Switched On: Aping Donkey Kong: The bizarre 180 of XBox 360
posted May 25th 2005 4:50PM
As the last Switched On discussed, paid subscription services and the kind of reputation-tracking that Microsoft is planning for Xbox Live Gold are not the kinds of features that will expand the console gaming market far beyond its current audience. Nonetheless, Microsoft remains determined to pursue this nebulous target market. Judging by a recent interview, the new console was apparently named after the total number of things that the company sees as not being key to expanding the market.
Microsoft's positioning has changed as completely and dramatically as one of its new console's removable faceplates. According to its Xbox executives, it's (now) not about better graphics. It's not about better sound (this time). It's (suddenly) not about more capacity. It's not about having a custom CPU (or presumably a new graphics processor). It's not even about the potential Microsoft advantage of launching earlier than your competition. And it's not about serving as a more affordable Windows Media Center or more powerful Media Center Extender.
Surprise, it�s about the games. But at least since the late George Plimpton pitched in vain to sway would-be Atari 2600 owners toward the coil-corded, keypad-sported, Keyboard Component-aborted graphical superiority of Intellivision, it has always been about the games. How will this forthcoming generation, then, be different? Microsoft will have a few exclusives and strong first-party titles. But Sony�s equivalent lineup looks at least as strong, and as the market share leader, the PlayStation purveyors have more leverage to negotiate exclusives. Finally, Nintendo plays its deck of character franchises like a master of Texas Hold �Em.
So, if one simply extrapolates where the industry has been to where it�s going, it doesn�t appear as if Microsoft has any advantage in the next round from which to gain market share, much less expand the market. Microsoft would counter, though, that its ace in the hole is XBox Live. Live is a powerful idea in console gaming, a strong proof of concept that is dragging Nintendo kicking and screaming into the online age and forcing Sony to think about providing at least more infrastructure around online play in its next console. Unfortunately, it cannot be captured in screen shots. Yet, Microsoft�s grand game unveiling at its E3 press conference was Final Fantasy XI; it�s questionable whether that will even expand the market for the incredibly insular massively multiplayer online role-playing gaming community.
Is Microsoft simply talking Nintendo�s walk? Nintendo is the only console developer that has any historical ties to the arcade experience that was the true birthplace of casual videogaming. In stewarding the Game Boy for more than 15 years, Nintendo has attracted simpler games because they were written for a simpler device with a younger demographic. (Indeed, PSP titles, while more sophisticated, are also relatively friendly to a casual gamer.). Finally, Nintendo was downplaying having the hottest specs in favor of focusing on gameplay years before it became fashionable to do so in Redmond.
Games like Mario Tennis, Donkey Konga, and Mario Kart are easy to jump into and enjoy, and Wario Ware has pioneered a new genre of thumb candy (although its occasional focus on nostril lubricating agents provides a strong case against photorealism). While Nintendo the console developer struggles to support a wide variety of titles for its hardware, Nintendo the software publisher probably understands the casual gamer best. As long as you buy into its Disneyesque milieu, you�re welcome to join the Mario Party.
Indeed, while there are things console manufacturers can do to facilitate casual gaming, software publishers are the companies responsible for expanding the base of gamers. This is a challenge to which they�ve repeatedly if inconsistently risen to through a history that includes Ms. Pac-Man, Tetris, Myst, The Sims, Snake and Bejeweled. Many of these games flourished on multiple platforms. And by the time the tallies are totaled on the next generation, more consumers will likely be playing games on mobile phones than on all three major consoles combined.
The Xbox 360 may be able to recreate the laws of physics, but it can�t change the laws of logic: dedicated gaming machines aren�t likely to be purchased by consumers who don�t have a serious interest in games. There�s even an argument that the next generation of consoles may provide slower growth than in the past. After all, at least the XBox 360 and PlayStation 3 need scarce high-definition TVs to demonstrate their full superiority over their predecessors, and rumored higher console and game price titles may delay mass market adoption. If Nintendo and now Microsoft are right, and we are reaching diminishing returns in terms of graphics improvements, will consumers � who have been driven to upgrade by improved graphics � pass on new consoles the same way they are likely to stop upgrading to higher-resolution digital cameras?
Microsoft should capitalize on its differentiation with Live and continue to pursue that social � but still relatively dedicated � gamer. The company sees the great potential for extending the service in terms of cooperative play, matchmaking, tournaments, digital merchandising, sponsorship and even �spectator mode� (although, if all you want to do is watch people play videogames, there�s already a cable network for that). Microsoft can greatly increase its revenue per customer and expand the scope of console gaming, but it will be the formidable task of software publishers to expand its audience.
Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis at NPD Techworld, a division of market research and analysis provider The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On, however, are his own. Feedback is welcome at fliptheswitch@gmail.com.
I personally don't understand why so many columnists concentrate on the potential success of console A or console B, it's flat out not interesting to a consumer like myself. I didn't care that I knew Sega was in trouble at the beginning of the Dreamcast era but I bought one and enjoyed it thoroughly because it had the games I want. Just because Sega stopped making consoles doesn't mean that Namco stopped making Soul Calibur. Who makes the console and what their future might be makes no difference. Just as I moved on from a Sega console, I can easily move on from any other console. I care more about individual game developers like Bioware and will do what's necessary to help them keep making games no matter what system they dev for. Microsoft and Sony can't direct the graphics/gameplay balance, it's up to the games developers. Console manufacturers can go down in flames for all I care, it's the artists that need our support.
I never doubted you, Nintendo.
I just want to put that on record before Microsoft buys out the rights to all of our brains in an attempt to monopolize creativity.
noooooooo.... damn you Rad.
But I suppose i should say something relevant to the article. i haven' bought a system since dreamcast (sega!) but the xbox 360 really intrigues me, Live and the media center capabilities stir latent geek in me. I hate MS but they seem to have a good product in their hands. e-props.
Rad, that is beyond idiotic.
The article absolutely and positively retarded and full of bias towards the BS3. If X360 does not have anything to distinguish itself from the BS3, how would that translate to an advantage for BS3?? If everything being equal, X360 has an upperhand in the online experience, why wouldn't people choose it over the BS3?
LOL BS3.
Well, that's another way of seeing it. But it seems that PS3 will have a broader and better catalogue...so I don't really see any point in taking this approach.
Yeah Im like you..I havent bought a console since the Dreamcast either and the xbox 360 looks the most intriging to me also..thats barring what Nintendo will throw at us.
I think the sheer joy of playing multi-player games is gonna keep alot of people with Microsoft and add more. Creating another so called metaverse in cyber space and I might not ever leave the house, and my wife wont like that too much!
Just having great graphics isnt going to do it anymore like Nintendo has been saying. Here to innovation!
Ladies and gentlemen... we have a new name for the PS3. Drum roll, please... the BS3. Genius!
It kinda gets to to seeming like as far as Sony and MS are concerned, it's more important to provide something (a feature, a service whatever) that's better than the others than it is to actually turn out a good product. It can be crappy and totally unapealing so long as the other companies offering is even crappier and LESS apealing.
I'm not saying the two new consoles won't delight and please people, but it just kinda seems like all they talk about is market dominance and how their product is 'better', not really how it is inately 'good'.
"broader and better catalogue" is very subjective, and for me, there is only a handful of BS2 exclusive games that I wanted to play. With the Xbox gaining support from major BS3 supporting game studios, this generation will not see the Bull-Sh!tation play the card of 'broader and better catalogue' again.
Well, I'm really proud of MS for stepping into the industry where they focus on their games more than their specs, but they're going to have to enlist some great games. Besides FPS's and Driving games. Since they have Rare, I'm looking forward to it. Can you say, Banjo Threeie? :D
Well, maybe a better name. :p
"I personally don't understand why so many columnists concentrate on the potential success of console A or console B, it's flat out not interesting to a consumer like myself."
I don't think the article was arguing console A vs. console B. The article was talking about what is happening in the overall console market and how MS is trying to fit into that. I thought it was pretty well-written, actually, and insightful. It pointed out how really none of the three manufacturers have all that clear an idea of how they're going to try to sell consumers on the next generation of systems - Nintendo maybe being the exception, but that's countered by the fact that they also sell the least number of systems. So I don't know what you take from that.
I'm starting to see and hear more and more rumblings about a general slowdown in the market, including articles like this. I'm starting to believe these rumblings too as I see huge numbers of used games sitting on shelves at game stores, even crowding out the new games, and I see people spending wads of money on HDTV's, leaving little money left over for a new game system (this is a Catch-22 - you can't fully enjoy an Xbox 360 or PS3 without an HDTV, but you're really asking a lot to try to get somebody to buy both an HDTV and a $300-$400 game system plus games in the span of a few short months). It's very similar to the situation we had in 1983/1984, with people just gravitating towards budgeting for other types of devices (in the former case, it was computers). I think a lot of people will be satisfied with what they currently have for a while longer, given their spending priorities right now.
I don't think there will ever be another crash of the magnitude of 1984, but I am one of those people that thinks we are seeing diminishing returns, there is a lot more competition for the entertainment dollar showing up, and consequently the uptake on the new systems will be slower than normal. The high costs of developing next-gen games will further consolidate the industry (this has been happening for a while already), and in the end I think it will end up a pretty disappointing next few years for all concerned.
No, I do not think MS, Sony or Nintendo will exit the business, and I do expect all of them to sell their fair share of systems. But there are just too many things working against this idea of blockbuster growth, and the fact that neither Sony nor MS can even seem to figure out how to promote their systems, or in fact what their systems even really *are*, is not really an encouraging sign.
I don't quite understand a few of the author's arguments. First and foremost:
"The Xbox 360 may be able to recreate the laws of physics, but it cant change the laws of logic: dedicated gaming machines arent likely to be purchased by consumers who dont have a serious interest in games."
Did I miss something, actually, did this author miss something, namely E3? Because last I looked, Microsoft was touting this console's multimedia features AS MUCH as its gameplay features. I think that if you asked a MSFT exec if the XBOX 360 was a "dedicated gaming machine" he would laugh in your face. The author seems to be taking a stab at the console with undue reason here.
Secondly, I think saying:
"And by the time the tallies are totaled on the next generation, more consumers will likely be playing games on mobile phones than on all three major consoles combined." is ridiculous/naive/hyperbole/insane. Does anybody believe this? Not I.
Lastly, as a consumer and not an analyst (and as someone who used to work at circuit city), I think this author's predictions about future technologies are offbase or a stretch at best. Specifically, saying that HD TV's are "scarce"
is silly. According to a CE Ownership and Market Potential study released by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) published this year, 13% of American households own at least one HDTV. That's a pretty good amount, with adoption rates having doubled over the past 5 months.
Anyway, I just think this guy is a little cynical, maybe biased, or maybe downright naive. What does everyone else think?
"Who makes the console and what their future might be makes no difference" -rhombus
Tell that to my friend who bought both the 3DO and the TurboGrafx-16 ;-). Those companies were both out the door before he had any time to buy the games.
I see what you are saying. I think the author wasn't labeling the X360 as a dedicated gaming machine in the sense that it only plays games, but will probably only appeal to "hardcore" gamers, many of which are Xbox users.
Honestly, in many, many discussions with non-"hardcore" gamers around here, many of them DO want a strictly gaming console. I don't know if its a surprise to anyone, but alot of people aren't interested in all the glitz and glammer and non-video game features offered by these next-gen systems. This isn't speculation or my personal opinion at all, this is what I've heard from the mouths of many people. Personally I think expanding what you can do with your console is pretty cool, but to expand your audience (to people who most likely are not intense gamers), you need to focus on the games.
If you like playing online games and choose names like "stryker" or "sk8erboi" or "rollergrl" or "roxygrl" (i cant remember what the screen names were that MS used in thier xb live demo), and you hang out with the cool kids at your school and like watching mtv, then buy the xbox. As for me, I dont identify with that image. I'm a math geek and I like PS3's specs. I also think Sony has a more established history in gaming and I like thier image so I'm getting a PS3.
BTW, BS3 = "Bling Station 3" != "Bull Shitation 3"
The author makes a nice point regarding the cell phone gaming idea. As a society we are becoming more and more connected, while at the same time freeing ourselves from the tethers of a PC, TV, or any wires at all for that matter. As time progresses, more and more casual gamers will opt for portable options rather than fork out hundreds if not thousands of dollars to setup the perfect home gaming system. Unfortunately for console makers, casual gamers far outweigh the hardcore PC and console gamers. I have bought into nearly every console made since my conception 20 years ago, but I now find myself playing my PSP and DS more than ever. Why? Because I can take it with me. Console firms will start seeing this more. Nintendo already has. Heck, why else would Sony have jumped in so strong with it? Microsoft, not really aiming at this market yet (maybe they are waiting for Pocket PCs to jump or something), is trying to find a way to keep the consumers on the consoles. They hope Live is their answer. A tricore PowerPC chip and all the media functions are assumed to help a little too.
Or something. It made more sense in my head.
I don't understand the logic in marketing a gaming console so far off its bases of actual gaming. What I mean is (take for example) sony (and microsoft) are both bragging about the great multimedia features, to expant their audiences...but what if this does indeed bring in new non-gaming customers. that could work against them because consoles are sold at a loss. So if they aren't buying games, but rather using the systems to watch blue-ray dvds, then where's the profit?
Whose your daddy and what is his name.. BS3 responded: Xbox360!!! nuff said!!!
uclatommy, your gamertag can be... uclatommy. I consider myself a sort of math/tech/game geek. I am not neccesarily a hardcore gamer cause it doesn't consume me. I am an early adopter of technical things and games. So I am probably hardcore by commercial standards. If the X360 had none of the other functionality except Xbox Live and game playing, I would be excited about the specs. As a math geek (assuming you like computing as well), this should interest you... http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-1.ars
It is an article detailing the Xbox CPU and how it is designed for gaming.
Anyway, I have seen a lot of non-gamers on forums interested in Xbox360s network hub like features. People who wouldn't think of buy ing a console. I am not worried about the industry yet. It will stop growing eventually, but for now it is alive and kicking and I can't wait.
I miss my Vectrex
XBOX 360 !!!!
After readng only the first paragraph, I immediately jumped to the feedback (which is often more interesting anyway) to confirm that this "article" was almost entirely FUD.
I'm the first to say MS is far from perfect, but c'mon people. Shitting on someone (or something) just because you can is just a stupid complete waste of time. Incidentally, was there any worthwhile info n the piece, or was it comletely analysis? Maybe someone could synopsize?
Anyone else annoyed at the fact that so called "hardcore" gamers supposedly play games like Halo and talent-less sports titles like Madden?
It's good to see an interview that (gasp) Praises Nintendo for trying to make good games instead using the "cookie cutter" approach we have seen in a multitude of titles such as: Jack & Daxter, Spyro, Ratchet & Clank, etc.
I am personally looking forward to downloading Megaman 2 onto the Revolution and testing my skills on it again.
PS2 + XBox = n00bs
I enjoyed this article, What i think the point is:
X-Box: Is and should focus on X-Box live and in "hey we're Microsoft so our our game consoles are basically computers.
PlayStation: Already does but focuses mainly on good entertainment and quality, plus they're trying to keep up with the competition.
Nintendo: Basicaly "Child's play"
In this age of advanced gameplay X-Box and PlayStation are about equally matched, sadly Nintendo is way last trying to keep up at a slow rate.
I think it's a fairly reasonable article. It doesn't slam the 360, just mainly points out that the marketing approach from MS seems to shift. And for good reason - what people want and will buy is at best a wild guess. (Look at the comments in discussions like this. If a bunch of nerds like us can't agree on which machine is best, what about normal people?) MS' best strength is their having made the best online system yet for consoles. Their potential weakness is focusing on the wrong things to do with it, like their repeated emphasis on the microtransactions capability. (Why am I as a consumer going to get excited about the fact that they built in to the system a way for me and/or my son to spend money?)
Sony has the advantage of a huge installed base, both in terms of machines and software. It's the same advantage MS has in the computer world. It's hard to break that kind of inertia. MS has a chance if Sony doesn't get with the program with the online environment. If Sony does get aggressive in this area, MS will have a hard time unseating them, regardless of the technical specs of the respective machines.
Also I would like to add that I do own all 3 consoles and the Game Cube is the only system I buy titles for since they do have replay value. The other 2 I use gamefly for since I usually can't even force myself through the game once. (Except FFX on PS2 and Halo on Xbox)
Online gaming is fun, but I have a PC for that. And a whole media center for Xbox? Guess what? I already own a stereo, dvd player, etc. I want a gaming console to play games on. And the first time i'm playing online Halo and get a blue screen i'm tossing the thing into the trash.
/rant off
Accusing Ross of being biased makes no sense. Switched On is an opinion column, and as such everything he's sharing with you is nothing more and nothing less than his viewpoint and analysis of a given situation. You can disagree with his assessment, but dismissing his work because he is biased misses the point, since this isn't a news report and isn't presented as a news report.
response to Pulsar's # 20 post:
You bring up some interesting questions but I believe they are pretty easy to answer.
Marketing gaming features is a given and I think the console makers are covering this base. They have found other fruit though that is relatively low hanging in the other multimedia/networking features. These will also be exploited functionally and for marketing purposes.
In terms of the concept of the console as a loss-leader you ask again a very interesting question that may have an interesting answer. If Sony sells a console for ~$399 that is also a 1080p Blue-Ray player it will create an instant market for selling content and drive others to license Blue-Ray technology. I do not know to what extent it is true but I have freaquently read that the PS2 (or BS2 if you like) had a profound effect on the market for DVD movies. Something to think about. On the MSFT side things are a bit tricky but I still think they could make money on a loss-leader that encourages people to buy into the whole Media Center PC scheme. Remember that the 360 is only part of Media Center infrastructure...
Take care
Stagger,
Yes, I also get annoyed by the industry definition of "hardcore" gamer. I'm an rpg guy and I dont play sports games. I also think FPS games(which are great if controls are good) are best played with mouse and keyboard. I hate playing an FPS with a controler.. Even if its analogue, it sucks.
My Pocket PC is already powerful enough to run PS1 games already sooner or later we can play PS2 / Xbox. Of course, Pocket PC's are more expensive than consoles but you can do a lot with it and the games are so much cheaper. Mobility may be the real future in gaming.
You spelled that wrong.
nintendo sux!!! im sick of their kiddie image! i used to like nintendo....then i hit puberty
it seems to me (at the moment) that Sony has nullified Microsoft's attempts at being the top dog tech wise which means anybody who wants a bad ass system will buy a PS3 which leaves those who want a new gaming experience to buy a Revolution, I think Sony has actually wound up helping Nintendo out big time on the Next console war without even planning it. As for the Xbox Live stuff, I know they've got some big numbers right now but most people who are gonna buy a console already own a PC and PC games have great online Communities, I strain to see the real draw for buying an Xbox360....Don't get me wrong I'm sure Fans of the previous system will want one but they were tehre last time because it was supposed to be the system with the best graphics...now that's gone the Live feature was an added bonus, now that Live is the only real reason to buy one is it enough? Because I'll bet PS3 get most of the same games as the Box360....eatiehr way it shoudl be interesting to see how things shape up...
Just my two cents here... but I consider myself a hardcore gamer and would not opt to play games on a "mobile" device.
#38, you are right in guessing that most online gamers have PCs, as I do, but instead of spending another $2000 for an updated gaming PC (as mine is getting bogged down with these new games, no upgrading - its a VAIO laptop), i would much rather spend $600+ for a console and games that can already handle the newer graphic capabilities.
I'm sick of people saying Nintendo being labled as kiddie machines... I'd rather it be called a kiddie and 30+ year old machine. It seems to me it's uncool for the 13-25 year old to own a Nintendo, basically becasue the games aren't violent, gory, and politically incorrect.
I went through that stage too... I wanted to run people over with cars, see people's heads explode, etc. But once the shock value wears off, the games for the most part are a) repetitive b) boring or c) repetitive and boring.
Now I'll admit I'm intrigued by the KillZone demo, just because of the look of it- but if it's all look and no fun, it's just a nice looking piece of junk.
I'm a casual gamer- I have had n64, gba, ps2, gamecube, and psp. I had fun playing Halo multiplayer on XBOX, but that's about all.
I'd pick Eternal Darkness or Viewtiful Joe over anything I played on PS2 or XBOX. Cause they were FUN.
Hey guys i need a little help here. I'm probably going to move to Ecuador (in south america) provably after the ps3 and revolution come out and all 3 consoles are for sale. Now ecuador is a 3rd world country. it does not have broadband ( not that i now of, i havent been there in four years) and even if they do i really doubt that it would be in such a magnitute as in the states. because its a 3rd world country its community is not yet conected as it is in the states with so much portable media and wireless internet and it probably wont be until the generation following the 360 and ps3 comes out. my question is wich system should i buy? i really like the 360 because i already play xbox and the 360 just looks fun and has the better controllers and look of the the 3 ( ps3 controllers suck!!!) but the strong point of the 360 is the conectivity and sense of community. If instead i buy the ps3 wich focuses more on better graphics its going to be better off in a contry with no connections but the problem is that i'm not really into ps3 and apart from Gran Turismo there is no other franchise i weep for. plus i hate the ps3 hardware (console and controller) it just looks bad and the controllers look like they are unplayable i really wish i would have to play on that console if it wasnt for the graphics.
what to do??
why are people talking about graphics and creating creative/fun games as inversely related? why is it "not about the graphics and all about the games" bullshit. what's wrong with pursuing a higher level of graphics quality? does trying to achieve the next peak in graphics quality reduces the quality of games? NO. If nintendo decides to cut back on graphics does that make their games any more fun? NO. i dont think it has to be graphics OR games. what about graphics AND games?
i believe there is a plateau where graphics improvement becomes negligible over time, but i think that we are anywhere near that point.
If nintendo is offering a free online service, and it rivals xbox live in features. How does microsoft plan to proclaim their most important feature as xbox live which costs money? I mean nintendo has already stated they are in development of internet ready games such as metroid, mario, and zelda. Could nintendo be ready to usurp the market!?
well, supposedly xbox 360 is offering silver level live (which includes gaming) right out of the box for free as well...if this is true, then no.
Gerry, please man, don't buy into the sony hype machine. "Obviously people who want to buy the best will get a PS3, and I have no idea what X360 has got going for it...except Live? Nintendo is actually a 'new' experience, so they will sell lots of Revolutions!"
Yes, that was a paraphrase.
Read over your comments slowly again. The only thing that says PS3 will be "the best" is Sony and their crazy E3 bar charts. We have no idea what the cell is capable of, but it certainly sounds all new and high tech! We can be so easily duped by branding and hot ticket words that we fail to actually examine the merits of the technology. Vector based processing has made many attempts to take over the x86 architecture for years, and every time it has failed! Sony may get something right this time around, but it doesn't mean a usurping of x86 processing architecture.
The assumption that since most of us own PCs(including core gamers and casual alike), we won't care to have a console give us online capabilities is kind of silly. Online PC gaming isn't really free (all these pay per month MMORPGs!). You may pay actual subscription fees, or have to deal with advertising on an increasing basis! The cost of maintaining dedicated servers and services for gaming is expensive, and the feature list that is provided for free is usually pretty shallow, and changes from game to game! XB Live has taken all the great things about PC gaming online and extended it with greater functionality and connection (Friends list). Microsoft believes this is a natural area for growth, and their next console will further extol the virtues of online gaming (which, contrary to popular belief, doesn't mean the loss of the single player experience!). I think this kind of community WILL actually drive growth for their next console big time - I won't go into explaining the reasoning why as I am already blabbing on too much here. Sony and Nintendo, on the other hand, still haven't talked about this type of connectivity at all, which is bizzare! I think there is something in the works, but will it be a cohesive and comprehensive approach to online playing? Only time will tell! Even when these companies add it to their console's features, it will be a first generational approach, whereas MS will be on it's second stab, having learned a lot from their first foray. Also, let's not even get into the casual gamer's desktop PC or laptop being "game ready". The average PC in a home doesn't have the guts to do it. These people will not, and don't want to take the time and money to upgrade their system as necessary to play the latest. Then there is the "stigma" of playing computer games that your average joe doesn't embrace readily!
Some more thoughts, just to make this post TOO LONG!
The Revolution is nothing new, but in fact, is an attempt to ignite a nostalgia on OLD games. So in that sense, it is like buying one of those 19.99 joystick controllers with all the old Atari classics that you plug straight into your TV. Doesn't sound that great when you think of it that way. MAYBE if Nintendo makes most of their old back-catolog free, will this be kind of fun; otherwise, I have no idea why I would pay money to "re-live" Super Mario and the first Mario Kart, etc. Don't get me wrong, Nintendo has a huge legacy, and most people outside the small circle that is gamers use their name synonymously with the idea of gaming. In this case, if Nintendo makes an inexpensive console with a mostly free back-catolog of titles, they could end up selling a huge number of units to reach into the "casual gamer" market.
Microsot made a big mistake at E3 of not really connecting with their audience at the time: THE CORE GAMER crowd. They spent too much time on image, and not substance. This has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths; even the faithful Xbox fans. Sony simply gave everyone what they wanted: "visions of the future". And we are all suckers.
This author is right in questioning how any of these three players plan to sell consoles to a growing audience beyond the core gamer. A few things to keep in mind though, is that the core gamer crowd is still growing, so there is still money to be capitilized on drawing in new members of the "core". MS's attempt to create an entertainment hub is not all that bad of an idea, it's actually a pretty logical step, even though not really "revolutionary" by any stretch. In fact, none of these console offerings are revolutionary, but simply extensions of new technology into the home. There is room in our global economy for multiple companies to succeed. I hope all three companies get a good share - keep the competition strong!
Stupor-
well thought our response but I stick to my thoughts, i agree that MS will be the vet in the online arena but I have reservations about believing that will be enough. I know sony is the only people saying their system is gonna be balls to the wall fast but if we stop to cosider that the cores they are using in the cells are even remotly descent we begin to see quite a bit of power develop, nobody syas they have to be better than x86, why ? because there are so many more to share load! i may have my specs wrong but they're using something like 8 cells? and how many cores does each one have??? I know for sure it's more than one. Now I'm not gonna argue all teh specs in terms of hardware but I think my point is made, The BIG problem I see with PS3 is a possible one based on Price...I mena dang how much is it going to cost to make that darn thing? plus heat issues and not to mention that they are going to be among the first adopters of the chip, which will mena it will most liely have bugs of one kind or another.....as for online stuff on the PC I'll admit I'm not a huge online Gamer I have yet to really be drawn into it Starcraft online is fun but it's costs me nothing, I suppose I'm more of a casual gamer....I just can't see myself getting sucked into lala land for more than an hour at a time, however clearly I am not the target for Live....which again brings me to is Live enough to keep xbox alive? I'm not saying it won't be good or the games are gonna suck but it just seems like a lot to bet on so little....i have a feeling that most people are going to stay loyal to theirr previous systems, if that holds true and online play gets poplular on the other systems those people who stick to their loyalties won't know what they are missing on Live (assuming it's better) anyway....
but then it's so hard to say because the Big N has yet to speak about what they have...who knows maybe it will really be a revolution....hey they did it once, they might do it again...
Well I dont think you should downplay the Revolution as just system to play old games on. That is just a bonus. Whatever is allegedly 'revolutionary' has barely even been hinted at.
Besides that I agree with most of your comments.
About the PS3 price: If the PSP cost $250, and they expected to compete with the GBA/DS, I don't see how the PS3 which will cost much more to develop could cost anywhere near $300. I'm not huge into specs but that just seems like common sense. Anyone with some valid information outside of Japanese price speculations please fill me in.
i for one am a teenage gamer who is actually looking forward to the revolution. now i know what your thinking, and the answer is yes, i have hit puberty, and nintendo is still the best. i must say the ps3 looks pretty damn sexy, but im not a fan of cookie cutter aproach at all. nintendo has had the best titles since gaming began, although there is some truth to the statement that they are overusing their charachters. i mean who is actually excited for mario ddr, ... what IS that, im speechless. also, im looking forward the the unveiling of the revolution controller. it seems to me that a lot of thought has been put into it. downloadable games from the past also looks promising, but nintendo hear me now, if you charge me for the classics i swear ill stick to guild wars. btw im liking the customized looks to these nextgens but its not like its going to matter. the xbox was some ugly sh!t but with halo nobody cared. xbox must have doubled its sales with halo alone. so yes, games will be the most important factor. and yes, graphics will matter too, but i for one cross my fingers that nintendo isnt bluffing, mainly so i can laugh in everyones face and say i told you so, but also because i hav..... ok fine, just so i can laugh in everyones face and say i told you so. btw the gamecube is a good system, and at 99 dolars i predict zelda will sell many consoles. now if only i didnt have to proclaim "hey guys, wanna come over and play twilight princess" thats it for me. oUt--_-____-_
Everything about the PS3 is way better than the Xbox360.
1.Twice the power of Xbox360
2.Fully compatiable with PSone/PS2(over 13,000 games)
PS3 will rock:)
PLAYSTATION WILL RULE YET AGAIN!!!