FWIW, here's the story:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/665130.asp?0dm=C14NT

Every retailer I've been to both in stores and online is sold out of XBox, too. Not sure how many XBoxes MS loaded in, but I'm sure they're considering that to be a good sign.

The battle is not between MS and Nintendo. It's between MS and Sony. And it's not about the first weekend, it's about a five year haul.

I agree, the fight really is between PS2 and Xbox. But, we are in a recession, this will make people much choosier about what they will buy since many people can no longer afford more than one. In this case, Nintendo may very well keep either the Xbox or the PS2 one from reaching the top spot.

Why is Nintendo considered the underdog here? MS may be cash rich, but they are absolute n00bs to the console industry. Nintendo has 20 years of experience, the decent (albiet not spectacular) n64 as its predecesor, the huge huge huge game boy/advance, and some of the biggest franchises in the business. MS is trying to come out and attack the established "mature" market that PS2 currently owns. Both are gonna fight it out for the hearts and minds of teenage boys everywhere. Nintendo on the other hand OWNS the under 15 market, and has a huge portion of the older nostalgic market. And with their second parties producing some good "mature" titles, and games like Resident Evil coming out, they should be able to take a huge bite out of the supposed "mature"/teen market.

I see MS as a thorn in Sony's side, and Nintendo coasting to an easy 2nd place finish, and possibly over the long run, overtaking Sony.

"Why is Nintendo considered the underdog here? MS may be cash rich, but they are absolute n00bs to the console industry."

So was Sony in 1995. How quickly people forget. In fact, there are a lot of parallels between Sony's 1995 debut and Microsoft's 2001 debut.

Letting history continue to be our guide, I don't expect Nintendo to have any more success with GC than they had with the N64-- and for the same reasons. Not to mention the fact that they have Japanese Old Guy Frankenstein at the helm. Although it is entertaining to guess what crazy weird ass thing is going to come out of his mouth in the next interview.

Actually, if I recall correctly, one of the most common criticisms -- and one of the biggest problems the N64 had -- was the fact that it was "still using cartridges." At least the Gamecube has moved on...

Yeah, it's a proprietary mini optical disc. Not the standard DVD/CD formats that Xbox and PS2 use.

I'll grant you that this isn't as grating (or expensive) a decision as memory-based cartridges were-- but it's still Nintendo-esque.

Panasonic is selling a licensed version of the Gamecube in Asia that has a slot big enough for full-sized DVDs, and which supports movie DVD playback.

For some reason, Nintendo doesn't want to offer that here.

Bastids...

The Gamecube will be successful. I think that's a foregone conclusion. They've got a rabid fanbase and the young crowd sown up. They're spending less up front and it's safe to assume they'll make gobs of money on the system. I don't think it'll be #1, but a solid showing for sure. I concur that the real question mark is what will happen between the Xbox and the PS2. Really how much business Microsoft will take from Sony.

Brad Grenz

Yeah, the Nintendo's kind of in a different class, and almost 'not competing' with the others. But that's not a statement about Nintendo, but rather about Nintendo's fans.

I just tried out a Gamecube this afternoon. I tried out the Xbox too. I like the Gamecube's controller, the buttons are placed really well (except for the z button). I just wish the grip handles were just a tad longer so that my pinkies weren't left hanging. Otherwise, the fit was perfect. Rogue Leader looked awesome and had my jaw dropping.

Yeah, Nintendo has a different focus than the other two, and I think it will definitely guarantee them a second place "finish". Like Anonymous said, they cater to a couple of groups that Sony and Xbox largely ignore. If I was inclined to buy a console right now, it'd probably be a Gamecube. However, I don't understand why about 50% of their launch titles are EA sports games instead of zelda, metroid, the next smash bros. and new version of mario kart. Oh well, they'll be out eventually.

"Yeah, it's a proprietary mini optical disc. Not the standard DVD/CD formats that Xbox and PS2 use.
I'll grant you that this isn't as grating (or expensive) a decision as memory-based cartridges were-- but it's still Nintendo-esque."

Why is this grating to you at all Wumpus? (Both the optical discs and the cartriges) I'm curious.

Because it's harder to pirate them and Wumps is an 3l33t WAREZ COURIER to the RUGRAT CLAN GAME PIRATES SYNDICATE!

FUCK YOU, WUMPS YOU GAME THIEF! THOSE PROGRAMMERS WORK HARD, YOU KNOW! !!!! YOU MAKE ME SO FUCKING MAD !!!!

EAT ME, WUMPS. THEN EAT MIRAMOTO THE GAME DESIGN GOD. HE IS JUST SO MUCH SUSHI TO YOU? FUCK!

:-(

Someone set up us the bomb, methinks.

Amanpour

"Some set us up the bomb" is *so* March 2001...

-Tom

Spoken like a true LA native...

"Why is this grating to you at all Wumpus? (Both the optical discs and the cartriges) I'm curious."

Well, it's price and control in both cases.

Memory-based cartridges were (and are) hugely expensive relative to the pennies that an optical disc costs. The problem with the proprietary format GC uses is, again, price: good luck getting any mainstream CD/DVD duplication plants to make that weird oddball disc format. Just another production cost.

It's also an added mechanism for Nintendo to tightly control the game library, since they control the means of production...

'since they control the means of production...'

The true plan slips through! Pinko!

Judging by Kabuki Warriors, tightly controlling the game library may not be a bad thing...

Wumpus: I'll buy what you said about cartridges. I already knew that they were more expensive, but I wanted to see if you had any other reasons.

"The problem with the proprietary format GC uses is, again, price: good luck getting any mainstream CD/DVD duplication plants to make that weird oddball disc format. Just another production cost."

I don't know about this though. I mean, GC games are costing about the same (to the end user) as Xbox games and newly released PS2 games aren't they? However, I think that added cost will make GC games stay more expensive for longer. I.e. when a game is a year or two old, usually $10-20 gets knocked off the price, but this doesn't seem to happen with Nintendo. Just take a look at what's left in the N64 section at Best Buy.

"It's also an added mechanism for Nintendo to tightly control the game library"

Ok, that's true, but why is that a bad thing? The other two do this with licensing fees right? Hmm, I guess it might cause some games to not be made for GC by third parties. Are there other reasons that I'm missing?

I saw a Mini CD-R today, and it looked very close in size to a Gamecube disc. Anyone know if they are the same size?

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/307404p1.html

Nintendo's latest trip into console land uses a custom disc format developed by Matsushita that goes by the name "GOD" or GameCube Optical Disc. These small (almost mini-disc sized discs) hold about 1.47 gigabytes of information and were derived from the DVD format. So you could consider the GODs to be the smallest DVDs in commercial use.

"It's also an added mechanism for Nintendo to tightly control the game library, since they control the means of production..."

As far as I know, you can't publish a game for any of the console systems without the consent of Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo. The format is meaningless.

I doubt the mini-discs are much more expensive to manufacture than regular DVDs. It's not like cartridges.

"I doubt the mini-discs are much more expensive to manufacture than regular DVDs. It's not like cartridges"

-This is speculative-

It would depend if you can use regular mass DVD pressing equipment to make Nintendo's little discs. If you need special equipment, particularly equipment Nintendo might have a patent for (and thus they make money in manufacturing as well), then it would cost more and there wouldn't be as many choices on where the games can be made, thus no competition (and thus higher prices).

Any DVD pressing facility can make content for anyone using the DVD format and many publishers, even big ones, use 3rd party pressing factories.

-Andrew

There is an enormous difference to the publishers.

You make less money making a title for Nintendo, because you must have Nintendo press the disc (make the cartridge). Nintendo lumps their licensing fee in with this, so you can't tell costs, but their fees are higher.

With Sony or MS, you can get the disc pressed at approved manufacturers elsewhere and thus control your own costs.

The above is true but it cuts both ways. Typically, if you have a hit game on a Nintendo system, you make much MORE money than you would on a competitor's system because you'll sell more units.

With higher fees come less third party games to compete against. So the initial risk is slightly higher (and with discs, I've seen that Nintendo is not charging nearly as much), but the rewards can be much greater.

You can't blame Nintendo for protecting their revenue though. They always manage to turn a profit and this is just another way they do that. Meanwhile Sony and Microsoft are going to bleed money for a couple years hoping to remain entrenched in the gaming market. Whatever you think of Nintendo's policies, they are still committed to making top quality games first with the system as a facilitator, not the focus. That's really not Microsoft or Sony's ultimate goal. They really, really, REALLY want to control ALL entertainment in your living room; not just gaming.

And in case anyone still believes the "Xbox: it's just a game machine" bullshit... http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2829104,00.html

I can't find the link, but apparently Gates said something similar recently. They launched it, now they figure out how to "leverage it".

--Dave

Here's the original Reuters news story that Gamespot stuff was taken from...

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011129/wr/tech_microsoft_xbox_dc_1.html

--Dave

I remember hearing that sony plans to do something similar with the PS2. I think the "living room computer" idea benefits HDTV makers more than console makers, but that's just my take. TVs are appliances. Consoles are not.

- Alan

"And in case anyone still believes the "Xbox: it's just a game machine" bullshit..."

I've heard people who are concerned about this - but I'm not sure why. If I decide I only want to use my Xbox as a game machine, why do I care if Microsoft wants to add video recording capability, pizza ordering capability, fax machine capability, etc.? I can use it that way or not. My choice. Choices are good. If they incorporate a video recording capability that's not as good as, say, TIVO or Ultimate TV, it will likely fail. I don't have nearly the heartburn about what Microsoft would like the Xbox to be that I do over their OS, for the simple reason that they have a virtual monopoly in the OS world that gives them absolute power, while they will never have a monopoly in the console gaming world.

>Gates said something similar recently. They launched it, now they figure out how to "leverage it".

MicroSoft has always been consistent in its internal planning, according the people I know at the company -- the X-box is intended to make PCs as simple, and convenient, as toasters. PC sales are pretty close to saturated, because of their cost (relative to other "appliances") and complexity -- the X-box addresses both of those concerns.

The whole "it's just a console" line was bullshit from the beginning. Creating a console was just a way of appealing to a large base of adopters to validate the concept.

Stefan

---

Quote:

The whole "it's just a console" line was bullshit from the beginning. Creating a console was just a way of appealing to a large base of adopters to validate the concept.

---

>They're the ones that had everyone saying "it's just for games" and now the CEO says it wasn't intended that way at first and eventually it won't be that anyway. Talk about a knife in the back...and the system is only a few weeks old!

Like I said, that's because it's never actually been the intention of Microsoft for it to just be a console. They just pitched it that way for a number of reasons, including competition legislation concerns since at the time Microsoft was facing uncertain sanctions. They also didn't want gamers to think that games weren't a focus (and they're definitely the only focus, right now).

But now there's less reason for Microsoft to be quiet about ambitions. The X-box is already a mini-PC in its composition and cababilities -- a PC that's cheaper (especially considering its capabilities), stand-alone, never has to be fiddled with, and more stable since the hardware is locked.

Stefan

Did I get the wrong news story? The only quote in that story was Ballmer saying "the developers didn't want the set-top entertainment box, so we nuked it." The rest of the article was just speculation on behalf of the writer that maybe they would change that someday. I mean, this:

"The Xbox is still packaged with a hard drive and Ethernet connection, and Microsoft is still interested in introducing additional functionality for the platform."

...is kinda vague. In any event, the arguments that occured earlier here were, if I recall, about whether or not the Xbox would be a PC for the living room. MS's line was (and as far as I can tell, still is) "no."

'Whatever you think of Nintendo's policies, they are still committed to making top quality games first with the system as a facilitator, not the focus. That's really not Microsoft or Sony's ultimate goal. They really, really, REALLY want to control ALL entertainment in your living room; not just gaming.'

It's not like Nintendo's doing this because they love us. If they had the market segment and access Sony did, they'd be doing the same thing.

>Did I get the wrong news story? The only quote in that story was Ballmer saying "the developers didn't want the set-top entertainment box, so we nuked it." The rest of the article was just speculation on behalf of the writer that maybe they would change that someday.

There's more to the article than that:

"Ballmer said there was a larger agenda for the Xbox than just games, but he gave no details."

and

"...there is a broader concept there that we will pursue at some point,'' Ballmer said. ``You can say, is it the end of the road or is there a bigger play? And the answer is yeah, there's a bigger play we hope to get over time."

The first one's not a quote, but more than speculation on the part of the writer, as you implied. The second excerpt is pretty definitive, when coming directly from the CEO of the company.

Again, I'm not sure why that conclusion is surprising, or threatening, to anyone (other than PC manufacturers). Again, that's always been Microsoft's intention and they haven't hidden that internally within the company, even though they had some very good reasons to make different public statements. If the competition case had been settled otherwise, I'm sure Microsoft would still be making the same public statements as well (and they still may), But those statements from the CEO are pretty definitive evidence of Microsoft's intentions, unless the Reuter's reporter completely misquoted Ballmer -- those statements would not be made lightly, and I'm really surprised that people here are arguing that he didn't "mean them", simply because some PR lackey told them otherwise at some X-box promotion 12 months ago.

Stefan

---

Quote:

I'm really surprised that people here are arguing that he didn't "mean them", simply because some PR lackey told them otherwise at some X-box promotion 12 months ago.

---

---

Quote:

It's not like Nintendo's doing this because they love us. If they had the market segment and access Sony did, they'd be doing the same thing.

---

I think you're misunderstanding this, Dave.

PCs are too goddamn complicated. They MUST evolve to a closed box, "hit the on switch" paradigm to grow the marketplace. Xbox is just one step down that road, but a very important conceptual one.

Xbox is and always will be about gaming first. Your concerns there are completely unfounded. Ballmer et al are thinking of much larger big picture issues, like 3-4 years down the road.. I wouldn't expect to see the "Microsoft World Domination Box"(tm) appear until Xbox 2 is announced. You bet your white hairy ass that xbox2 will do a lot more than just games. And as I mentioned before, it'll be fully backwards compatible.

The irony is that many PCs were much simpler, closer to this "on switch, closed box" paradigm, back in the day. Commodore computers like the C64 and Amiga 500 were very user friendly -- the only non-monitor peripheral required for a C64 was the disk drive, and the A500 even had that included. In fact the A500 was a remarkably compact machine: keyboard, disk drive, and CPU all in a single sleek container. And at the not-crippling price of around $800.

*sigh* now I'm nostalgic.

The beauty of PCs is that guys like us can make them into the system we want. We can tweak the video card for the high-level games, add RAM to run more apps at a time, bigger hard drive for MORE STUFF -- whatever we want. And, lately, anyway, it tends to be cheaper to upgrade your computer than to buy a new console. Don't take that away from me, man!

"Don't take that away from me, man!"

It's not for us. It's for everyone else who is busy doing other stuff and can't be bothered to dick around with the technology-- they just want to get work done (or play). Can you blame them?

They want to get work done in front of the television? Um...okay.

--Dave

"The X-box is already a mini-PC in its composition and cababilities -- a PC that's cheaper (especially considering its capabilities), stand-alone, never has to be fiddled with, and more stable since the hardware is locked."

The problem is that if it's a PC, it's a PC that they're selling below cost. That's pretty anti-competitive. Even if they wait until the Xbox 2 to really push other uses, I wonder if they can get away with selling it below cost? How are all the other set-top makers supposed to compete with that?

This also shows why they went with that dumb "Xbox" name instead of a name that was game-related.

"They want to get work done in front of the television? Um...okay."

Yeah, think of "programming the VCR", or "watching the shows I care about without spending half an hour flipping through the channels".

"This also shows why they went with that dumb "Xbox" name"

Dumber than DREAMCAST? I think not. That is the Dumbest Name Ever. Xbox is a little generic, I'll give you that, but it's got that edgy 'X' in it. Like XFL!

Sorry, Jeff...I think you were the one saying in another thread that people don't want to read e-mail in front of everyone in the living room. They don't want instant messaging, etc. These are all the things Xbox will likely do and you're alluding to. (Not to mention Ballmer...)

So why the sudden backpedalling?

History tells us a device like this cannot succeed. Until that's proven otherwise, I see this as a foolish endeavor. Plus...if it's a trojan horse thing...gamers aren't going to be happy. The GenX gaming crowd doesn't take kindly to being dicked around.

--Dave

Interesting stuff. However, history tells us only that a device like this DID NOT succeed in the past. I'm not sure it's wise to use "history" to say what is and is not possible in the near future.

As for getting away with selling it below cost, that's what all console makers do. They all sell the console at a loss, and then make profit through the sale of games.

The problem with the Dreamcast was that enough games weren't selling, or the licensing deals were bad, or the loss per unit sold was too great to be overcome. This is a non-issue for Microsoft, who has so much money available to lose up front that it stands a substantially better chance of surviving if it can put it's traditional market domination methodology into work.

Dreamcast had game sales of 8 to 1 with the console according to Peter Moore. That's unheard of in the industry and absolutely one of the best ratios ever. Sega's lack of funds killed the Dreamcast, plain and simple.

--Dave

Re: the X-Box

"if it's a trojan horse thing...gamers aren't going to be happy."

People are going to freak when they find out that the reason the X-Box is so big is because it folds out to become a Segway.

I'm a gamer. I'll be happy to have a hasslefree gaming machine that costs less than a PC with a slower upgrade cycle. The question is whether it will have good games.

Right now, though, X-Box just doesn't have enough unique titles or, for me, a single killer title to justify a purchase. It took me a year to get around to getting a PS2 because it came out with one great title I wanted. Now, I'm discovering not only the PS2 library but I have access to the PSOne games I've never played.

If I upgrade my PC I'll be able to play most of the X-Box games I'm interested in at any rate when they come out for the platform.

What's this? Balmer's even insinuating that the Xbox may become more than a game system? Sooprize, sooprize, sooprize. I've been telling people that for years. All anyone ever does is point to the standard PR line that the Xbox is about one thing, games. Well, duh. That's a marketing strategy. Launch as a game macine to keep the hardcore from freaking out, not to mention shore up developer support. I read a full article with Balmer where he talked about how the Xbox was supposed to be an all-in-one system, but when they brought it to developers they were told to fuck-off. Brought back the "game only" version a few months later and they were on board all of a sudden. Genius of that being it's got everything you need for other stuff built in. All you have to do is produce a keyboard, mouse and VGA adapter somewhere down the line along side Office (with Outlook and IE included!). But you've got to keep all that stuff hush-hush until you've had some success as a console. If it flops, they can cut their losses, write it off and start building a nuclear arsenal, or whatever.

With the launch behind them, I guess the guys at MS aren't so worried about secrecy anymore. But it's not like some huge surprise. People've been talking about this since the Xbox was first rumored, back then they were simply labeled as Nintendo/Sony/linux fanboys who have an irrational hatred for Bill Gates and a tendancy for conspiratorial delusions.

Brad Grenz
(holding off on saying "I told you so" for a little while)

"People've been talking about this since the Xbox was first rumored, back then they were simply labeled as Nintendo/Sony/linux fanboys who have an irrational hatred for Bill Gates and a tendancy for conspiratorial delusions."

People have been *TALKING* about this since the days of the Atari VCS, when they printed photos of Atari 2600s with computer keyboards attached to them. So far it's been a bunch of bunkum, except I guess on the Dreamcast, but I never bother to use that as a browser given the limited capabilities.

Convergence is a big stinking pile of monkey poo that I'm going to fling at Ballmer the next time he puts on Gloria Estefan and shouts "GIVE IT UP FOR MEEEEE!"

I may have missed this, but you boys don't seem to remember that Sony's been touting the PS2 as a "computer entertainment system", and it's aiming to make it the digital center of your home, to do everything from turning on your lights to handling your email.

MS isn't the only one thinking convergence. So why is it evil that MS seems to be thinking this, but Sony is actively pursuing it and that seems okay?

I don't think it's evil. It's just that Microsoft vehemently denied that the Xbox would ever be anything but a game console. If they were lying, then yeah, I'll be a bit perturbed.

>It's just that Microsoft vehemently denied that the Xbox would ever be anything but a game console. If they were lying, then yeah, I'll be a bit perturbed.

I don't think it ever will be. I think the press are taking Ballmer's comments to a room full of INVESTORS out of context. He mentioned that "Xbox is part of a larger strategy." And then added that nobody would support it if they didn't build it as the ultimate games system, only.

My guess is that he's talking about the Xbox business unit and the money they've invested in it as part of a larger strategy for MS. Remember, this is not a room full of press he's talking to, it's an investor meeting.

I mean, how would the Xbox make a good digital media convergence box? The hard drive is too small to pull TiVo-like duties, there's no remote and no IR reciever on the main box, none of the video/audio connections are integrated...

My guess is that the "Homestation" rumors that leaked out have at least a grain of truth to them. Xbox technology will be used in a NEW product that is a digital convergence device, which plays Xbox games as well as being a HDTV tuner and TiVo-like thing and interactive TV shopping internet access home hub wireless blah blah blah.

So Ballmer is right about Xbox being "part of a larger strategy," but not necessarily that the consoles we know as Xbox today are going to be turned into something other than a games console.

Build and support two nearly identical products instead of one? C'mon Jason, that's way out there. It would turn even more gamers/developers off because that would put it in clear terms that Microsoft isn't interested in "just making games" like they claimed.

Not only that...but it goes against the whole "stable PC-like platform with no variance" that they've been pushing. All of a sudden you want Xbox games to work on the Xbox games console and the "Homestation" also? I can't see it. Even with only slight variance in the product, you can have a litany of compatibility problems.

--Dave

"My guess is that the "Homestation" rumors that leaked out have at least a grain of truth to them. Xbox technology will be used in a NEW product that is a digital convergence device, which plays Xbox games as well as being a HDTV tuner and TiVo-like thing and interactive TV shopping internet access home hub wireless blah blah blah.

So Ballmer is right about Xbox being "part of a larger strategy," but not necessarily that the consoles we know as Xbox today are going to be turned into something other than a games console."

Which is exactly what I said.

There will be *other* *future* products that are supersets of Xbox, and those will probably indicate the future of the closed-box PC platform. Xbox is a terribly important barometer of the feasability of this fixed-hardware platform.

This isn't OT...let's just call it near topic.

I overheard two high school kids talking today (I said in another thread not to take me seriously, but this really happened). Their conversation caught my ear when one said, "Yeah, there aren't any games on it that would make me want to buy it." The other kid said, "Yeah. That Star Wars game is good, but it was real easy." The first kid said, "PS2 is the best." The other kid nodded.

They had my attention. There was a little pause, and then,

-"You know what's cool? They're making this chip called 'The Cell' that like controls everything in your house. It's not coming out for three more years though."

-"But what happens if you're like playing a game and it messes up, and then it messes up the microwave and stuff?"

-"I don't know."

Here endeth the lesson.

Amanpour

"They're making this chip called 'The Cell' that like controls everything in your house."

The best part is you get to dress up Jennifer Lopez in sexy outfits and wave swords around and shit.

"Build and support two nearly identical products instead of one? C'mon Jason, that's way out there."

But really, it isn't. If MS really did pitch the all-in-one device to game developers (as Ballmer said) and they balked, then this could well be MS's solution. They make the game box first and get developer support on board, then roll out an all-in-one box later to take advantage of that support. It may not have been Microsoft's first choice of strategies, but if the alternative was to make an all-in-one box that developers refuse to make games for...

What Jason says about the Xbox's shortcomings as a digital convergence box makes sense. Even my basic Tivo--the ten-hour version--has a 10.2 GB hard drive. How is an 8 GB drive going to store both save games and any useful amount of video? If they do plan to add that kind of functionality to the Xbox, then its a dumb plan, because it's not well suited to the task.

"The Cell" is an achitecture Sony (and I think Toshiba) are exploring, but any kind of CPU can be set up to control house hold functions. You can buy kits today that run on a Win PC and turn lights on and off, etc. It's less about Sony powering your microwave than it is about networking your house, putting the PS3 in a closet and being able to play games, access the internet and stream music and movies to any room your want.

Brad Grenz

If only I had more than one room.