I guess you didn’t visit this thread, Jason?
http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1414&highlight=october
-wumpus
This has no real bearing on the PS3 at all. The PS2 already has Linux and it hasn’t been any driving force behind homespun PS2 games nor has it made a surge in Linux popularity. Linux in the background for consumer appliances will never be seen by the end user, it’s just an OS they can put a pretty front end on. They don’t even mention the PS3:
The companies envision an advanced network environment where products such as TVs, microwaves, refrigerators and car navigation systems will be connected through common networks.
So, I don’t know where you pulled that one out from.
Oh, and way to avoid the fanboy question once again.
And, I can’t stress this enough, the ability to rip songs to the hard drive. No swapping out CD’s, no pauses between tracks as the CD changer moves, it’s just great.[/quote]
One of these days there will be a sixth or seventh game to even support ripped CDs during gameplay! Schweet!
True, but Nintendo couldn’t care less, nor could Nintendo’s customers. Elephants like Capcom aren’t scared by this prospect, their games will sell anyway; and Nintendo doesn’t need to court (relatively) small developers like Microsoft does. People buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games, and everything else is just a bonus.
Also, at the risk of sounding like I’m defending Xbox, it’s worth noting that software tie ratios for Nov and Dec are likely to be down as every new Xbox buyers gets two free games with it. Other systems have optional bundles, which some people buy and some don’t.
That’s a good point. I didn’t know about the bundle situation in America but I’ve seen Microsoft’s bundle of holiday desperation here in the stores – the Xbox with three free games thrown in: Sega GT 2002, Jet Set Radio Future, and even Halo, all together for 249 euros!
Giving away your single best game doesn’t sound like a clever move to me, but hey, what do I know? Microsoft certainly will boost its installed user base with this kind of giveaways, but their profits will tank again. For a company with as much cash as MS, it’s certainly possible to give away games and see what happens, but the charts seem to indicate that people just grab the freebies and have no desire to buy anything else for this system. We’ll see if that changes next year once people have finished Halo…
Besides, I wonder if they aren’t setting themselves up for an anti-dumping lawsuit. In Europe at least, you can’t consistently sell products below cost just to ruin the competition. They’ll probably have to terminate this bundle after the holidays.
Yeah, selling the hardware at a loss then giving away the few games you were actually making money on strikes me as a lose-lose proposition for MS. Great you’ve incresed the installed based, but you’ve also statisfied that consumer’s software needs for the year in one fell swoop, and it cost you money to do it!!!
Gotta love the way DaveC digs at Dave L., as if he’s some kind of paragon of objectivity. Hey, how many dumptrucks full of money had to make the trip from Redmond to Canada for those exclusive Bioware titles? You made them pay you in American, right? They didn’t talk you into accepting Loons did they?
Ahem, yes. I covered this as well in the Can Nintendo grow up? thread…
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 3:01 pm Post subject:
Dave Long wrote:
It’s a pretty good article, and gives a lot of fodder to those that dislike Seamus Blackley. He comes off as a corporate suit. The kind of guy that doesn’t “get” games at all. He seems to be looking for some “adult” content but doesn’t realize that to be adult doesn’t have to mean mobsters and horror. He’s also a former Microsoft employee that still has strong ties to that company, so he’s not exactly a neutral party. Lorne Lanning, another Microsoft partner, is a similarly bad choice for interview in the article.
Brian Koontz wrote:
Damn, Dave… ever since you determined people were “attacking” you for your Pro-Xbox, Pro-Microsoft bias you’ve sold out. Now all I hear from you are promotions of the Gamecube, PS2, Nintendo, and Sony.
I didn’t know souls were so cheap nowadays… coward.
Did you ever think that being BIASED (for good reasons) is not such a bad thing? If you see things in the Xbox that make you love it MORE than the other systems then that is not just your prerogative to express… its your DUTY.
This has no real bearing on the PS3 at all. The PS2 already has Linux and it hasn’t been any driving force behind homespun PS2 games nor has it made a surge in Linux popularity. Linux in the background for consumer appliances will never be seen by the end user, it’s just an OS they can put a pretty front end on. They don’t even mention the PS3:
[quote]The companies envision an advanced network environment where products such as TVs, microwaves, refrigerators and car navigation systems will be connected through common networks.
So, I don’t know where you pulled that one out from.
Oh, and way to avoid the fanboy question once again.[/quote]
You know DaveC, I didn’t think I’d have to spell it out for you, but here you go. Sony using Linux for all their plans will most certainly affect the PS3 and it will affect Microsoft in the long run if Sony continues to be successful. Somehow, Sony has maintained an image of a consumer electronics maker instead of a games maker throughout the lifetime of the Playstation. This is very important to both their sales and their ability to attract a broad user-base. They are perceived by adults as a company that makes electronics and kids are interested in their systems because of the games that appear on them. The further entrenched Sony becomes as a maker of consumer electronics AND video games, the more likely they will be able to sell just about anything with the Sony name on it…including what would amount to a PC-like device not unlike the one they have talked about selling many times. You know, that gateway into your home that Microsoft and Sony want to be.
The key is that Sony will do this with a free operating system that does not supply revenue to one of their key competitors in this new space. They’re already using Linux with PS2 and they’re transferring that knowledge to all the other devices they want to create. Microsoft has stated their intent (through Bill Gates in keynotes, etc.) to create devices JUST LIKE THESE. It sets up a very big confrontation between Sony and Microsoft and yes, PS3 is where Sony will most likely retain the upper hand and use that to leverage these other products for your home/car/whatever. Compatibility is a powerful tool which Sony proved again with PS2 and it’s backwards compatibility to the PSOne. Microsoft proves it again and again with their Windows OS. The Playstation name is ubiquitous. Whereas fifteen years ago you would tell people you were playing “Nintendo” when you talked about video games, and five years after that you were telling people you played “Sega”. For the last seven years, the word synonymous with games has been Playstation. With PS3, Sony can connect these other devices together with their console to begin creating these wired homes with the one hub…PS3. The importance of this announcement is that there will be no Microsoft branded product involved with it in any way and for PS3 the synergy (I hate that word) begins there, but these other products may help drive PS3 sales and vice versa.
Sorry if that sounds like a lecture. I didn’t think it was that unclear to my nemesis, DaveC. It’s what you don’t read that’s important as what you do read in that article. Forest for the trees and all that…
–Dave
Interesting article. Sony’s really pulling away. Even when Xbox sales spiked due to the attractive bundling, Sony still was outselling the Xbox by a wide margin. The gap between first and second place is widening, not shrinking.
I was really surprised to see that the online adaptor for the PS2 has outsold Xbox Live by about 3 to 1. You’d think that would be one area where the Xbox would outsell the PS2. Not so, apparently. [/quote]
And look at how much MS has had to dump into advertising to stay that close. Until the last week or two, I had not seen a single commercial for one PS2 game that even mentioned online play much less promoted it. Now a couple of games mention it in a blurb on the screen, but not through the voiceover. I think that one was SOCOM.
Has anyone seen any dedicated PS2 adapter ads or ads shouting about the online feature for their games? Maybe even on Tech TV?
For your information I own a Dreamcast, a PS2 and an Xbox. Right now I play more Xbox games than the other two because there are more games to play. Your implication that somehow I am an Xbox fanboy is asinine. As soon as there are enough games I want on the GC I will buy one. However, I get a little annoyed by the constant pot shots and gloom and doom predictions coming from Nintendo fanboys in regards to the Xbox. I’m not sure why, but a lot of these people believe in the “only 2 can survive” console market which is complete and utter bullshit.
As for the dumptrucks full of money, you live in a naive fantasy world if you think Sony and Nintendo don’t have their own money dumptrucks.
[/quote]
Considering the PS2 install base this is not surprising at all. Let’s get a ratio of total consoles vs. online players. That would be an interesting comparison.
The average consumer knows nothing about Linux and could care less. They do know about Windows because the vast majority use it on their PCs at home and work. So, brand and image wise I’d say MS has a head start. The Xbox is just a first step towards that “synergy” you speak of. Both Sony and MS have long terms plans to penetrate further into the home market and the battle hasn’t even begun. I don’t know hwo will win, but I do know trying to declare a winner right now is pointless. Gates isn’t kidding when he says that in the tech industry the tides can change quickly and those on top today can’t assume they will be there tomorrow.
Back to the original article, how good is this reporting?
Sony’s big title appears to be “SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals,” an online action game which has sold a half-million copies in three months
Wha? He uses the NPD figures and doesn’t list the GTA/GTA:VC as Sony’s big titles?
As far as online adapter sales go, so what? The LIVE kits sold represent a continuous revenue stream. The Sony add-on represents a continual drain on operating profits for whoever is paying the server costs.
As far as online adapter sales go, so what? The LIVE kits sold represent a continuous revenue stream. The Sony add-on represents a continual drain on operating profits for whoever is paying the server costs.
That’s splitting hairs, don’t you think? It costs Microsoft a hell of a lot of money in server costs too. Doesn’t matter who’s footing the bill, someone’s got to pay it.
Arguably, Sony is the smarter one there since they don’t have to maintain anything in order to take their console online, they just sell the hardware and support whatever games they decide to sell. Microsoft must turn Xbox Live into a revenue stream or they’ll forever be losing money on the support costs. They’ve also got to make developers give up their autonomy when it comes to online aspects of their games…which has apparently been a tough sell. Note Electronic Arts’ decisions on Xbox Live support…
Sony’s big title appears to be “SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals,” an online action game which has sold a half-million copies in three months.
The above is true. It’s published by Sony. GTA: Vice City is not published by Sony. So Sony’s big title appears to be SOCOM.
–Dave
Again. Is Microsoft not spending a small fortune on X-box Live promotions with commercials, in-store set-ups, etc. when compared to Sony? I am really asking because I know there has been a shitload of advertising I have seen in my limited TV viewing and that ain’t cheap.
The average consumer knows nothing about Linux and could care less. They do know about Windows because the vast majority use it on their PCs at home and work. So, brand and image wise I’d say MS has a head start. The Xbox is just a first step towards that “synergy” you speak of. Both Sony and MS have long terms plans to penetrate further into the home market and the battle hasn’t even begun. I don’t know hwo will win, but I do know trying to declare a winner right now is pointless. Gates isn’t kidding when he says that in the tech industry the tides can change quickly and those on top today can’t assume they will be there tomorrow.
Man, you just don’t quit. No one is declaring a winner. You asked me why the news had any bearing and I explained it. Now you’re saying I declared Sony the champ? And you wonder why Brad called you out on your company’s money hat? But I’ll play along…
You speak as though you believe Microsoft has already won. If the fates of tech can change so quickly, they can easily reverse against Microsoft. Their Office monopoly hasn’t been generating the kind of revenue it did five years ago. They may not be able to count on that revenue stream. Who knows about .NET. It’s possible no one will buy in? My company is steering away from Microsoft products for all but the desktop right now. AIX, Linux VM, Mainframe… we’re primarily running IBM hardware. We’ll also be running the largest e-commerce site on a mainframe using Linux on VM by the end of next year. We’re leaving MS Commerce Server behind. I’m very glad we’re keeping MS products on the desktop because they work great. I’m not happy we move so slow with upgrades because of the draconian licensing agreements Microsoft wants all companies to sign. I love the MS OS and XP is fantastic. But there’s no reason to believe they’ll be able to convert this into control of the home.
You made my point for me at any rate. People don’t know Linux and with these devices, they still won’t. What they will know is that the Sony toaster they got will work with the Sony TV, will work with the Sony car stereo, will work with the Sony Playstation 3, etc. If it all runs on Linux, Microsoft gets zip. Sony’s consumer electronics brand is extremely strong. It is certainly going to be a hard thing for Microsoft to topple. This is clear with the Xbox and the PS2. Some would say they’ve already lost because Xbox has not reached their expectations. Typically, once you “lose” with one console, consumers are far less interested in stepping up for the next one. Just ask Sega.
–Dave
Okay, Dave. You must not be aware of how Xbox LIVE! works. It’s a subscription service. After the initial 1 year for $50, it’s going to cost a monthly fee (I expect $10). It does matter who’s footing the bill. In the case of LIVE!, it’s the users who foot the bill. In Sony’s case, it’s the developer.
Who knows what EA’s motives were? Anyway, they are a special case because their big cash cows (sports games) are in direct competition with those published by the maker of the Xbox. I don’t think their decision not to support Xbox LIVE! was over control of “online aspects.”
Oh. So that’s what he meant.
This is not yet true. Microsoft has made no announcement regarding the future of Xbox Live and its fees. This has been dutifully pointed out by many Xbox fans when people claim they don’t want to pay a subscription fee to play console games online. All they’ve said is it’s $50 for the headset and the service to start and future programs are not determined. Live also doesn’t pay for the service when you’re running many servers for about 100,000 users. Yes, the userbase will grow, but it must grow, must be charged a fee and be sustained in order to cover costs. It also puts all the money on Micrsoft’s pocket, making it unattractive to publishers (like EA) that want the revenue stream from their games to go in their own pockets.
For Sony, the developer can charge what they want for their service. If it’s just game matching, one server box will probably do. If it’s more, then fees might be expected. A developer might even count on the huge internet community to put up servers as happens with most PC games? I’m not advocating one or the other, but there are certainly merits to both approaches and one favors the game maker, while the other favors the console maker.
Who knows what EA’s motives were? Anyway, they are a special case because their big cash cows (sports games) are in direct competition with those published by the maker of the Xbox. I don’t think their decision not to support Xbox LIVE! was over control of “online aspects.”
Uh…we know what EA’s motives were. They said it had to do with Live and their unwillingness to allow Microsoft control of their customers and their customers’ information. Direct competition had nothing to do with it. Maybe you didn’t know it, because the games have been so poor lately, but Sony sells sports franchises too and is a direct competitor to EA on the PS2 as well.
–Dave
Why isn’t Xbox Live also a drain on operating profits? The PS2 adapter and Xbox Live kit cost about the same. Why does one generate profits and the other generate loss? By the time the one-year subscription for Xbox Live is up, Sony may have a subscription service ready to go. EverQuest Adventures for the PS2 will be up and running and generating profits before then anyway.
-
LIVE! subscriptions pay for the costs of the service and hopefully turn a profit. For the Playstation, if a developer wants an on-line component, they have to either charge for it (micropayments?) or it will cut into their profits from the sale of the game. Developers using LIVE! get to keep all of their profits.
-
Sony has never said anything about a subscription service. They would definitely be talking about it if they had plans. Even if they were thinking about it, they would say something.
-
EverQuest Adventures is an MMORPG. If past experience is indicitive of future results, they will have enough problems without trying to pioneer the entire Sony on-line effort.
[quote=“Tyjenks”]
Again. Is Microsoft not spending a small fortune on X-box Live promotions with commercials, in-store set-ups, etc. when compared to Sony? I am really asking because I know there has been a shitload of advertising I have seen in my limited TV viewing and that ain’t cheap.[/quote]
I’m sure they’re spending a lot more to promote Xbox Live than is Sony to promote their online stuff, though we may see an onslaught of ads once the EverQuest game is ready to launch.
Square recently hit the 200,000 subscriber mark in Japan for the online Final Fantasy. If you want to talk about Xbox Live generating revenue, the Final Fantasy game has more subscribers than Xbox Live and charges a monthly fee (I think). By just about any measuring stick (other than user satisfaction, which is a judgement call), Sony has been more immediately successful than Microsoft with their online initiative.