nintendo-Sega
Sony-Nintendo-Microsoft
 
There is always some third place chump trying to hang on with a console that seems irrelevent but has too many notable exclusives for hardcore gamers to completely ignore.  MS just took Sega's old spot.

Yeah, but my point is even though we have three console makers (4 if you count the PC, which some may) the fact is pretty much that you only need a Wii and one other one to cover your entire gaming needs. The PS3 and 360 (and arguably the PC as well) all cover the same ground and they share the same multiplatform titles, so you have some 1st party exclusives and maybe a small handful of 3rd party exclusives going to either system, but for the most part you won't miss out on much if you only own one of those consoles. So there's no need to own more than one.

But the question is do you go with a PS3 or a 360? You can buy both if you want, and I'm sure there are some who do, but there isn't much of a need to. So that's what I mean by one of the players being irrelevant and redundant. They hold a significant chunk of market share, which was something NEC and the Master System and so on never really did, but they aren't really offering much that makes them stand apart and justify their existence. So one of them needs to go, imho.

[broodwars]

But the question is do you go with a PS3 or a 360? You can buy both if you want, and I'm sure there are some who do, but there isn't much of a need to. So that's what I mean by one of the players being irrelevant and redundant. They hold a significant chunk of market share, which was something NEC and the Master System and so on never really did, but they aren't really offering much that makes them stand apart and justify their existence. So one of them needs to go, imho.

I have to disagree with you there.  Sure, if one company had to drop out I'd prefer Microsoft simply because I don't tend to care about online gaming, but I like having 3 strong companies controlling this market.  Each brings something different to the table that enriches gaming and encourages innovation in the other two: Microsoft emphasizes strong multiplayer gaming and online support; Sony emphasizes strong single-player gaming, high production values, and new IPs; and Nintendo emphasizes strong expanded audience support and new interfaces.  As a result, we've had a pretty incredible era for games right now, with a pretty good library available no matter which console you choose.
 
Besides, if Microsoft drops out, they'll just get replaced by Apple.  I'll stick with Microsoft, thanks.

[Ian Sane]

which will free people from the controller

It so damn irritating for them to emphasize this.  NO ONE CARES!  No one asked to be freed from the controller.  Natal solves a "problem" that Microsoft made up.
 

Ian, are those rankings just your personal opinion?

Those aren't supposed to be rankings.  Obviously Nintendo was the clear leader in the NES days.  I just kept the console makers in the same slot to demonstrate how one is replaced by someone else.

[BlackNMild2k1]

which will free people from the controller

It so damn irritating for them to emphasize this.  NO ONE CARES!  No one asked to be freed from the controller.  Natal solves a "problem" that Microsoft made up.

Really though. What happens when a Natal game still requires the controller? what about all the rest of the 360 games that still use a controller like normal?

What happens when everyone realizes that they don't mind moving around a little bit sometimes, but also realize that having no controller at all is becoming more and more problematic? When everyone realizes that jumping around like a monkey is mandatory, sitting on the couch with a controller seems pretty good, not that it was ever a problem in the first place.

[MaryJane]

Really though. What happens when a Natal game still requires the controller? what about all the rest of the 360 games that still use a controller like normal?

What happens when everyone realizes that they don't mind moving around a little bit sometimes, but also realize that having no controller at all is becoming more and more problematic? When everyone realizes that jumping around like a monkey is mandatory, sitting on the couch with a controller seems pretty good, not that it was ever a problem in the first place.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/109/1096419p1.html

We already know that Lionhead intends to add Project Natal features to Fable III. With the big hype around the launch of Natal this fall, it seems likely that other "core" games will follow suit. With just a little extra work to add some Natal mini-games, high profile traditional games will be able to cash in on the hoopla

The article is a pretty good read overall, but of course they take a bunch of pot shots at the Wii, and on the second page he mispeaks about VR headtracking saying it's possible with the Natal and it can make bullets "pop out at you" as if it's a true 3D effect and not just depth and angles. Despite all of that he makes some pretty good points about the Natal and its future, pointing out that developers are likely going to take the same approach they did with Natal as they did with the Wii: carnival games, and added features--I think however, that with the Wii's saturation so high, Natal is going to need it's installed "hardcore" base to buy the add-on, not people who have already grown tired of party games on Wii and are starting to migrate to NSMB and Mario Kart. There is one cool thing the author mentions could be done with it on the second page: 

With Xbox 360, you can watch TV shows or movies in a party with your friends. It's rather pointless. But it could be more fun with Project Natal. Imagine watching a show or sporting event with a group of friends and having some live interaction. Microsoft could set up events where thousands of people watch the same thing and then a game director of sorts adds little mini-games to the mix to keep things interesting.

Maybe a little cartoon mascot could come out during a timeout of a sporting event to fire a t-shirt gun. Jump off of your couch and grab it and you'd have a new way to dress up your Xbox Avatar. Or perhaps during half-time of a basketball game MS could hold a real half-court shooting competition amongst people all over the world. Both of these would be a great way for media companies to add extra engagement and reasons to watch things live streamed through an Xbox 360 as opposed to using the old DVR and fast-forwarding through commercials.

[BlackNMild2k1]

that last part sounds all fine and dandy but just as likely to happen as IPTV when that was announced 3 years ago. So its just one more reason to hold off on Natal until it actually proves itself with real support and not just the promises of it that MS shows off @ trade shows.

[TJ Spyke]

So apparently Project Natal will be called "Kinect". That sounds pretty bad to me, although not as bad as "PlayStation Move". Some games under development for it:

Kinectimals - Train and play with 20 virtual cats, including a lion, tiger, and cheetah.
Joyride - Originally supposed to be a free Xbox Live Arcade game that used Avatars, it seems to control like the racing demo from E3 2009.
Kinect Sports - Basically a clone of Wii Sports. Sports include boxing, bowling, beach volleyball, track and field, soccer and table tennis.
Kinect Adventures - A river-raft time trial and obstacle course, playable by up to four players
Dance Central - Described as basically being So You Think You Can Dance, it's being developed by MTV Games.

Microsoft is also working with LucasArts on a Star Wars game and Disney on a game featuring iconic Disney characters.

[Shorty McNostril]

Force unleashed 2.  Forcepush!!!!

[broodwars]

So apparently Project Natal will be called "Kinect". That sounds pretty bad to me, although not as bad as "PlayStation Move". Some games under development for it:

Kinectimals - Train and play with 20 virtual cats, including a lion, tiger, and cheetah.
Joyride - Originally supposed to be a free Xbox Live Arcade game that used Avatars, it seems to control like the racing demo from E3 2009.
Kinect Sports - Basically a clone of Wii Sports. Sports include boxing, bowling, beach volleyball, track and field, soccer and table tennis.
Kinect Adventures - A river-raft time trial and obstacle course, playable by up to four players
Dance Central - Described as basically being So You Think You Can Dance, it's being developed by MTV Games.

Microsoft is also working with LucasArts on a Star Wars game and Disney on a game featuring iconic Disney characters.

Hmm...I had kind of grown attached to the "Natal" name, but Kinect works for me even if it is a bit of a weird name.  A better move than "Move" or "Wave", anyway.

[Spak-Spang]

I like the name, but it is a weird name.  It doesn't make immediate sense...Move at least makes sense to the mind...and Wii was a simple name and logo.  Kinect is neither of those. 

What is worse is that the games mentioned above are just horrible copies of Nintendo games.  (I don't mean that the games are bad, they could be quite good) what I mean is that, you are launching a revolutionary product and your games you are showing are mere copies of other ideas?

Mario Kart Wii (Wheel Driving)  Wii Sports Resort, Nintendogs, Dance Revolution Wii, Where is the innovation?  The only game I am interested in is the dancing game, because I think that could be really fun if done right.