Well, I guess we get some interesting math when analysts used to covering Microsoft in the past all of a sudden start to look at the video game market.

First of all, after five years Xbox really won't pull in a whole heck of a lot of money. Starting in year 6 it'll all be "Xbox 2" if Xbox is at all successful. Maybe even a year earlier. But that's not the thing.

The thing is you've got to take two different things into account. One is first-party games that Microsoft themselves will publish (like Munch's Odyssee, Halo, blah blah blah). They stand to make maybe 3X as much on those as third party games they just collect $8 or $10 of royalty money on. Yes, the costs are much greater as well, but in general first-party games are big payback.

The other things is online pay-for-play games. If Microsoft has a successful one of those starting, say, 2002 or so, they can really rake in the money. I mean, Everquest is chump change compared to what a console online game can do (it's much less intimidating, in more homes, targeted to more gamers, and broadband only so performance is likely to be better). There are going to be 12 million broadband subscribers by the end of this year, probably 3X that at the end of 2002. If MS can get 500,000 people to shell out $10 a month to play Asheron's Call X or whatever, that's big money.

That's money equivalent to collecting royalties on another 500,000 game sales every month.

So figure Xbox is a hit, they sell 50 million of them by the end of 2004 (first three years). That's reasonable - they're going for more than that, but say 10 million the first year and 20 each year after that.

They lose $125 on the first 30 million (costs go down but so does the price) and start to break even after that (parts consolidation, cheaper manufacturing, and price stablizes at $149).

So in three years, they lose $3,750,000,000. Yikes! Plus marketing (nice thing about console marketing, it's often one commercial or ad spot that sells several games). They're spending $500 million for the first 18 months, that much has been announced, let's say they spend another $500 million over the next 18 months on game and system marketing (a pretty high estimate).

So a total of $4,750,000,000 lost.

But let's say the average Xbox owner buys 12 games (a game every 3 months...new owners have fewer, hardcore players more). If they're all 3rd party and MS gets $8 royalty, that's $4.8 billion right there. Maybe the tie ratio is less than 12:1...but if three of them are MS published games and they're pulling in money from a massively multiplayer pay-for-play online game...

Not to mention other possible services. MS could run an online "games demo channel" where you pay $2 to download a game demo with your Xbox. It covers their costs to do QA on all of them (since they'd have to be treated like console software, not PC game demos) and host the demos, plus run the online service - but with maybe $.50 left over. I imagine 20 million Xbox owners would spend $4 a month on a couple demos. I would. And that's another $120 million a year.

There's plenty of revenue potential there for them to break even in 3 years or less.

And I have obviously given this too much thought.

Well, this answers the question of how MS plans to fit all that hardware in the box and still sell it at the price point they're aiming for. Yeah, the money is in the software. That's been the MS mantra for ages. Even Sega figured that one out.

The trick here is taking a PC title and selling it at console quantities. I'm guessing the PC crowd would have picked up HALO anyway, and now they're aiming for the console market. Hey, I get to pick up some nice hardware under cost. No complaints from me.

- Alan

"And I have obviously given this too much thought."

Not at all. Get an MBA and go work for Goldman.

Some magazine needs to run a "Game Investing" column.

-B

"There are going to be 12 million broadband subscribers by the end of this year, probably 3X that at the end of 2002"

Your math is way, way wrong. Apologies to Bruce, but dude, next time please do _some_ research before chiming in.

10099_500971%2C00.html,http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/broadband/article/0,,10099_500971,00.html

That predicts 13.3 million US households with broadband in 2002. And 28.8 in 2005. And I think those numbers are probably a little too optimistic, frankly, given the current weird-ass state of the tech market. Nobody's giving away "free!" DSL or anything like that any more. Expect adoption rates to slow. Broadband is fucked up and not getting much better. Meanwhile the number of analog modem users increases at 3x the broadband rate.

"They lose $125 on the first 30 million (costs go down but so does the price) and start to break even after that (parts consolidation, cheaper manufacturing, and price stablizes at $149)."

First THIRTY MILLION? They'll be lucky to *get* to thirty million. I mean, I hope they do, but let's put this in perspective: PS2 has barely sold 5 million units in its first year. And 80% of those in Japan. Hell, just look at Dreamcast sales rates.

As for pricing, I think you're off in the other direction here. I seriously doubt the x-box will cost MS more than $400 to make at the very beginning, and that will drop precipitously over the next 18 months. Proof? Just look how much an 18-month CPU or 18-month video card costs. Apply same formula to X-Box.

Given the super high level of integration and inherent economies of scale of PC parts (versus weirdo console CPUs and mobos), I expect MS to approach breakeven on hardware costs within 2 years on the console. Easily.

"And I have obviously given this too much thought."

Maybe, but I think most of what you wrote is.. highly questionable if not completely wrong.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. Discus b0rked the URL.

Just copy in the part after the http:// and it will work

broadband will NOT be a factor in any console success. . . there is not enough broadband customers to play those games. They better make sure the XboX is dial up compatible or they will lose more than half the customers. from personal experience at isp jobs, ppl still prefer AOL over broadband! last time i checked AOL was over 20 million subs.

but once broadband is half the net conncetion of the WORLD, thats when i'd find it viable for consoles. .. as it is im not even sure broadband is 10% of the net users.

whats pretty sad about XboX is that there isn't really ANY game announced for it that gives me notice. Munch Oddyssey? Halo? a remake of Metal Gear solid 1? theres really nothing to look foreward to for XboX except a few EA sports games.

what will get me to buy an XboX (or any console)is if they get better games for it. . . as it stands they all look like clones. hell i'm more excited by DC games in development than both PS2 and XboX games, and the DC just died! as well, the current PC games in development are a hell of a lot more interesting than all the console games in development from ALL console systems.

etc

"whats pretty sad about XboX is that there isn't really ANY game announced for it that gives me notice. Munch Oddyssey? Halo? a remake of Metal Gear solid 1? theres really nothing to look foreward to for XboX except a few EA sports games. "

You haven't looked at the tentative launch list yet. I can tell. Go look it up.

http://xbox.ign.com/news/32050.html

"but once broadband is half the net conncetion of the WORLD, thats when i'd find it viable for consoles. .. as it is im not even sure broadband is 10% of the net users."

I agree, but modems are ass. Not having a modem gameplay option is a plus, because it can only deliver a crappy gaming experience. So from that perspective, Microsoft is saving gamers from pain.

And 4 years from now it might seem like a downright genius idea in retrospect.

Plus there's always the LAN option. It is ethernet. And consoles tend to flock together.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

wumpus i DID read a ton of game previews for XboX and i am still not convinced that any of the xbox release games will be that good imo.

heres what i think of these games

1 Oddworld - just a nother platform adventure

2 Shrek - another pltaform game

3 Wiggles - sims meets mideival? maybe but not a must buy

4 THPS2x- played it already on dc

5 1906 adventure oddysey - adventure game, yawn

6 Halo - we already have tf2, tribes 2 and UT and even counterstrike to play with on PC. old news

7 Crash Bandicoot - platform (liked it enough on psx)

8 Metal Gear x - a remake of the original? nobody knows (and i wasn't too hyped with the first one either. . . i like my Thief and Deus Ex and SS2 for my pc anyway)

9 Malice - ANOTHER platformer

10 New Legends - maybe the one im most looking forward too. . . guesstimates is a Diablo meets Gauntet in 3d. . .though its already been done on DC with PSO (and works great on DIALUP)

11 Fate - mmorpg. . . we already have a billion for development on pc. . . who says this will be any better? plus id be happier if MS devoted Asherons Call 2 to XboX (THAT would be a good game to market for a sole XboX game)

12 Mutant Chronicles - rts or a warcraft 3 ripoff? looks kinda cool, but again its not a must buy for me

13 Title Defense - 3d sports boxing. . . they've been done on already.

14 Dragons Lair 3d - 3d? animated? bah who cares. that games OLD

15 GTA3 - ok this might be good, but again its been done already. . . the 3d might make this game a Crazy Taxi/Driver/Carmageddon hit. probably a must buy if it lives up to those three titles.

16 Armada 2 - rpg action was ok on a DC. . . not a must buy though.

17 The Matrix - will turn out like an adventure game like Blade Runner. not my cup of tea

18 Silent Space - Homeworld ripoff, yay i wasn't too happy with homeowlrd (an ok game). . . just already been done.

19 Robin Hood - action adventure rpg ala Drakkan, Rune, Blades of darkness etc etc same ole same ole

20 Druid King - same as above

21 Jurrasic Park 3 - yay, jurassic park. . . carnivores for the XboX . . . i get to look at my boobs when looking down. . . crate master moving . . .uhm no way.

22 The Thing - if they do it in FIRST PERSON and like Res Evil meets SS2 this could be good.

23 MS Hockey - a MS sports game? thats why they have EA to do games. . . they should NOT do any sports games. . . EA is a big seller and they are usually passable sports games in most cases (with Madden being top of the line).

basically this list is more concrete then the avg XboX list you get from most console news sites, but it doesn't leave me watering for an XboX. Most of these games are platform/adventure/arcade games. . . whats surprising is there is NO fighting game and racing game for release. . . the two areas that consoles EXCEED in fun over pc's.

im not saying XboX will suck, but that list just sucks. . . imo of course.

btw, modem connection will sell if they can get a big pc developer to make it work. . .like Maxis with The Sims online or Blizzard with Diablo 3 or Warcraft 3 online. . .

im surprised at the NON appearance of top pc developers on that list. . . there is no talk of a Diablo for XboX, or an EQ, or even a Balders GAte (going to ps2) anything. .. its sad that we hear more from pc developers going to ps2 then to XboX (at least in terms of games being developed).

basically, ill prolly get XboX when the games get better. . . but the question is WHEN? if they can get an epic rpg ala Balders Gate 3/Final Fantasy or a Driving game ala GT3 maybe.

anyway, i grow more pessimistic with the XboX. . . (same with PS2)

etc

Stop bashing platform games! Have you played Rayman 2 on the Dreamcast eor the new (racy) Conker game or Banjoo Tooie?!?!? or Paper Mario? These games do not require $600 GeForce cards and somehow, defying the laws of man and nature, they are kick-ass fun.

Regardless of whose math you use, the basic economics of consoles seem pretty clear: the money is in the software. No matter how affordable you make the boxes, you won't make money on them, or at least not much; you'll probably be lucky to break even, especially during the first two or three years after launch. Admittedly, some economies of scale are possible, but when you factor in the adjustments needed for the heat and space constraints of consoles, and for the need to avoid constant updating of drivers, it might actually balance out.


Anyhow, I think Jason's point is that every console maker loses money when they launch a console, and the goal in each case is to make money over a period of time via software sales, either through royalties or first-party sales revenue. The box buys a market for the games, and as all console games pay license fees to the console makers, each company's market share is a cash breeding ground.


So Microsoft, if they can sell enough consoles, will make back their money. Of course, they'll sell enough consoles only if the games are good. There are some great looking games in the works--Halo has potential, The Lost from Irrational Games has potential, some others--but I agree there is reason to question how well the Xbox lineup will fare in a market full of PS2s and GameCubes. Both Sony and Nintendo have more or less captive developers and properties that sell systems. The Xbox's leading candidates seem to be from the PC world, begging the question whether PC gamers will feel compelled to buy an Xbox. And I think MS will have to reach that market to sell the number of units they want to sell.

"Regardless of whose math you use, the basic economics of consoles seem pretty clear: the money is in the software. No matter how affordable you make the boxes, you won't make money on them, or at least not much; you'll probably be lucky to break even, especially during the first two or three years after launch. Admittedly, some economies of scale are possible, but when you factor in the adjustments needed for the heat and space constraints of consoles, and for the need to avoid constant updating of drivers, it might actually balance out. "

Well pardon my french, but.. duh. Of course. This has been the console model from day one. I think the specific numbers are very relevant, since the formula is clear but the specific pricing and volumes needed to break even are not. Heck even critical success and solid sales doesn't guarantee you'll survive (see: Sega).

"There are some great looking games in the works--Halo has potential, The Lost from Irrational Games has potential, some others--but I agree there is reason to question how well the Xbox lineup will fare in a market full of PS2s and GameCubes. "

Actually, I question how the entire console market can survive in that climate. Too many consoles, too many games (don't forget gameboy advance, either), and too few customers. I don't think a 1983-style crash is out of the question, actually.

"The Xbox's leading candidates seem to be from the PC world, begging the question whether PC gamers will feel compelled to buy an Xbox. And I think MS will have to reach that market to sell the number of units they want to sell."

I think MS has shown an admirable willingness to "do the right thing" with X-Box. There isn't a keyboard and mouse included; the box doesn't say "microsoft" on it anywhere; and console developers love the thing (evidently except those with epicanthial folds, but I think that's not necessarily true, either). And they are clearly in the game for the long haul.

Still, I have no idea what's going to happen.. I feel confident predicting that x-box will not be a flop, but beyond that? Dunno.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I really doubt PC gamers will flock to the X-box. PC gamers tend to be the hardest of the hardcore and we like change. We want to be able to upgrade our systems, so we can stay on the cutting edge. It's expensive, but I believe that PC gamers would have it no other way.

As for the X-box succeeding, I think they have a great shot. As long as it's priced very reasonable, I think consumers will flock to this system. The gamecube looks like it will be dealyed till 2002 and the PS2 is really it's only real competition. They are fighting for the same market (17-34 year olds), but if Microsoft plays there cards right they might just steal a a good part of Sonys consumer base. In my opinion it seems that the console crowd is not very faiithful when it comes to picking systems. I bet though Microsoft must be kicking themselves in the ass, cause if they could have had the X-box ready this year, and with Sony's problems distributing the PS2, Microsoft would have had a banner year with the X-box. Well just have to wait and see!

Xbox is in trouble simply because the Japanese aren't really interested. The biggest console games come from Japanese developers, this much has always proven true. Only sports games and the occasional platform game (such as the way overrated Crash Bandicoot) make any kind of REAL impact on a console and come from the US. Even European developers have done better on consoles than most US development houses.

PC games that come to Xbox won't cut it at all. There simply isn't a crossover. There aren't many that follow both sides of the industry equally. Xbox will not woo the PC gamers when they look at their investment in their PC and see that for ANOTHER $300 to $400 they could get a console with... nothing. Games sell these things and even if you say Halo is a system seller (which I highly doubt given its lack of any online multiplayer on the box), that's one game. Look at that lineup you posted a link to Wumpus. There isn't ANYTHING there that's going to be an addition to a big franchise. MGSX is the only thing close and it may not even be out until late in 2002! Those aren't launch games... The Matrix? In November?! Shyeah... right.

Xbox is going to fail. You can quote me on that. I used to think they had a chance. When I read about all the wooing of Japanese developers, I believed they might do it. Now, it's clear that they didn't go far enough. They didn't get the companies on board that sell consoles. They also don't have internal teams strong enough to compete. Bungie proved to me with Oni that they may be a one hit wonder (Myth). All these PC developers will have a hard time adjusting to the console. It isn't the same... interfaces, gameplay, learning curves... it's all different. They won't just jump in and do it right. They can't. That's where the lack of Capcom, Square, Sega, etc. is going to kill Microsoft.

Watch as analysts crucify Microsoft for losing all that money in the first two years too. That's something MS has never had to deal with. They could quickly have the analysts tearing the company down because of the "Xbox division's losses". If that happens and becomes a major drain on the stock price, I can see Mr. Gates quickly killing the Xbox and moving on. He's a fiscally responsible company guy. MS didn't get to the top by reporting big losses year after year. Sony is learning this lesson right now with PS2. Make one wrong move and you can have all the big stockholders beating down your door and asking what the hell you were thinking.

Gamecube (or Dreamcast if you're not into the "status" of owning a new console) is going to be the hot ticket when all is said and done. I read today that they think the release of the 'cube is going to be in September in the US. I will believe that when I see it. But if true... look out. Mario carries a hell of a lot more weight than Malice, Oddworld, Halo and the rest of the Xbox lineup put together. And if the rumors are true, Sonic AND Mario together on one system becomes a tag team that no other content creators can match.

--Dave

"Games sell consoles" is certainly true, but not true enough; it really should be "Specific games sell specific consoles." People bought a PS1 to play the Final Fantasy games or Metal Gear Solid. People bought N64 systems to play Mario or Pokemon games. People bought the Dreamcast to play Soul Calibur (just not enough of them). Etc.


Soooo....the question really is, what unique games does each system offer? If a great game is available on two or three systems, who gets the benefit? The cheapest system? The most powerful system? The PC?


It seems that one big challenge facing MS might be luring away system-selling games from other platforms. Right now, it seems that they are relying on games developed uniquely for the Xbox, and on PC dual development projects. The former have the problem of not being established properties, and the latter of being unattractive to console audiences (PC gamers presumably won't buy a console just to play the same games they can play on their existing box).


Just as I wonder how many massively-multiplayer games the market can support, I wonder how many cutting-edge consoles the market can support. Particularly if the lines between each console's exclusive content begin to blur.

While I don't disagree with your theory, I think you left out an important game for the N64 -- the reason I, and many of my friends, bought one was for Goldeneye. Hands down. Then along came Perfect Dark, and we were all happy. For some reason, I just haven't been able to get into FPSs on the PC like I can on the N64, even though you can eliminate screenlooking on the PC. But, I'm warming up to the idea -- UT is going to be attempted at our next LAN party. So, I'm giving it a shot. I'd sure like to see Goldeneye or Perfect Dark cross over to the PC. I love those games. It's just not as easy to control on the PC as on the N64, IMO.

"I love those games. It's just not as easy to control on the PC as on the N64, IMO."

I loved Goldeneye with a passion, still do, but to argue that the N64 offers superior control over a mouse and keyboard for such games.. that's.. insanity. For God's sake man, snap out of it!

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Xbox is going to fail. You can quote me on that. I used to think they had a chance. When I read about all the wooing of Japanese developers, I believed they might do it. Now, it's clear that they didn't go far enough. They didn't get the companies on board that sell consoles."

I've heard your epicanthial fold theory before. As in, if developers have one, they don't like the X-Box. And quite simply I don't buy it.

Furthermore, I'm going to play the ugly american here for a second: y'know what? Screw Japan. Just take a look at the top selling games in Japan for any console, then look at the corresponding list in the US. See any overlap? No? That's because there ISN'T ANY! 90% of the time anyway. They are very different markets with very different perspectives. Success in the US doesn't translate to success in Japan and vice versa. Hell, your pet example of MGS isn't even a good one-- Hideo Kojima said in a recent interview that MGS was huge in the US and europe but only a moderate success in Japan.

Developers, epicanthial fold or not, follow the money. And whoever wins with consumers wins period.

(Cue star spangled banner theme)

Besides, if the Odyssey2, Atari 2600, and Intellivision can start the console wars, by god, X-Box can continue in that fine tradition.

"Sony is learning this lesson right now with PS2. Make one wrong move and you can have all the big stockholders beating down your door and asking what the hell you were thinking."

Proving yet again that a console with "Japanese support" doesn't guarantee jack shit. PS2 is pretty much a failure-- even though it was about as close to a sure thing as you can get in the console world. And once gamecube, x-box and gameboy advance hit the market.. just stand back and watch the carnage unfold. I'm not sure anyone will win-- like I said, I wouldn't be suprised if we had a console crash just based on the massive number of competitors all vying for the same consumer dollars.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"I loved Goldeneye with a passion, still do, but to argue that the N64 offers superior control over a mouse and keyboard for such games.. that's.. insanity. For God's sake man, snap out of it"

Perhaps I should re-phrase: I never got into FPSs on the PC, but got very used to the control of the N64. I like having the strafe so handy, and the index finger button to zoom -- it grew on me. I feel like I'd do better if I could plug my N64 controller into my PC.

However -- I spent my lunch hour with UT today, and I'm getting the hang of it. I don't know that I'll ever look back and say "How did I ever get along the N64," but I may come to prefer the PC to controller. Hard to say.

"Soooo....the question really is, what unique games does each system offer? If a great game is available on two or three systems, who gets the benefit? The cheapest system? The most powerful system? The PC?"

For me, PC. If a cool game is console-only but on all of them, then the PS2 wins because it's a DVD player and can play all the PSX games.

Xbox better have some great games to get me to shell out $300 for it. I'm more likely to buy the Gamecube for my kids.

I still plan on getting an X-Box, to strip it for parts if nothing else.

- Alan

"Xbox better have some great games to get me to shell out $300 for it. I'm more likely to buy the Gamecube for my kids."

I agree. I'd pick up the Gamecube (though I don't have kids) first of all the consoles -- although I'm not likely to spend more than $150 on it, so it'll be awhile before I pick up any next gen system. Don't know about the PS2 -- I already have a DVD player, and I haven't seen tons of games that appeal to me. The X-box could be the next one I'd buy, but it'll probably be a couple years after it comes out -- you know, once there's another out that's even better...

"However -- I spent my lunch hour with UT today, and I'm getting the hang of it. I don't know that I'll ever look back and say "How did I ever get along the N64," but I may come to prefer the PC to controller. Hard to say."

Console analog sticks superior to mouse and keyboard for FPS control? You'd have an easier time convincing me that the earth is flat.

No rational person could hold that opinion unless it was from a simple lack of experience. But you'll see soon enough. A word of warning, though: you won't ever be happy with console controllers for FPS games again.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"For me, PC. If a cool game is console-only but on all of them, then the PS2 wins because it's a DVD player and can play all the PSX games. "

Warning, the PS2 is a really crappy DVD player. I hooked it up via the RCA outs for fun and I was absolutely appalled at the image quality. It's really poor.

Plus, X-box does DVD too. You just have to buy the $30 remote. This is a concession from MS to avoid DVD org license fees paid per unit.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Console analog sticks superior to mouse and keyboard for FPS control? You'd have an easier time convincing me that the earth is flat."

You know, Wumpus, it never ceases to amaze me how open minded you are! ;-)

I'm sure you're right -- simply lack of experience. I don't hate the analog stick, though, and I likely never will. I like having so many buttons at my fingertips, and until I get a five button mouse, the analog controller will always have a little something that I'll miss on the PC.*

* Disclaimer -- I am not saying that analog controllers are superior to the keyboard/mouse combo, nor vice versa. I'm learning to love them both.

"You know, Wumpus, it never ceases to amaze me how open minded you are! ;-) "

This isn't an issue of opinion. This is scientific fact. Just try it yourself. You'll see.

"I like having so many buttons at my fingertips"

Note that you now have 101 keys at your fingertips, specifically on your left hand. ;) Okay, realistically it's more like 10, but you get the idea.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Note that you now have 101 keys at your fingertips, specifically on your left hand. ;) Okay, realistically it's more like 10, but you get the idea."

Yes, but when I've got an N64 controller in my hand, I don't have to look at it to make sure I hit the right button, and I can do so quickly. Plus, it's easy to move with the control stick and shoot with the trigger, then quickly strafe to the right, switch guns with a, zoom with the index button, move your crosshairs, and fire. It's not as easy -- for me -- to do all that with a keyboard. (Particularly the zoom part.)

Of course, if you tried to factor in a jump on a controller, I don't know what might happen.

It's mostly a matter of familiarity. I find the mouse under the right hand, WASD cluster under the left hand to be second nature now, and I never have to look to see where my fingers are. In contrast, playing Medal of Honor on a PlayStation Dual Shock, it takes me quite a while into a session to get comfortable with the controls, and they never feel as natural as the mouse/keyboard setup.


Different strokes I guess. We'll see if there's anything to the idea that one method is "factually" better than another when we start seeing PC players vs. console players online in deathmatches with UT or Q3 . My guess is the PC guys will wipe the floor with the console guys, if only because the control scheme is much better suited to fast-paced action. GoldenEye is if I understand it more in the line of Deus Ex than Quake.

Mike, you need to reassign the keyboard controls is all. My preference is putting strafe on the left/right cursor keys, instead of the usual defaults of "," and "."

I'm sure Wumpus's keyboard layout is the perfect balance of form and function though. Maybe he should post so you can use it during your UT lan party.

"My guess is the PC guys will wipe the floor with the console guys, if only because the control scheme is much better suited to fast-paced action. GoldenEye is if I understand it more in the line of Deus Ex than Quake."

Can't really comment on that, as I haven't played enough Quake to know...One of my buddies plays a lot of Quake, though, and doesn't fare too well at Goldeneye. Perhaps that's apples and oranges, with the difference in controls...We'll see.

Goldeneye -- and even moreso with Perfect Dark -- can be pretty fast-paced. In Perfect Dark, the action can get pretty furious, especially if you add several sims and have four human players. I realize that these numbers are nothing compared to the numbers of players in a game of Quake or UT, but I think the style is a lot different. It'll be interesting to see.

"Mike, you need to reassign the keyboard controls is all. My preference is putting strafe on the left/right cursor keys, instead of the usual defaults of "," and ".""

Yeah, I'm playing with that, trying to find what best suits me. I don't know if the keyboard or controller loans much of an advantage over the other -- rather, I think the major differences in PC players versus console players have more to do with the games than the controls themselves. Still, I'll be able to make a better decision in a few weeks, after I've had more time with keyboard controls.

---

Quote:

We'll see if there's anything to the idea that one method is "factually" better than another when we start seeing PC players vs. console players online in deathmatches with UT or Q3 .

---

Damn. I use about 25 keys to play Counterstrike. Note that I started with only about 15, but I've slowly added more aliases and scripts. I never have to look down to see what button I hit. Never. Do you people look down to type email, too? ;)

Ok. They blow 5 billion, then earn 1 billion a year. Won't they be replacing the Xbox in 5 years? Nintendo and Sega have been spitting out consoles every 5 or so years. Unless the Xbox puts everyone else out of business, you can bet they'll produce something that can blow the doors off an Xbox in 2006.

And 30 million? Jesus Christ. Does the Xbox come with a 5 day pass to Patricia's Porn Palace.com or what? How does 30 million compare to the PS1's sales? That's a shit load of consoles.

I have nothing against the Xbox and may get one myself (after I get my PS2 and Gran Turismo 2000 *spooge*). They seem pretty optimistic.

---

Quote:

Your math is way, way wrong. Apologies to Bruce, but dude, next time please do _some_ research before chiming in.

---

[off topic]

Dave said: "... don't use the cursor keys for movement and strafe. WSAD are the keys to use. You'll find it much more comfortable to use W and S for forward and backward movement and A and D for strafing."

You know, I never understood why that was considered better than the cursor keys. The keys themselves are in the same layout as the cursor keys are (on my keyboards anyway.) Is it simply the proximity to the other keys?

I've found that using the WASD keys spaces one's hands out better when using a right-handed mouse. I feel cramped with both hands close together. Also, you don't have to reach as far for bindings/extra commands (QEZXC, tab, shift, space, and control are all close by).

I'm in the dark about this console mess. Too many factors. I wish I knew- it'd be nice to pick the winner, since I don't really want to buy ALL of these consoles.

Yeah, it's the proximity to everything else that makes it so easy, Bob. Depending on the game, those keys arrayed around there will all be used. See the Shock and Thief series for examples of everything near WSAD having a function and that array making play easier. If you're also one to hit the number keys for weapon switching (I tend to use the wheel on the mouse) then one through five are right there too.

I went from an excellent keyboard only player with Quake 1 (and DOOM and Wolf3D before that), to a mediocre mouse keyboard player in that same game. When I switched to mouse and keys, even as an average player with that control setup I was light years ahead of my Clanmates at the time because they stuck with keys. A friend that used a gamepad basically kicked me out of his house when I humiliated him 10 - 1 or 10 - 0 in level after level of Quake on his LAN. Today, I consider myself "pretty good" at FPS games, but I'm hampered by a dial-up connection. It just doesn't cut it anymore. Years ago when it was all HPBs, it was a whole lot more fun for me.

Anyway, there's your reason for WSAD. It also has to do with comfort. Most people can't adjust to put their left hand comfortably on the right of the keyboard either. I think that's another reason it was adopted. Historically, it also probably has to do with presets that id put in their games as well.

BTW, in case anyone cares, the Dreamcast mouse and keyboard work very well and add a tremendous asset to the console if you ever need a second internet device (or even a portable one)! Watch for Outtrigger on the DC later this year... it's an FPS adrenalinefest. It's even more "arcadey" than Quake if you can imagine that.
--Dave

Just got the new NextGen in the mail today... if these are the featured games of Xbox in their cover article, it just reinforces the lack of anything worthwhile. The Abe game has an even wierder (if that's possible) main character in the single legged Munch with the fish-like head.

Malice looks way overdone graphically to the point of being a demo rather than a game. It's also being created by Argonaut who have made one good game in their history and that was with the help of the greatest game creator living, Shigeru Miyamoto of Nintendo, who helped them create Starfox. Since then, they did things like FX Fighter on the PC, Red Dog on Dreamcast... great track record there. (Yes, that's sarcasm...)

New Legends looks mildly interesting due to the talent behind it, but this game was dropped by its original publisher awhile back too presumably because of trouble with its development. It also doesn't look anywhere near being done for this Fall.

Finally, Mad Dash is a throw away game as is Bounty Hunter. If this is the best stuff they could get for an Exclusive article... uh, they are in big trouble. I imagine this is a lead in to Gamestock. Let's hope for Microsoft's sake they have some sports games or a decent racer to show off. This is not the type of stuff that inspires confidence in a system launch. When Sega was readying Dreamcast and showed Sonic and Soul Calibur on the other hand...

BTW, their only five star review this month? Phantasy Star Online for the DC.

--Dave

There is a thread going on Motley Fool about the $2 billion number right here.

I used to play Doom with a joystick and the keyboard. It took a little adjusting, but I now find the keyboard & mouse far superior, and there is no way I would go back to a stick. You never see the competitive players use anything but mouse/keyboard, despite all of the attempts at alternate controllers.

Everyone has their preferences, and I don't ever have to think about mine anymore, it is like mind control - being a touch typist helps. I'm a little bit mutant in that I use S for crouch/duck, and X to back up. Depending on the game, I have standardized myself on that, with spacebar to jump, R to reload, Q for last weapon, E to use, F for flashlight, Z and C as wildcards (like prone, or a grenade alias), mousewheel to cycle weapons, and RMB for alt-fire/zoom/scope. I never really use the center mouse button, as I evolved my layout on a two-button mouse.

Well, I haven't yet heard anyone say that console beats the keyboard/mouse combo, so I'm sure it's just a matter of time before I come to love it like all of you do. I see all of your points, guys -- it's just that the layout on a controller seems more straightforward, at least until you get used to a standardized WASD layout. It may just take me some time. Bear with me guys. I'll get it.

I know what Jupiter said about broadband last October, but (and I WISH I could find this article) I just read where the broadband adoption has been much better than anticipated. They estimate almost 7 million already and over 10 million by the end of the year.

Remember--you can count college kids with wired dorms as broadband access too, though they're not listed as homes with broadband service.

As for Japan being interested--depends on who you ask, doesn't it? Sega and Konami are really VERY interested. Microsoft and Square have been seen together too many times for coincidence. Will there be huge japanese support right at the start? I doubt it. Will it come in the first year? Quite possibly.

On PS2 numbers--well, it's been out JUST a year in Japan, but only like half a year in the US and less in Europe. They're claiming 8 million in sales worldwide, reality is probably a million less. If they didn't have the supply problem, would they have sold 10 million? You bet!

Can Microsoft sell 30 million systems in three years? Sure. Can they sell 50? Who knows, but I know their targets are for more than that. They're shooting for 70-100 million in four years.

As for the software lineup--to each his own I guess. If I thought every piece of software that was like other games was lame, I'd like about two games a year. =) And Munch's Odyssee certainly doesn't seem to play like a straight-up platformer (if you've been following the game). Anyway, remember that what you see in Next-Gen are 3-month old shots from stage 2 dev kits. They're the equivalent of tech demos...like what they showed of PS2 eight months before it was first released in Japan (think PS2 shots and game info for summer of '99).

I'm not saying they'll do it, or that Xbox will necessarily be a success.

I'm just saying that I think the article assumes that Xbox will be a failure and will lose far more money than it probably will.

Don Luskin from Thestreet has a few choice words for Henry Blodget's $2 billion loss right here:

http://www.thestreet.com/comment/openbook/1331440.html

I'll reserve judgement for Xbox's success for E3 or maybe GDC (depending on what they show there), but they're doing a lot of things right: they have the right hardware, the right development environment, they're supporting 3rd party guys well, they're snapping up good games for 1st party titles, and they're going to market the hell out of it. Price and release date and a few of the big Japan developers are the only question marks that are really still left standing - and I think they're just that, question marks. If they get Sega, Konami, and Square on board, will that be enough to excite the Japanese market?

> Bungie proved to me with Oni that they may be a one hit wonder (Myth).

Well, except that the Maraton games were way ahead of their time, and fun, and really cool. Just nobody played them because they only came from the Mac to the PC after a year and a half or something.

Plus, everyone who has seen Halo in action as a PC game has been drooling over how cool it is. If they can successfully make it into a console game and not a "PC game on a console", there's no reason console gamers shouldn't drool as well.

Oni was the "contract fufillment game."

Something worth mentioning:

No console developer has ever held on to the lion's share of the market for generations in a row. Doesn't mean that it won't happen, or that Xbox will take it this time (could just as well be Nintendo). Just interesting to note.

And, historically, the #1 company loses their market share going to the next generation because they get arrogant, which just happens to be exactly Sony's problem.

"I'll reserve judgement for Xbox's success for E3 or maybe GDC (depending on what they show there), but they're doing a lot of things right: they have the right hardware, the right development environment, they're supporting 3rd party guys well, they're snapping up good games for 1st party titles, and they're going to market the hell out of it. Price and release date and a few of the big Japan developers are the only question marks that are really still left standing - and I think they're just that, question marks. If they get Sega, Konami, and Square on board, will that be enough to excite the Japanese market?"

Don't get me wrong here. I'm a believer, unlike Mr. Long. I think X-Box could be huge, and indeed is doing everything right. Over the next 6 months we should know a lot more.

"I know what Jupiter said about broadband last October, but (and I WISH I could find this article) I just read where the broadband adoption has been much better than anticipated. They estimate almost 7 million already and over 10 million by the end of the year. "

Broadband penetration is anemic at best, and will be for the forseeable future (next 5 years). You can quote me on that. I am as sure of this as I am of anything in this world. Which isn't saying much, but I'd still bet money on this topic.

"On PS2 numbers--well, it's been out JUST a year in Japan, but only like half a year in the US and less in Europe. They're claiming 8 million in sales worldwide, reality is probably a million less. If they didn't have the supply problem, would they have sold 10 million? You bet! "

Yeah but Japan accounts for the vast majority of PS2 systems-- and probably because of the DVD capability rather than the games. And likely even PS1 backwards compatibility.. I think this may end up being the double-edged sword that Sony commits hari-kiri on. Someone here quoted 4 million Japan, 1.5 million US, 1 million Europe. Does anyone have a link to actual PS2 sales figures?

"And, historically, the #1 company loses their market share going to the next generation because they get arrogant, which just happens to be exactly Sony's problem."

Developers hate the PS2. What was the last system developers hated this much? The Sega Saturn. And look where that went. On the other hand, developers can't say enough good things about the X-Box. You can draw your own conclusions.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I'm a freak. I use HJK (strafe, back, strafe), rmb to move forward, and all adjacent keys for other stuff. rmb move forward is due to everyone's favorite shortfall of the keyboard. You can only press three buttons at once! Since forward is almost ALWAYS pressed and the mouse can have all the buttons respond simulataneously...

This is the same setup I've been using since Doom. WASD was not everyone's default back then, and I figured HJK was a good spot. Near the center of the keyboard so close to lots of keys, yet not too far from enter, shift, alt, and ctrl. WASD makes the thumb only fit on the spacebar. HJK makes is useful for space or alt (which is my "walk" in CS, "2nd fire" in UT, varies for others). Plus my pinky can reach about 5 extra keys for things like flashlight, nightvision, bandages, medikits, etc. Often default misc. keys end up on g, b, f, v, etc.

Only problem is that its really far to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 keys. I use quick pull and switch binds in CS, and use u and i to cycle through all in most other games.

Did someone say off topic? Oh well...

Um, xbox and stuff... PS2 blah blah blah.

Developers love the Xbox, Microsoft's doing everything right, etc. Man, you could have said the same thing about the Dreamcast.

The reality is that we've had two console companies prosper in the last five years. Sony and Nintendo, and Nintendo owned the handheld market and did ok in the console market due to some fantastic properties.

Say what you want, but Sony has a healthy lead in the next gen market that will get larger before the new systems launch, and Nintendo still owns the handhelds and still has the great properties. Microsoft has a lot of work to do. And lets look at what they've done in the PC market lately -- nothing besides AOE and Flight Sim is selling for them -- ok, maybe AC too. They don't have a good record in recent years of picking successful games to publish.

And they're not doing everything right. I can't play DVDs on my Xbox until I buy a stupid remote for it. That's just stupid. I also hope that Microsoft isn't banking on converting great numbers of PC players. They'll get some, but the games I see in development are console games, not PC games. Where's the attraction for a PC gamer like me?

And, if it's true that we're headed into a recession, all consoles with a $299 price tag are going to suffer. I don't think the PSX really took off until the price was below $200.

"And they're not doing everything right. I can't play DVDs on my Xbox until I buy a stupid remote for it. That's just stupid."

It's less stupid than you may think.

First, it would immediately increase the cost of X-Box by $10 a unit. Not everyone even wants/needs dvd capabilities, so it's silly to pay DVD consortium fees per machine.

Second, try using the PS2 DVD without a remote. It sucks. You end up buying one anyway if you're serious about that feature. A tethered gamepad doesn't cut it.

"Say what you want, but Sony has a healthy lead in the next gen market that will get larger before the new systems launch, and Nintendo still owns the handhelds and still has the great properties."

Yeah, but you could have said the exact same things about Sony's Playstation upon its introduction, circa 1995.

Also I'm not sure I would characterize PS2 with "a healthy lead". Pale and sickly lead, yes. They've only sold 1.5 million units in the US according to figures I read here (please point me to a source if anyone has one).

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Yeah, but you could have said the exact same things about Sony's Playstation upon its introduction, circa 1995."

Sure, and who's been number 1 since '95?

"Also I'm not sure I would characterize PS2 with "a healthy lead". Pale and sickly lead, yes. They've only sold 1.5 million units in the US according to figures I read here (please point me to a source if anyone has one)."

They would have, and will, sell more. That's more a result of limited availability than a measurement of consumer interest. The bottom line is that there's likely to be an installed base of 10-15 million units by the time the other systems launch, as well as dozens and dozens of games in the pipeline.

"Sure, and who's been number 1 since '95?"

And who was #1 before that? And before that? And before that? And now we're doing the cha-cha.*

"The bottom line is that there's likely to be an installed base of 10-15 million units by the time the other systems launch, as well as dozens and dozens of games in the pipeline."

Doubt it. They've sold under 2 million PS2s by now in the US. Unless you can quote more accurate figures.. and I don't think all those hybrid DVD/PS1 players sold in Japan really count as PS2 sales.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the x-box sold 2 million units in the US on the day of its release, Mark. Don't forget this is MS we're talking about here-- pretty much a household name. And a recognizable American name at that.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

* How did it all go downhill so rapidly for Val Kilmer after his magnum opus, Real Genius?

"Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the x-box sold 2 million units in the US on the day of its release, Mark. Don't forget this is MS we're talking about here-- pretty much a household name. And a recognizable American name at that."

MS Bob. Starlancer. Crimson Skies.

I also haven't seen a rush for Windows 2000.

They have marketing clout, but they've been remarkably unsuccessful in selling some products.

Sony's going to do a relaunch also, and will give the PS2 a big push. And Gamecube should be out in Japan before the Xbox is released.

---

Quote:

Yeah, but you could have said the exact same things about Sony's Playstation upon its introduction, circa 1995.

---

Yeah, those are all good points. If the Xbox is released and the games are fantastic and truly better than anything you can get on the PS2 or Gamecube, it will probably be successful. If the games aren't arguably better, they've got a steep hill to climb, battling Sony's installed base and Nintendo's great properties.

And if Sony drops the price of the PS2 to $199, that will really put a lot of pressure on Microsoft.

Anyway, Gamestock is next week. We should get a flurry of news about the Xbox.

>>I don't think Microsoft really understands how this perception of the games and franchises is going to really hurt their system.

They don't understand this, and they plan on spending billions of dollars without this knowledge, but somehow you do based on spending a few hundred bucks reading console magazines for the past 15 years? Hmm...

Never pull a Netscape and underestimate Microsoft. They understand all of this. They're not stupid. What they're saying today may be part of some grand strategy... when they started to get big on PC games, they used to pull me aside at trade shows and say things like, "We really want to pick your brain, because we're new at this." And I really just wanted to laugh. Microsoft doesn't do anything, particularly anything that's going to cost them billions of dollars, without exploring it to the nth degree.

I walked into their Sidewinder division after it was started, and they were taking us on a tour of its facilities. This was when they were launching their first joysticks. I poked my head in an office and on the wall was their goal for the controller market: 95% market share. They don't lack ambition, they don't lack money, and they don't lack the ability to get the right people in all the right positions there.

Have they had failures? You bet. But those weren't anything resembling the large-scale investment they're putting into Xbox. This is as big as the Windows 95 launch, and that was sorta successful.

---

Quote:

They don't understand this, and they plan on spending billions of dollars without this knowledge, but somehow you do based on spending a few hundred bucks reading console magazines for the past 15 years? Hmm...

---

"I just have to ask, and this isn't meant to be mean, but how long have you guys really followed consoles? I've been watching and analyzing this market since you could obtain info in mags like Electronic Games, EGM, GameFan (the original Dave Halvorson published rag), Next Generation issue 1 to the present, etc. I've been following the console market like most of you follow PCs (and I do that side as well) for a good fifteen years. I just think there's this feeling among PC gamers that Xbox is their entry into consoles or something."

I bought Electronic Games #1 off the newsstand, dude. I just outgrew consoles because PCs make me a hell of a lot more money. Your mileage may vary.

That was always the great intangible in the whole "PC vs. Console" argument. Being a PC gamer can be very profitable if you're clever-- the whole hobby pretty much pays for itself. Being a Console gamer.. uhh.. not so much.

This reminds me of that classic C64 commercial, the job interview. When asked what his credentials are, the candidate mentions to the interviewer that he "got a million points in space blaster".

To which I say: exactly.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. And yes, X-Box is going to be wildly successful. Developers love it.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Anyway, I think after next week things will be much clearer. If there aren't any gigantic surprises then, I'll stick by what I've said. I don't think this thing can succeed without Japanese support. "

Pardon my french, but this is such a crock of shit, Dave. Are all the horse racing and girlfriend simulators selling well even without American support?

They're completely different markets. They have virtually nothing to do with each other. It's not uncommon for a product to be wildly popular in one country and a non-starter in the other.

I just get so sick of the racism in the console industry.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"They're completely different markets. They have virtually nothing to do with each other. It's not uncommon for a product to be wildly popular in one country and a non-starter in the other."

Some games crossover and do well in both markets -- RPGs, beat 'em ups, platformers, etc. For those types of games, publishers will look at the market penetration in both markets when they make platform decisions.

>>Certainly these are smart men, but where is the man like Peter Moore, Berine Stolar, Steve Race or Peter Main with proven console background?

Do those people guarantee success? Stolar couldn't make Dreamcast fly.

>>I don't see anyone there that's cut their teeth on consoles and understands the market.

You act like you understand it more then these guys. Maybe you do, but I'm thinking that their people do know a lot more then they let on. They may be making a conscious decision not be as arrogant as they normally are about their experience.

They do EVERYTHING for a reason at Microsoft. Not playing up their console histories may be a strategy so others will underestimate them... I dunno.

>>If this was something Microsoft could do with their deep pockets, why are they bucking the trend and using relative newbies to a new consumer market to create a new brand in that market?

Are these people newbies? I don't know all of the Xbox people or their backgrounds. I know the technical guys, but duh, of course they're PC guys. It's PC hardware.

>>PC owners weren't going anywhere and while it changed the face of the OS, there really wasn't any other option that was viable.

Sure there was. The other option was staying with DOS, which worked and had a huge installed base and a zillion applications.

>>I don't think this thing can succeed without Japanese support.

Dreamcast had Japanese support and "experts" say the lack of support from Electronic Arts really hurt it. So what's more important, Japanese or American support?

>>But with the economy trending down as someone else noted, the price of this box is going to be the biggest issue and hopefully we'll know that for sure by the end of next week.

I'd be surprised if they announced a price now. I suspect you won't hear anything about it until E3, at which point we'll see if Sony drops the PS2 the next day (assuming it's equal or lower) a la the Saturn/PlayStation battle from a few E3s ago. Also, Gamecube will likely announce its price.

"I'd be surprised if they announced a price now."

Yeah, there seems to be little strategic value in announcing the price, especially if it's going to be $299. That's not a price that will generate any excitement for the Xbox.

Bah, I'm waiting for Gameboy Advance. Now there's a system!

A question: Do any of you think that MS can sell the box if the price is over 300? Like, say, 400? I'm not sure... I just ask because I've heard rumors of the box being priced around that point. I know that the extra 100 bucks may push it out of my price point.

I think a $399 price point will be a disaster, unless MS markets it as a home PC as well.

The key will be if Sony cuts their price and what the Gamecube comes in at. Wasn't Nintendo rumored to be shooting for an initial price of $199?

I'll tell you, $199 with a new Mario game makes that an easy buy for a parent like me, if I'm in the market for a nextgen system.

"They do EVERYTHING for a reason at Microsoft. Not playing up their console histories may be a strategy so others will underestimate them... I dunno."

Yeah, but they are going up against some heavyweights. Sony is huge and has a big lead and Nintendo has more experience in the market than anyone. They fumbled the ball badly with the N64, getting to market quite late with a system based on cartridges, and they still did ok with it.

Microsoft may also have some other problems, like the Justice Department, a high tech economy that's probably going into a recession even if the rest of the economy doesn't follow, and so on. They're also pushing for subscription software, and I don't know if that will fly. So far the only compelling reason for it that I can see is that it helps Microsoft by giving them a steady revenue stream instead of helping the consumer. I still use Word 97 and see no compelling reason to upgrade. I'll buy a new version of Windows if it will run all my old games, but until then I'll stick with 98.

With new PC sales dwindling, more businesses comfortable with Linux, and other factors, Microsoft might be in for some tough times.

>>A question: Do any of you think that MS can sell the box if the price is over 300? Like, say, 400?

No way. I can't imagine there'd be any way they'll price it over $299.

Here's another question. Can the market support three systems? It's never been able to in the past. Is the market getting larger? Are there games coming out that are going to attract first-time videogame buyers?

I think someone's going to be a distant third and really take a beating, and I can't imagine that Sony will be last.

I'm not sure. I think that Sony succeeded in enlarging the market quite a bit with the PSX1. On the other hand, consumers may be used to the idea of a "dominant" console because of the PSX. They certainly didn't give the Dreamcast much of a chance.

I think (and this isn't based on a load of hard evidence) that the market MAY be large enough, but:

A: Consumers may not LIKE the idea of this many consoles.

B: There may not be enough developers capable of making killer games to spread around.

C: Consumers will stick with companies that have done them right in the past.

D: There is a widespread perception that the economy is slowing down. Consumers may be a little tighter with their wallets.

I'm not sure what will happen. I think that if the demand for console systems shrinks (as it may, given the economy) then there'll be a real bloodbath. I would honestly be surprised if all of these companies end up smiling.

I'm sorry the above is so incoherent.. I'm a little tired.

For those who don't wish to read all the past text, just assume that anything Mark Asher writes says "will not" and everything Steve Bauman says "will too". ;)

Seriously though. No one really know what is going to happen. So far there is no next generation system thats taken off.

In my opinion though, the number 1 & 2 slots will be filled by Xbox & Game cube. (order not known). I feel that the Dreamcast and PS2 just repeated the Atari Jaguar and 3DO war. The systems & games weren't advance enough over the previous generation to warent the upgrade. These mini-next-generation wars seem to always set themselves up for failure. The dreamcast is already dead and the ps2 while still selling units, isn't selling games.

> Broadband penetration is anemic at best, and will be for the forseeable future (next 5 years). You can quote me on that.

I need to keep a file for when people say these things. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree there, and wait to see who's right. I think that worldwide, that's true. I think that in the US first and then Japan and Europe, it's less true--and while it won't be wide on a per capita basis (just as dialup access isn't now), there will be, by the end of 2002, tens of millions of home broadband subscribers. And I think the crossover between those folks and people who buy games will be REALLY high.

> Actually, this is totally untrue. When Sony launched the Playstation, Saturn had only been available for six months and was nowhere near the installed base needed to sustain it. There was no dominant next generation console available and the one that came the next year (N64) sold a lot less than the PSX did.

Actually, the Saturn did a surprise launch in the summer around 3 months before the PSX (which really pissed off retailer, by the way). The Saturn outsold the PSX by a pretty wide margin for the first year, when the hardcore buy the system.

Wanna know how long it took the PSX to sell a million units? Over a YEAR. Not until the price dropped to $199 did sales start to take off like a rocket.

Wanna talk about PS2's sizeable lead? The Dreamcast had a year on the PS2, better software, and an installed base of 8 million worldwide. Until the PS2's launch a year later, the DC's launch was the most successful console in history by a large margin (both in Japan and later in the US). They sold more units on Day One in both countries than any console before.

And look what happened there.

>they are going up against some heavyweights. Sony is huge and has a big lead and Nintendo has more experience in the market than anyone.

Except Sega, who has as much experience as Nintendo, and thier console is going tits-up. Everyone said the same thing about Sony in '94..."yeah Sony has money, but they make camcorders and VCRs and walkmans. They don't have muscle in the games business."

Food for thought:

Console systems are not really about consumer electronics or being a "game maker" per se. It's one part hardware, one part OS and programming environment, one part support for the users, one part support for the developers... Consoles are about making a PLATFORM. A platform whose success will be determined by it's ability to permeate a lot of homes and by having all the stuff that runs on that platform which you can't get anywhere else (or get later, or it's not as good). Kinda like the Minidisc "platform" or VHS "platform."

Remind anyone of Windows?

Oh, and if you think Microsoft doesn't know the console games market, chat with J Allard or Seamus for awhile. These guys aren't just suits. They know games. They've spent the last two years talking to every publisher and developer in the world (and NOT just PC people...mostly console people) about what needs to be done. They know what's wanted by everyone--the distributors, the gamers, the publishers, the developers. Can they deliver? Who knows. But just don't say they won't be successful because they're ignorant.

>I think a $399 price point will be a disaster, unless MS markets it as a home PC as well.

Which they can't do, because it's not. No keyboard, no mouse, no means of interacting with the OS. No real way to hook up a printer or anything. Hell, the OS itself doesn't even DO anything without all the drivers and libraries that come on the game disc.

I agree, $400 would sink them. Hell, anything over $299 is going to be one heck of a tough sell. I'm not sure if Sony can afford to drop to $249 this fall (they already lose a lot on each PS2, and production cost probably won't drop $50 by then).

My guesses are $249 or $299, probably $299. At least with the hard drive, I don't have to buy a $30 memory card on day one. =)

Gameboy Advance - yeah! Good stuff! Got mine preordered...

"At least with the hard drive, I don't have to buy a $30 memory card on day one. =)"

I agree with everything said above, but this is not true according to the interviews I've read. I suppose it's up to the individual developers, but J Allard or Seamus (can't remember) said this sort of willy-nilly use of the hd for permanent data storage would be strongly discouraged. In the ideal case it's scratch space.

Anyway, that's what I remember reading.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Except Sega, who has as much experience as Nintendo, and thier console is going tits-up. Everyone said the same thing about Sony in '94..."yeah Sony has money, but they make camcorders and VCRs and walkmans. They don't have muscle in the games business."

Yeah, which makes me think that the market's not big enough for 3 systems, no matter how good you are and how much you know.

One of the big differences between Sega and Nintendo are the properties, also. Nintendo just has four or five different characters/games that are guaranteed to sell in the millions.

I'm not trying to argue that Microsoft can't do it, but I they're going to have to play catchup and they're going up against a company that arguably knows the home electronics market even better than Microsoft does.

"Yeah, which makes me think that the market's not big enough for 3 systems, no matter how good you are and how much you know. "

I'm telling you guys. Console crash! 1983 all over again.

Not saying for sure, but the possibility is definitely there.. never have so many new systems been available in such a short time, and with so much overlap. Don't forget GBA, either!

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"I'm telling you guys. Console crash! 1983 all over again.

"Not saying for sure, but the possibility is definitely there.. never have so many new systems been available in such a short time, and with so much overlap. Don't forget GBA, either!"

I think it's more likely to be game developer/publisher crash, since the ones most likely to be hurt will be the people most affected by diminished game sales. It doesn't hurt Sony if 5 million game sales are split among 10 developers or 25 -- they still get their royalties.

The '83 crash was due to rancid games, also. Atari thought they could just pawn off anything and it would sell. The games will be good for these systems. There's just going to be too many.

Jason brings up a good point. Sega wasn't sunk because of the dreamcast. The Dreamcast sold very well. Yes they needed it to sell better but that was nill impossible. Sega was sunk because of their huge debt related to past failed hardware, a bad economy in Japan, and failed arcade centers. (fyi arcades are dying in japan as well). They just didn't have the capital to pull it off. BTW the Dreamcast was not the most sucessful launch ever. The Colecovision sold 6 million units in its first year. No other console has done than in its first year. (unless you count the Gameboy color). In any case, none of the remaining three are in that situation. All three are stong and are likely to take the goal. I can see the market is big enough for 3 systems. Nintendo was happy and getting rich with 30% of the market. Assuming that they were all about equal and the market contiunes to grow, I can easily see all 3 thriving. I don't see a console crash. For one, the big reason for the console crash was the rise of the personal computer. People were still buying games, they were just buying them from somewhere else. No one is likely to steal console dollars. Currently there is just a small dip in the market and nothing indicating a crash. I still think Sony is the one most likely to bail.

In this kind of discussions, I'm always shocked by the lack of sales figures. It seems very difficult to find precise data on hardware and game sales, market shares...

Do you people know some reliable sources?

What are the respective sizes of the North American, Japanese and European markets? Is it enough to be succesful on only one of these markets?

There are a lot of interesting comments here, but I don't know what to think without proper market data.

Most of the comments I've heard from current PS2 owners is not so hot. My opinion? I think that (assuming all 3 don't survive, which I think MIGHT be possible) Sony's days of glory are nearing an end. I agree that Nintendo is always -- ALWAYS -- going to be a contender, and I think that X-box, in spite of getting a late start, will eventually defeat the PS2. I guess only time will tell.

Well some numbers are gleemed from the console makers themselves. Sega has annouced 8 million units (although they may be counting unsold units)

Sony has sold 3 mill in japan, 2 mill in the us, and another mill in europe.

I used to think the X-box had a chance against Sony's PS2, but know I don't know. I just read tonight that MGS2: Sons of Liberty is going to hit retail stores this fall, and thats bad news for Microsoft. The hotly anticiptated title will sell millions of copies for the PS2, and it will compete directly with the x-box launch. The X-box had better have a killer line up if they even want to come close to competing with Sony. Also, where is the Japenese support? So far it's not there. Having PC guys at the head of the X-box operation is a bad idea. Where are the console guys at? I also just recently read that Tim Shafer and some other PC game companies are joing the X-box. Tim Shaffer?? Granted he did put out some great material on the PC, but the console side is a whole different ball game. I guess we will have to wait and see.

>I agree with everything said above, but this is not true according to the interviews I've read. I suppose it's up to the individual developers, but J Allard or Seamus (can't remember) said this sort of willy-nilly use of the hd for permanent data storage would be strongly discouraged. In the ideal case it's scratch space.

I've spoken with them about it, and I read Xbox coverage in a fashion that can only be described as "fanatically." (that goes for most of my console snooping, really, but Xbox especially because it really piques my interest)

The hard drive will have a few areas--probably each a seperate partition. One part will be just like a big giant memory card, ONLY used for saving game data from one session to the next. My guess is that it would be on the order of a few hundred megs - not much point in more since saved games are still supposed to fit on the 8MB (or larger) memory cards. The only thing that would need bigger than 8MB files are persistant-world online RPGs and such that would maybe need to store code and data changes as the game goes on, which is also what this area is for. Another very small section would apparently have system software on it - not an OS per se (all the OS bits needed will sit in less than 500k of ROM), but stuff like the dashboard software and DVD playing software and maybe stuff like software to browse and download online game demos or something in the future. That should be a really small section. The final and largest section will be scratchpad area. It's like a big virtual memory file...a game uses it, but when you turn off the system it's as good as gone (the data is still there, but it's never protected by anything...any app can write over this entire area at will).

I'm not sure the exact sizes or logistics of the hard drive breakup...I want to ask about that when I get the chance. But they've said on numerous occasions that the only thing you'd need a memory card for is if you want to take a saved game to a friend's house or something.


PS2 sales - I was just at a press event for Kyro II which had lots of buyers from like Best Buy and EB and the like. It's funny hearing them talk about PS2 numbers. My favorite quote is where a guy said "Sony says they've sold half a million PS2s in Europe, but the actual number is more like 100,000." It's not the first time I've heard someone on the retail/distributor side of the market talk about inflated PS2 numbers, for what it's worth.

If I can nitpick for a second: The Xbox spelling is "Xbox"

Not X-Box
Not XBox
not X-box

It's anal and all that, yeah, but I figure some people just don't know (I see X-Box so much). And really, the "proper" spelling is easiest anyway. =)

"I just read tonight that MGS2: Sons of Liberty is going to hit retail stores this fall, and thats bad news for Microsoft. The hotly anticiptated title will sell millions of copies for the PS2, and it will compete directly with the x-box launch."

Yeah, it's a system seller. I don't see one of those for the Xbox. A playable demo of MGS2 will be on a PS2 game that's coming out soon also, and I bet that even sells some units.

Sony's not pushing the PS2 really hard right now, but I expect a big push well in advance of the Xbox's release.

Oh well, we should know a lot more about the Xbox by tomorrow evening.

imo Metal Gear Solid is not a system seller. . . I can;t really see it raking in a million sales for PS2 OR XboX. i dont think ANY game can do this. maybe for gameboy advance. . . but not PS2 or Xbox. . .not until the console drops to arnd 150 bux.

plus i just dont "get" that MGS game. . . it was never that good playing it. . . more like a Resident Evil type spy game. imo of course

and the PS2 is starting to look more and more like a washout. i just feel it for some reason. . . i dont see any big games such as GT3, FFX and MGS2 really pulling it up to stellar sales ala the first Playstation.

Xbox i feel the same. . .

as if my "feelings" made any difference!

anyway, are there ANY upcoming console games you guys are really interested in playing? are you really hyped to play MGS2? or GT3? im not too thrilled at most of these console games.

the only ps2 game im interested in is FFX and XI and looking at screenshots of ffX the game looks like an Ultima 9 rpg redux for the console crowd (meaning crappy). ffXI will probably be a souped up ripoff of Phantasy Star Online. . .pity Sega. . . such a cool game. . . PSO2 is my MUST BUY game for consoles.

rambling as always. . .

etc

"anyway, are there ANY upcoming console games you guys are really interested in playing? are you really hyped to play MGS2? or GT3? im not too thrilled at most of these console games."

Me? Nah. I like RTS, FPS, turn-based strategy, PC-style RPGs, and MMORPGs -- none of which translate all that well to the consoles, with perhaps the turn-based being the exception.

I like all different kinds of games. I rather just have one platform to support (ei the pc) however some game times are just never seen on one or the other.

I don't follow the console market closely to know if there were a game that I "look forward to." I have an N64, and I'll probably pick up a next gen system at some point, but not until the prices drop and I know which one has the best selection -- at this point, it's looking like the Gamecube and Xbox have the best chances of me getting one -- I'm just not into any of the games out for the PSX that I'm all that interested in.

On a side note -- I can't imagine doing much online gaming on any console. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like online gaming is just better suited for the PC. Mostly, it seems like the games that would most likely be worth playing online are PC type games -- FPSs, strategy/war games, MMORPGs. I can't imagine these on a console being all that cool online. Sure, you have standardized hardware, so you know that the games will run on your system, but...that doesn't make the consoles cool. No match for a PC, especially.

"On a side note -- I can't imagine doing much online gaming on any console. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like online gaming is just better suited for the PC."

Well, you need a keyboard for communicating and you need storage for downloading updates, so online gaming is better suited for the PC.

There are probably ways to make it work for consoles. I can see people wanting to play games like Street Fighter against online opponents. If you build in a dozen canned comments that are easy to select ("Great battle! I owned you! I salute your victory! Etc.) you could play it online pretty easily. The MMORPGs are another story, though.

"I can see people wanting to play games like Street Fighter against online opponents."

Yeah, I hadn't really thought about that. I suppose that could be pretty cool. Some of the FPSs that have never made it to PC, and likely never will, could be cool, too (Perfect Dark, and al the Bond games) -- but I also doubt that many of them would make it to next gen systems.

>If I can nitpick for a second: The Xbox spelling is "Xbox"
>
>Not X-Box
>Not XBox
>not X-box

Yes, but the important thing is what people recognize and use.

- Alan

Referring to a recurring thread within a thread, I read this week in a syndicated article from USA Today that broadband penetration in the US was like 5%--of households or of Internet users, I couldn't tell--which is far below expectations. The big limitation so far has been infrastructure it seems; millions upon millions want broadband, but telcos and cable comapanies haven't been able to deliver the goods. Yet. Most estimates seem to suggest that as fiber optic lines get installed, and new Central Offices and related DSL stuff gets in place, we'll see a sudden surge when a large portion of the narrowband world gets access to broadband in a very short period of time. I sure as hell hope it happens soon where I am; with a dialup I have pretty much given up on online games period.