Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Reflections on the Holy Trinity 139

Posted by Zonk
from the of-consoles-not-christianity dept.
1up has a piece looking at gaming's future by reflecting on gaming's past. What do the launches of older systems teach us to expect from the PS3's ... eventual debut. From the article: "Shouts of 'Dreamcast' ... fall a little flat when you consider that Dreamcast was more of a last-ditch attempt from a company that hadn't turned a profit in 10 years. Microsoft isn't bowing out anytime soon, which means that being out in front will probably be an advantage -- by the time Sony launches, the 360 will be over the launch hiccups and rolling with a steady stream of new software. On the other hand, if Blu-ray is as big for the PS3 as DVD was for the PS2, Microsoft could find itself technologically inferior -- a direct consequence of its rush to market. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reflections on the Holy Trinity

Comments Filter:
  • I don't care... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sensible Clod (771142) <(ten.retrahc) (ta) (7-cd)> on Monday March 13, 2006 @02:44PM (#14909510) Homepage
    what anybody says, last-ditch or whatever, the Dreamcast is still comparable with almost anything on the market today, purely from a technological (read: graphics quality) standpoint.
    • Urm, are you blind? The graphics were decent, nothing more. A Geforce 3 is more powerful...
    • what anybody says, last-ditch or whatever, the Dreamcast is still comparable with almost anything on the market today, purely from a technological (read: graphics quality) standpoint.

      Don't get me wrong. The Dreamcast look beautiful. I still play some games on it today: Crazy Taxi, Soul Calibur, Sonic, etc. And I maintain it still looks better than the PS2.

      However, it's falls slightly behind XBox and GameCube as far as graphics go. It's not way behind, but still not up to their looks/performance.

      And the

      • I know the 360 is superior, hence my hesitance to make an all-encompassing statement. Gamecube? It's a wash, in my opinion.
        • Re:I don't care... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by KDR_11k (778916)
          The Gamecube is clearly superior, the Dreamcast ports it got (and there were many during the second year or so) were usually enhanced quite a bit and still nowhere near the GC native games in graphical quality.
      • You want to make it even better? I picked up a VGA adapter for it from some online site for $10 a few weeks back and I cannot believe how much better the Dreamcast looks on a CRT monitor. The DC can render everything native at 640x480, and the sharpness and clarity you get over TVs is astonishing. Soul Calibur never looked so good! Best $10 investment I've made in gaming in a long time.
    • I agree, the Dreamcast was a great little machine that saw its end too soon IMHO. And when one takes into account the graphics limitations inherent in standard televisions, this becomes more apparent. Without going to HDTV, or PC monitors, you really cannot do much better than DC quality graphics. And by much better, I mean noticeably better for the average gamer. XBox 360 graphics are great, but you really need to upgrade your TV to get the full effect. And yes, I know, PC's have been able to display bette
    • Re:I don't care... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tedgyz (515156) *
      what anybody says, last-ditch or whatever, the Dreamcast is still comparable with almost anything on the market today, purely from a technological (read: graphics quality) standpoint.

      Reminds me of the Amiga. Technically superior in almost every way to it's peers, but poorly handled by the owning company.

      I wasted nearly 10 years of my life being an Amiga bigot. Then I realized the thing that matters more is availability and cost of software. I jumped to the Wintel platform in '97 and haven't looked back.
  • NES, Genesis, Gameboy
  • by aralin (107264) on Monday March 13, 2006 @02:48PM (#14909559)
    This reminds me of the quote I keep reading in all fine print for every mutual fund: "Past results are no guarantee of future performance".

    While it is true that history tends to repeat itself, every time when someone tries to divine the future from the past they make the same fatal mistake that makes their predictions totally useless. They simply take into account too short section of the past, quite often only few years, instead of few centuries and their predictions are directed on a too close future, often few months or years rather than decades. Anyway, I don't think this trend is going to stop anytime soon and so here we go with yet another useless prediction.

    • Quite true. Sega was a great company that had a lot of success but the Dreamcast (which was a nice system) was not very successful (at least in the US).

      But let's look at recent history.

      Sony's released the highly anticipated PS2 with a rather meager launch lineup, and the system took off like a juggernaught after a while. The PSP was launched with much anticipation and we haven't seen too much of it since then. It is still there, and it isn't dead, but it wasn't the huge hit many expected it to be. The games aren't helping. (I must admit, I expected the system to take off after GTA: LCS came out and it didn't happen).

      Microsoft launched the XBox among much skepticism and speculation that it was more powerful, and the system did fine (not financially, but in general). They launched the 360 to skepticism and speculation that it was more powerful, and is doing fine.

      Nintendo launched the GameCube cheap, and it did very well. They launched the DS (which many people thought would be the next VirtualBoy, which was a great system with fantastic games, BTW) and after a short time without many games it has been picking up steam ever since. The system is HUGE in Japan and popular here in the states. Games are all over the map from traditional to experimental and from hard-core to "non-gamer".

      Expect MS and Sony to be much like the last generation. Sony may falter some, the XBox may do better. The Revolution is the wild card. It will either be much like the 'Cube (a great system that is beloved by owners but not big like the PS2) or it will take off like the NES did leaving competitors in it's dust. Either way, I'll be happy.

      I can't wait for the Rev, and I can't wait for GDC and E3 when we should find out more about all the systems.

      • "which many people thought would be the next VirtualBoy, which was a great system with fantastic games, BTW"
        Are you claiming that the Virtual Boy was a great system with fantastic games? If you like pounding headache, neck cramps, and Mario Tennis in RED (followed by walking around in a red haze) then I guess it was okay.

        What are these great games you, I think, are speaking of?

      • Sony's released the highly anticipated PS2 with a rather meager launch lineup, and the system took off like a juggernaught after a while. The PSP was launched with much anticipation and we haven't seen too much of it since then. It is still there, and it isn't dead, but it wasn't the huge hit many expected it to be. The games aren't helping. (I must admit, I expected the system to take off after GTA: LCS came out and it didn't happen).

        Microsoft launched the XBox among much skepticism and speculation that

        • You're right that the PS2 was a huge hit out of the gate, but what I meant was that the games weren't there for a while. It took a few months before it started getting more good games.

          As for the XBox doing great, I think that it is for all that it could be. There were so many predictions that the XBox would be stillborn or never catch on. It has mindshare up there with Playstation, and has become the new "Nintendo" that everyone uses to talk about videogames (you used to play Nintendo, then you played Play

        • Not financially, and not in units sold - the PS2 outsold the XBox by more than 10:1.

          Either you are amazingly bad at math or you are just making crap up. The Xbox had shipped more than 25 million units, the last time I saw figures. That would mean the PS2 has sold more than 250 million units. Last time I heard they had shipped 100 million units. Yeah, the PS2 sold a lot better than the 360, but don't just make up numbers.

          So, your analysis that Sony will falter and Microsoft will do better seems to not be

      • "Sony's released the highly anticipated PS2 with a rather meager launch lineup"

        You obviously never shopped for PSX games around the time of the PS2 launch. It had the largest library at launch time of any system in history.
    • Anyway, I don't think this trend is going to stop anytime soon and so here we go with yet another useless prediction.
      If that was intended irony: well-played.
  • by ivan256 (17499) * on Monday March 13, 2006 @02:51PM (#14909577)
    Dreamcast was more of a last-ditch attempt from a company that hadn't turned a profit in 10 years

    Yeah, I'm sure Sega was thinking that when they designed it... "Well, we're done for. Let's blow a whole bunch of money on one last failed console before closing the doors."
  • Hmm. Methinks we should *bonk* Zonk for going with this story...

    Where's the holy trinity? Or is that just a sensationalist headline again?

    Doh!
  • In the effect of Microsoft still has some hiccups 6 months or more down the line thanks to its rather lame game lineup, Sony shoots it's self in the foot with Blu-ray, and Nintendo instead takes the lead with its realization that 90% of the people dont want a uber system for 500 dollars, but would rather a 200 dollarish system that plays fun games, does it well, is backwards compatable, and has some inovative features (like the controller)

    I have said it before but I think the gaming industry in its thrust to make people spend computer system like amounts of money and to add the absolute best crap to their system without really testing it are prepping themselves for another video game crash like 81. And we ALL know who came out tops after that one.

    • I keep hearing this "nintendo is going to sweep the market" line from fanboys.

      What market are you referring to? Because I don't know anyone in my circle of friends, online and off, that could care less about the Rev. Maybe I have a biased circle, but all current consoles are represented.

      I bought a Cube for RE4, which was totally worth $100+game. Outside of that, as a "mature" gamer, I could pass on the entire game library other than RE4.

      Are people really itching to play NES games that badly? It seems to me
      • actually I dont even own a gamecube, but your not a real gamer if you cant admit that nintendo has some really good games that are nintendo only. Windwaker was awsome, Im sorry but if you couldn't get past the graphics then thats your fault, the story was great and was not kiddy... I mean come on Hyrule is under water destroyed, the Link from the N64 games ended up failing (and possibly dying in trying to kill a big bad) thats NOT kiddy material. Animal Crossing is adictive as hell. Super Smash Brothers
        • I'm a real gamer if I say so, I don't need your validation.

          As a child of the original Nintendo revolution, I get the appeal, I'm just not in that place any more. I can't get excited about collecting coins with a plumber to save the princess anymore.

          What do you think the possibility is of Oblivion or the next GTA coming out on the Rev if it's developed for the 360/PS3 crowd? Considering the performance delta this time around, I get the feeling that 3 platform releases are going to be shit this time around. E
          • ok but all the analysts agree, the people who have the money to buy a HDTV and 500 dollar system are 2-3% of the population, ask anybody out there and while they would love to have that, no one is willing to pay 1300-1500 for a video game system... the EXACT problem PC gamers are experiencing now.

            The simple fact is people are seeing the wolf for the clothes now, Microsoft and Sony bit of WAY more than they realized trying to push players into thinking that they NEEDED these overpriced low end PCs and only

            • "all the analysts agree"
              "ask anybody out there"
              "The simple fact is"

              I love how this smacks of credibility =)

              Which analysts agree that HDTV isn't making any headway? All the research I've seen suggests that HDTV adoption is still pretty brisk. The cost difference is not what it used to be, and people tend to think of their television as the hub of their entertainment area. Is HDTV here in force right now? Well, no. But a company that hopes to make money for the average console cycle would likely try to predic
              • you're so right. I'll go a step further..... I went to a really hoody house in brooklyn the otherday,
                this guy has exposed drywall and tattered cloth as doors. But what he DOES have
                is a PS2, a great stereo, and a HUGE TV that takes up half of the room. Video
                games are now a part of the culture, the street culture especially, and believe that
                when you go into the 'hood' they'll have hdtv and a ps3 aNd a 360. The console market
                is NOT the PC gamer market, and price is not the obstacle.
            • With all the sales of computer systems over $4,000 aimed explicitly at gamers, do you really think $1,000 is an excessive price point? Get with the times, noone expects to pay a quarter for a soda anymore. We have alot more money to spend today then we did in 1981.
        • I consider myself a 'real' gamer, having owned many exotic consoles during their prime. The ti-99, intellivision, amiga, turbografx 16, neo geo, dreamcast.. the most conspicious thing about my consoles is what is missing. Every nintendo machine since the original.

          While I played supernintendo at my friend's house, it just never made it on my 'to do' list. The nintendo 64 was ass compared to it's competitors. While churning out a non-stop collection of consoles for 8 year olds, Nintendo never "got it" when

      • Of course, in my circle of friends, I don't know anyone who's interested in a next-gen console. Period.

        XBox360 has no games I'm interested in. PS3 has no games - at all, that I've heard of. (Other than random speculation that Series X+1 will be on it.) Revolution has no games - at all, that I've heard of. Not even speculation on sequels.

        So, based on that quicky-analysis, I can come up with absolutely no reason why I'd want to get a next generation console.

        Yet.

        That can all change. But it all dep

        • Right, but one of the Rev's main selling features will be backward compatibility with old nintendo games (which is a BS line anyway. what they really mean is that you'll be able to repurchase these games. as much as I loved megaman or bionic commando, I just don't see it happening.) I can see them selling on a hand-held, primarily because they are simple to pick up and the graphics are simple and bright.

          If no one in your circle is interested in next-gen consoles, are any of your friends gamers?
          • If no one in your circle is interested in next-gen consoles, are any of your friends gamers?

            Define "interested." Sure, I think most of us would like information on the next-gen consoles.

            But there's been no announcement yet about games on the PS3 or Revolution that would make me - or anyone I know - eager to purchase either console. There's just not enough information about them yet. I don't think you need to have already decided on a next-gen console to be considered a gamer.

            • Uh, why should I define "interested?

              You were the one that said none of your friends are interested in any next-gen consoles.

              I'm declaring shenanigans on your comment. I think all your friends are interested in next-gen consoles. I wasn't implying that you had to buy or preorder one in order to be "interested". If you're a console gamer, chances are that you WILL own a next-gen console at some point.

              There's the implication in some of these posts that MS, Sony and Nintendo are all so far off the mark that the
      • I keep hearing this "nintendo is going to sweep the market" line from fanboys.

        What market are you referring to? Because I don't know anyone in my circle of friends, online and off, that could care less about the Rev.

        Well I can tell you what market, me for one. I'm barely a gamer at all nowadays. I mooch times off my friends' machines for what console gaming I'm interested in, but haven't actually owned one myself since the old 2600 I had as a kid. I've been planning on picking up a used Xbox at some point,

        • First of all, you aren't really part of the market today, since you don't buy games or consoles. If the Rev brings you into the fold, great! That's creating a market, though, not stealing marketshare from MS/Sony.

          I own an Xbox, 360 and a GameCube. If the 360 hadn't come out when it did, I probably would have bought a second-hand PS2 just to play God of War. I'm definitely not console-biased.

          I just don't see the Rev biting into the marketshare for the PS3/360. The kid-friendly outlook has made them money, wh
      • Outside of that, as a "mature" gamer, I could pass on the entire game library other than RE4.

        Yes, you could. As an alternative, you might also want to consider picking up some of the older A-list Nintendo exclusives dirt cheap. Some day (once you outgrow your 'maturity') you might be grateful for the hours of fun you've afforded yourself. This isn't a knock on you or those who consider themselves to be mature gamers. Rather, it's just an oft repeated word of advice related to how tastes change over time
        • By "mature" I simply meant older. My tastes have envolved, and most Nintendo games strike me as saccharine. And I have given a few CG titles a shot. Metroid Prime, Pikmin 2, F-Zero, RE Zero. I don't like the controller, the graphics look terrible on my TV, and I'm no longer a fan of the Nintendo assets. Mario just doesn't evoke the same sentiments after 15 years of marketing experience. He's just another mascot, unfortunately. Destined to have someone making minimum wage play him in a giant felt costume at
          • I didn't mean to condescend, so I apologize if you took offense. At worst I only meant to emphasize your (mis?)-use of the term mature. I still happen to think you're misusing the term (for instance my son would enjoy all three of the games you cite as enjoyable, but he is hardly "older"). However this doesn't invalidate your overall point or imply any fault on your part...rather it's just a matter of semantics. As you suggest, we're each entitled to box ourselves into whatever demographic we choose (j
    • Crash of '81 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Brownstar (139242)
      And we ALL know who came out tops after that one.

      I do, but I don't think you do.

      None of the current hardware makers made it out. Only new console makers that came into the market after the crash did well.

      So if history repeats itself, how does that help Nintendo?

      If history repeats itself, then it's more likly that the Phantom will come out on top rather than the Revolution
    • Sony shoots it's self in the foot with Blu-ray, and Nintendo instead takes the lead with its realization that 90% of the people dont want a uber system for 500 dollars, but would rather a 200 dollarish system that plays fun games, does it well, is backwards compatable, and has some inovative features (like the controller)

      umm... no. People mostly want a system that has some sort of standard for it's games (so that they can be easily pirated and/or extended... mostly the first), like CD and DVDs, has nice g

    • One of the big things hamstringing the X360 right now is the insistance upon high-res imagery. It's not a ludicriously more powerful system than the Xbox, and asking it to have both 10x better effects and graphics and do it at 10x the resolution just won't work... once you have higher resolutions running well, you've used up the system's power.

      We'll have to see if this is a major problem over the lifespan of the Xbox, or just launch-day hiccups. If lots of people pick up high-def sets, this could be a big
  • by 2Flower (216318) on Monday March 13, 2006 @03:27PM (#14909919) Homepage
    I'm not understanding this. These two new video formats do... what, exactly? Nothing, beyond showing higher quality digital video. Which is utterly useless unless you have an HD-TV, which is not exactly a universal standard.

    When the PS2 hit, it revolutionized / popularized DVDs. Why? Because a DVD cost at worst $25 at the time, and that's a good cheap buy. Couple that with the value you get out of having a combo game system and DVD player (since DVD players were expensive to buy seperately) and that's a no brainer money saver.

    But now, if you want to take advantage of Blu-Ray, you need a multi-thousand dollar television, and potentially more expensive movies. Which is NOT as much of a no-brainer as the PS2 was.

    On top of all that, we're rapidly approaching the point where we've gone as high-def as we realistically NEED to go. For a lot of folks, standard DVD is "fine." The upgrade is too expensive and the reward too low when you've got a workable solution; this isn't like VHS tapes which could degrade over time, had blatantly inferior video quality, and interactive features. DVD has plenty going for it and all HD adds on top is more rez, which while nice, isn't important enough.

    No. The video capability is not going to be what sells the PS3. It's a nice bonus but not as critical as the game library is at this point. (And given the 360's scrawny library, including unimpressive entries on the release chart, the PS3 has a good chance to sieze advantage...)
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I'm not understanding this. These two new video formats do... what, exactly? Nothing, beyond showing higher quality digital video. Which is utterly useless unless you have an HD-TV, which is not exactly a universal standard.

      The blu-ray format allows vastly increased storage for games. This gives the PS3 a real and distinct advantage, because game developers-- who are already shipping multi-DVD games-- can just use their disc space frivolously. By the end of this game generation, the XBox 360 will have a ser
      • Okay, I want to know what exactly you are doing with 9 GIGABYTES of data other than storing FMVs that would limit your ability to make a game with several hundred hours of playtime. (Considering that a "long" game is around 70-90 hours.) Seriously. The only GCN game I own that has more than one (~1.5GB) disc is Tales of Symphonia, and it had a good amount of FMV (anime cutscenes, not easily replaced with real-time).

      • Another crucial factor is not the amount of data, but the data transfer rate.
        The first-gen Blu-ray devices may not even equal the rates of the latest
        generation of DVD's, and this may cripple the performance of some games.

        Anyone have any hard numbers?

    • Well there is one thing in which having a new format helps over DVD: storage.

      With the revolution this may not be a problem. But if Final Fantasy XII were made as an XBox 360 exclusive game, how many discs do you think it would be? The cinematics take up a lot of room. So do all those high resolution textures (and bump maps, and normal maps, and...). Don't forget all the character/enemy/scenery models. That is a ton of data, and having it all on one disc helps quite a bit.

      That said, I don't think it will b

      • I don't buy the storage arguement, either.

        Yes, high rez textures need more storage. How much, exactly? An existing DVD already holds multiple gigs of data. Assuming you aren't stuffing dozens of FMV sequences on there in high def format, it'll be enough. And arguably, why would you NEED FMV anymore, if you're supposedly knee deep in TEH NEXT GEN which has TEH PHOTOREALISTIK graphics?

        You also need the man hours of work to fill that disk, to make that content. What's the one complaint coming out aboute very 3
    • I think there's a lot of people who don't have HD-TV yet but expect to upgrade eventually. So if you have a choice between two game systems and one comes with a drive that will play great on HD-TV when you eventually upgrade, that leans you in that direction. That said, it may still not be that much of an advantage. It depends on how much the average gamer knows and is apprehensive about the format war between HD DVD and Blu Ray.
      • Finally, someone has the right idea. This isn't about what we use today, this is about what we will potentially use in the next 5 years. Consoles are released as often, and as on schedule, as Microsoft releases operating systems.

        In 2Q 2006, Blue-ray might not seem like much of an advantage.. but in 2009?

        Sony has already announced that it will quit manufacturing CRT televisions.. there's not enough demand to make a profit on them. I don't think people are going to be buying anything less than HDTV in 2007,

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft should be worried, very worried.

    Sales of 360s have been falling each month. Last month sales are all the way down to 160k units. Sales of the PS2 were 300k.

    To make that perfectly clear, Sony's six year old machine is outselling Microsoft's brand new console by almost 2 to 1.

    The cries of the 360 being sold out everywhere just don't add up anymore. It was true back in December, less so in January, and by March 360s were in stock in all major retailers in the US. The local Walmart, BestBuy, and other
    • The PS2 outselling the XC doesn't surprise me, the GBA outsold the DS and PSP for quite some time before either of them managed to take over. I think it has to do with awful launch lineups all three of them had, without good games noone but the really geeky people wants a console.
    • SWAG (Score:5, Funny)

      by killmenow (184444) on Monday March 13, 2006 @04:38PM (#14910497)
      Here's my SWAG: The Xbox 360 will survive, not dominate. However, the third iteration of Microsoft's console will be the one to finally have a chance at knocking Sony out of the #1 spot. Why's that? It was this comment:
      ...delusion that just because this is Microsoft's second console...
      that got me thinking this. It made me think of Microsoft's track record. Their second iteration of any given product is not the one that is so successful. It's their third. Look at their products. Historically, versions 1 & 2 are dismal. It's version 3 that breaks through. MS-DOS 3, Windows 3, VB 3, etc.

      I think for Microsoft, truly the third time is the charm. And the cool thing about my prediction is that it's as well reasoned as those put forth by this article's author and I just pulled it out of my ass.
      • I think for Microsoft, truly the third time is the charm. And the cool thing about my prediction is that it's as well reasoned as those put forth by this article's author and I just pulled it out of my ass.

        Have you considered sending your ass' resume to 1up?
      • But Star Trek 2 was the good one!
  • by blueZhift (652272) on Monday March 13, 2006 @03:50PM (#14910115) Homepage Journal
    One thing that has become apparent, at least to me, is Sony's attempt to repeat the history of the successful PS2 launch which was buoyed by the console's ability to play DVDs. The problem this time around though is that Blu-Ray is not established the way that DVDs were when the PS2 launched. I remember that I finally got tired of waiting for the PS2 to come out and went out and bought a Sony DVD player when the prices became more attractive. This time though, not only are there not Blu-Ray players available, there aren't any movies in the format either.

    I think the Xbox 360 launch pushed up the PS3 launch a year or even two ahead of where Sony wanted it to be. They really needed that time to get Blu-Ray established with movies and stand alone players. Then the PS3 would come along as a great game machine and a probably lower cost alternative to play Blu-Ray movies. Unfortunately, Microsoft has ruined that script. Now the Playstation 3 is going to have to live or die on gaming alone at launch, something that its predecessor would have had a hard time doing given the so so launch titles of that time (especially in Japan).

    I'm not saying that Sony has no chance to prevail against the competition, only that their attempt to repeat history has failed. They might have been better served by a more Nintendo-like attitude of releasing things when they are ready rather than being too worried about the competition and building so much hype. Of course, Sony probably has a lot of reasons that they really can't wait, especially since the Playstation brand is basically carrying the company these days.
    • So what if there aren't blue-ray movies out yet? Sony can just incorporate both kinds of new super-DVD's into the player, and tons of people (like myself) who like having one tiny box, will gladly pay extra to have the best gaming experience available today WITH a good DVD player. XBox sales haven't done well not because it's not a good box. It is. But I have a feeling that there are LOTS of people like myself who are waiting for the PS3.
    • Actually, I think the lack of inexpensive Blu-Ray players is going to help Sony far more than it will hurt them. Its pretty much expected that the PS3 isnt going to retail for $800.00 or some equally obscene amount of money, so people who are looking for the 'latest and greatest' in movie technology will be able to pick up a Blu-Ray player that happens to also play games for roughly half the cost of existing players. This is, of course, assuming the PS3 retails for no more than what the 360 does/did.

      Plus, u
    • Actually, I think they're trying to repeat history, but in reverse. They have an established game market. They want to establish an install base of Blu-Ray players, so that they can sell licenses to produce Blu-Ray content.

      By the time the PS2 was released, DVD players were already an established market. The PS2 rode the demand for DVD players by offering something of added value above a normal DVD player (games) at a lower cost.

      Blu-Ray has no real market at this point. Very few people are interested

  • by Animats (122034) on Monday March 13, 2006 @04:50PM (#14910599) Homepage
    The real problem with the upcoming generation of consoles is that they cost much more than the previous generation, and they're not that much better. No way can the PS3 launch successfully at some $700-$800 price point. The XBox 360 is encountering serious price resistance at $299.

    Microsoft has been losing money in their game business since the original XBox launch. Their stock has been flat for five years [yahoo.com], and the stockholders are starting to get annoyed with the money drain. Microsoft may at some point be pushed into "concentrating on their core business area". Losing money forever isn't a business.

    • I'm willing to take bets that the PS3 can sellout at a $700 pricetag. Gates isn't the slightest bit worried about the "profit draining" effect on the Xbox, as he could hardly expect the console to be anything but a drain on the software developer's bottom line. Microsoft expects to make more profits from the Live service than licensing, manufacturing, et al. It's a marketing move to get microsoft in your living room, and to expand their potential to integrate into your daily lives, which in the long run wil
  • I read the article description and came away with Tank, Healer, DPS...

    Consoles are overrated...
  • The Dreamcast launched in 1999. No profit in 10 years would be 1989. I'm pretty bloody sure Sega earned massive profits from the Genesis, which coincidentaly launched in 1989.

One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is... If they do foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little. -- Joe Martin

Working...