PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: fastson on June 25, 2002, 07:07:48 AM
-
www.redherring.com/inside...62402.html
Microsoft takes heavy losses on the Xbox
Beating Sony and Nintendo in the gaming console market is apparently worth billions to the software giant.
By Dean Takahashi
June 24, 2002
Microsoft executives are predicting heavy losses related to the Xbox video game console, but the company is prepared to keep supporting its central offensive against Sony and Nintendo by launching a version with new features next year.
Microsoft expects to lose $750 million in the current fiscal year ending June 30 and another $1.1 billion in the next fiscal year, according to a source familiar with the matter. David Hufford, a Microsoft spokesman, declined comment on the financials.
Meanwhile, the Xbox team has been working for about nine months on a machine that combines the features of the Xbox with UltimateTV, a set-top box that features digital video recording. Mr. Hufford said, "Regarding a hybrid box, we are moving full steam ahead with Xbox in its current state while staying deadly focused on games. Of course we have engineers looking at dozens of possibilities for the future of the console."
While Microsoft does not break out the loss figures for the Xbox from the rest of its operating results, it has said it expects to sell 3.5 million to 4 million units by June 30, and 9 million to 11 million by June 30, 2003. It has also said about three games are selling for every box sold.
The losses suggest that it will be difficult for Microsoft to make a profit on the division for some time unless it starts selling a much larger number of games and begins reaping profits from the upcoming launch of Xbox Live, its online gaming service.
The losses aren\'t unexpected, but they do show that Microsoft expects to lose more money the more machines it sells. When Bill Gates approved the Xbox in the fall of 1999, he was told that the console could lose $900 million over eight years and that if Sony cut its prices aggressively, then Microsoft could lose $3.3 billion. After much hand-wringing, Mr. Gates approved the box because he felt Microsoft needed to face the threat of the PlayStation 2 and hook gamers on Microsoft products.
"There is a debate going on if it is better for Microsoft to lose more money and get an installed base, or underperform in unit sales and lose less money," said John Taylor, an analyst at Arcadia Investment in Portland, Oregon. "My sense in strategic sales is it is more important to get an installed base."
Microsoft can absorb the Xbox losses. The company has an estimated $42 billion in cash reserves and, for the year ending June 30, it is expected to report a net profit of about $10 billion and revenues of $28.25 billion.
The costs of goods for every Xbox amount to $325, according to the source. That means that Microsoft is currently losing at least $150 on every box, and probably more due to shipping, advertising, development overhead, and return costs. Microsoft sells the box wholesale to retailers for $175. Microsoft would have to sell a lot more than three games apiece to break even.
By contrast, Sony is believed to be losing only a small amount of money on the PlayStation 2, which costs an estimated $185 to manufacture. Sony recently began shipping a cost-reduced version of the PS2 with redesigned chips and fewer and smaller components in the box. Microsoft isn\'t expected to do the same until the fall.
Sony has been aggressive. It cut the price of the PlayStation 2 in May by a third to $199, and Microsoft matched it. In addition, Sony cut the price of its first-party software titles from $49 to $39. Microsoft had launched its box in Europe at a price of the equivalent of $419, but cut the price to $266 due to slow demand. (Nintendo\'s GameCube launched at $199 in the U.S. and has been cut to $149.)
The cost pressures on Microsoft are why it asked Flextronics to shutter a plant in Hungary and move assembly of the boxes to China, and they also explain why Microsoft is in arbitration with Nvidia over the price for the Xbox graphics chips. The XGPU, as it is called, is the most expensive component in the box.
One problem for Microsoft is that it projects that its costs for the Xbox will decline slowly. The cost of the box may come down over five years from $325 to $225, according to the source. By contrast, Sony and Nintendo are expected to bring their costs down more steeply over time, largely because their machines don\'t have an expensive hard drive.
Microsoft seems undeterred by the losses. Robbie Bach, the chief Xbox officer, said at the recent Electronic Entertainment Expo that Microsoft planned to spend $2 billion more on the Xbox over five years. To add features like digital video recording, the machine will need more costly components like TV tuners, extra memory chips, and a bigger hard disk. This combo box might launch next year for a price of $500. The product is controversial in part because it creates a conflict within the machine: will the game slow down so that the hard drive can record "BattleBots"? Balancing the needs of gamers and general users will not be easy.
With all that\'s happening, Mr. Bach is going on a sabbatical beginning July 3. He has been the key senior executive in charge of the Xbox since 1999.
Write to Dean Takahashi.
MS takes hits after hits.. I wonder how much longer they will hold out.
Do you think they will drop it like a hot potato?
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F216.40.201.38%2Fcontrib%2Fruinkai%2Fspanka.gif&hash=ca5342266061dece3e82fe7c80c07e018ea14b8c)
-
Thats all true and all, but the fact is, M$ does have the money to lose, it\'s not like their short on it.
In any case, pretty much all consoles lose money, X-Box just seems to do it 10x worse.
-
on a machine that combines the features of the Xbox with UltimateTV
BWUHAHAHAHAHAHA! *sniff*
/wipes tear from eye
i outright dare m$ to release this contraption
on a serious note, without dumptrucks of cash, xbox = 3do and m$ = tragic
-
Originally posted by fastson
Do you think they will drop it like a hot potato?
No
xbox is a way for MS to symbolize the state of PC gaming, and the dated architecture behind it, is alive and doing fine. So as long as MS can maintain that image for the dwindling PC gaming elite, they can hope to stem the flow of developers turning their attention to consoles first (more importantly, consoles that don\'t rely on some version of DirectX to program games). To drive home the point, the idea for xbox didn\'t blossom until after Sony flatly refused repeated requests by MS to allow them to help design a version of DirectX for PS2.
No, MS has too much else at stake to really care whether they ever make a dime on xbox, hardware or software.
-
This guy seems to have a few good points, but I\'m trouble by this:
"One problem for Microsoft is that it projects that its costs for the Xbox will decline slowly. The cost of the box may come down over five years from $325 to $225, according to the source. By contrast, Sony and Nintendo are expected to bring their costs down more steeply over time, largely because their machines don\'t have an expensive hard drive."
I don\'t think the writer has a clue when he wrote this. It\'s possible to get a bottom of the barrel PC for less than $225, and in all likelihood MS can get one for even less. EDIT: An 8GB HD isn\'t a lot of money. Plus that Xbox uses mostly "off-the-shelf" parts, MS costs could quiet easily fall faster than propriety parts.
EDIT: Well, I\'ve look into this and thought about a little bit. Now I think it\'s mostly BS.
"Meanwhile, the Xbox team has been working for about nine months on a machine that combines the features of the Xbox with UltimateTV, a set-top box that features digital video recording. Mr. Hufford said, \'Regarding a hybrid box, we are moving full steam ahead with Xbox in its current state while staying deadly focused on games. Of course we have engineers looking at dozens of possibilities for the future of the console.\' "
I think they were refering to Xbox2, since they stated that this is the "future of the console" and "we are moving full steam ahead with Xbox in its current state."
"The costs of goods for every Xbox amount to $325, according to the source. That means that Microsoft is currently losing at least $150 on every box, and probably more due to shipping, advertising, development overhead, and return costs. Microsoft sells the box wholesale to retailers for $175. Microsoft would have to sell a lot more than three games apiece to break even."
I\'d seriously doubt this. This price been around for while. I believe that this the original release price of the Xbox over a year before they launched. Anyhow, since launch DRAM prices have plummeted and nVidia\'s chips drop about $20 (believe it was 70 at launch and 50 now).
"Microsoft seems undeterred by the losses. Robbie Bach, the chief Xbox officer, said at the recent Electronic Entertainment Expo that Microsoft planned to spend $2 billion more on the Xbox over five years. To add features like digital video recording, the machine will need more costly components like TV tuners, extra memory chips, and a bigger hard disk. This combo box might launch next year for a price of $500. The product is controversial in part because it creates a conflict within the machine: will the game slow down so that the hard drive can record "BattleBots"? Balancing the needs of gamers and general users will not be easy"
Obviously, the reporter just made this up by combining the "$2 billion over five years" figure and this "hybrid box."
I\'ve never heard of this "hybrid box". If there was, I\'d probably have heard it elsewhere. All in all, I doubt the accuracy of this article and I wouldn\'t put much faith in what this guy said.
-
Ive heard talk about the hybridbox months ago.
-
Nevermind
-
Originally posted by mm
BWUHAHAHAHAHAHA! *sniff*
/wipes tear from eye
i outright dare m$ to release this contraption
on a serious note, without dumptrucks of cash, xbox = 3do and m$ = tragic
Well, they do have the cash. Your point is moot.
-
I\'m laughing in the inside :D
-
no, point is valid
without thier blood money, xbox would be dead already
my penis in yer ear, now thats a moot point
:)
-
Everyone looses money with hardware, especially the first year and the first time producing any hardware. MS is prepared for it. This, if it is even accurate, is a good thing.
You spend money to make money. And MS knows how to make money.
-
yeah, they puke up some sort of dysfunctional OS for the technologically ignorant to suk up cause the media scares them into it
that article is not only talking about lack of hardware sales
lack of hardware sales = lack of software sales
-
Hey, what happened to your look of posts mm?
You lost a little *bling bling* if you ask me :D No gold name, no picture avatar thing, nothing! Except girth, ahahaah.
-
i was messing with muh profile
i cant make the forum allow color in user titles
-
Win 2000 and Xp are great OSs.
And Xbox has the highest attach rate of any system since launch. Certainly doing better than the GC.
-
winXP shipped with 65,000 KNOWN bugs
unix > winNT
dont you remember the scandal that bill\'s email caused that he sent out to all M$ employees?
"security comes 1st, even before functionality."
and how many m$ loopholes are exploited every day?
-
I think M$ has done with xbox what they wanted to do. Make a place for them in the gaming community and to be heard. I think they\'ll do a lot better with their next console.
-
I think mm needs an exclusive picture...
-
nah, stupid clyde took mine
:mad:
-
When an OS ships that does everything WinXP does, with all the flexibility it has, for all the differing hardware it must operate under--when another OS can do all that, THEN you can talk.
Until then, it\'s the best on the market.
Also, you show me ANY computer system that is unhackable, that is without loopholes, and then I\'ll shut up.
It\'s impossible. People find ways, hackers get through.
Windows is picked on because it\'s out there.
I don\'t put up a stink because my Mac crashes or because the software writen for it is sparce and often second rate. I don\'t say a work when it gets out preformed by lesser PCs. No one mentions the vulnerbilities with a Mac OS. No one cares. But with MS, it\'s America\'s favourite past-time.
Windows gets picked on because people are jealous of Gates and because it\'s out there in 90% of the computers. There isn\'t a OS that compares, and that\'s a fact.
-
bullsh1t
80% of all web servers run unix or apache
windows might be on 90% of CONSUMERS PC\'s cause they dont know any frickin better. they\'re technologically ignorant and when the guy at compUSSR wants to make commision, he sells them the latest, greatest windows OS.
windows is a piece of crap, always has been
all they do is add a few gimmicks and resell it every 2 years
Linux can do everything (if givin a chance) windows can except run office XP. thats the last remaining stanglehold m$ holds
thats why bill gates was so scared of Lindows
its easy to pick on windows cause they tell its so great, but when you get down inside it, its poop
ask larry ellison or steve jobs how windows became so "great"
yeah, i love when iE crashes and i have to reboot, thats real fun
i love paying 200$ for an OS that does nothing more than win2k yet lets me change my theme
the reign of windows is winding down, we\'re tired of following thier draconian tactics
keep following in line if u like, im waiting to act like Seamus and jump ship 1st chance i get
-
Key phrase is first chance you get. Like I said, there isn\'t a comparable OS on the market for the home consumer and until there is, there\'s no debate.
____________
80% of all web servers run unix or apache
____________
Absolutely true, and 100% are hackable with any kid with a script and a half a clue.
Linux can\'t do everything windows can. It doesn\'t have the support. Why does my brother, who is programming all Corel office programs to linux, use Windows? Hmm. Because it doesn\'t have support, drivers, programs--it doesn\'t do half what windows does.
If Linux ever does crack the market, hackers and analysts will put their scrutiny on it and reveal all the flaws in it.
-
windows might be on 90% of CONSUMERS PC\'s cause they dont know any frickin better. they\'re technologically ignorant and when the guy at compUSSR wants to make commision, he sells them the latest, greatest windows OS.
Word to that. I agree completely with the above. I won\'t say there is a OS that is unhackable (Linux is, aswell as any other OS), but you can\'t deny that MS has made it very easy with their past OSs for people with basic computer knowledge to hack their products.
As for the thread; Interesting read and IMO, the important question is: will the money that MS is dumping into Xbox eventually pay off?
-
Linux: You get what you pay for.
-
and whats wrong with that?
if i didnt need to use powerpoint and access for work, or play a few PC games, i would uninstall windows in a heartbeat
more and more games are being ported to linux everyday
it wont be long till m$ loses its stranglehold
i bet if you sat down in front of a linux box you wouldnt even readily be able to tell me it wasnt windows just by appearance
even OSx > windows
Absolutely true, and 100% are hackable with any kid with a script and a half a clue.
wrong. solaris offered a million dollars to anyone who could crack its security. noone has done it, yet. im not ignorant enough to know that not everything is unhackable. if something is coded, it can be uncoded.
m$ offers compatibility, nothing more, over other OS\'s.
unix is 21308572936593285923 times more secure and stable than windows
-
Originally posted by mm
even OSx > windows
I\'m hearing this more and more each day. I\'m in the market for a new PC - mainly coz I\'m about to purchase a Canon GL-1 digital camcorder. Pro-sumer level camera and I think the only software out there that will do justice for this camera is Final Cut Pro - which runs on OS-X.
I just wish Macs weren\'t so damned expensive!:eek:
-
Yeah, OSx for the MAC\'s are probally the easiest I\'ve used without problems.
-
My 1st post, so be kind
Is windows the end all be all??? It ain\'t bad, but it\'s being sold with 99% of the computers sold. You think MS cares what the very small PC community thaats in the know thinks?? NO.
Let\'s face it Sony is just as bad with electronics, you buy because of name recognition, same as Microsoft.
As far as consoles go, it\'s gonna be give and take for a long time. Sony is in the lead because they had a years headstart plain and simple. The only thing in my opinion that will hurt PS2 is if Sony becomes a little to full of itself.
MS is more than willing to take the hit on the hardware, this "war" is about software, MS teamed up with THQ for a reason...Software on GBA no less.
Come xmas the playuing field is going to level off quite a bit, then we\'ll see who is going to do gamers justice.
FYI, before i get flamed...I own XBOX, PS2, GC,GBA, DC.
-
what do you mean MS partnered with THQ?
Eric Jacob
-
i saw an article that m$ is gonna release GBA games thru THQ
*the above statement might not be entirely true as i knew it was an xbox news article, and since it wasnt negative, i merely skimmed the content*
-
Originally posted by averagegamer
Let\'s face it Sony is just as bad with electronics, you buy because of name recognition, same as Microsoft.
I\'ll be nice because your knew. Bad w/ electronic huh? Own a walkman? Yeah, thought so. K, sure back in the day Sony was a little greedy with their Betamax, but it was a superior format than JVC\'s VHS, the difference JVC shared, Sony didn\'t. Sony makes very nice quality electronics, and although they get a bit pricey, you get your moneys worth. Let\'s face it, Sony is the originator of so many electronics that are so popular today.
-
Originally posted by "The One" Billy Gunn
I\'ll be nice because your knew. Bad w/ electronic huh? Own a walkman? Yeah, thought so. K, sure back in the day Sony was a little greedy with their Betamax, but it was a superior format than JVC\'s VHS, the difference JVC shared, Sony didn\'t. Sony makes very nice quality electronics, and although they get a bit pricey, you get your moneys worth. Let\'s face it, Sony is the originator of so many electronics that are so popular today.
Wait, didn\'t Sony buy Betamax from someone else?
-
Sony may make nice electronics but not necessarily reliable.
Ask Altered how many PS1\'s he bought.
-
Originally posted by Ashford
Sony may make nice electronics but not necessarily reliable.
Ask Altered how many PS1\'s he bought.
Why not ask me?
I bought my PSX in 1995.. A few years later it started acting funny, and I got it replaced (thanks to the very nice people at Sony Sweden)..
So that makes it.. One.. hmm two? Two PSXes.
-
Sony\'s electronics are overpriced. Quality aside, you get way more for your money when you buy other brands.
My PS1 still works. So I don\'t know about that.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
Sony\'s electronics are overpriced. Quality aside, you get way more for your money when you buy other brands.
This is true. Sony is always the most expensive even with being not the best product most of the time. I still love their consoles.:D
Oh, and I got my PSONE about a year after it came out and mine still works fine today.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
Sony\'s electronics are overpriced. Quality aside, you get way more for your money when you buy other brands.
My PS1 still works. So I don\'t know about that.
The early models of PSX had some problems. Like some PS2s were diffect.
Sony products are alittle more expensive, but thats cuz they the best you can get. (ok, maybe not speakers.. but other stuff like Wega.. top of the line, MD ect.)
-
Originally posted by fastson
The early models of PSX had some problems. Like some PS2s were diffect.
Sony products are alittle more expensive, but thats cuz they the best you can get. (ok, maybe not speakers.. but other stuff like Wega.. top of the line, MD ect.)
I wouldn\'t say Wega\'s are top of the line. I\'d rather have a Toshiba and their cheaper.
-
My PSX still works. I gave it to one of my cousins when I got my PS2. I think I bought my PSX in 96.
-
I\'d rather have a Wega, better specs than any Toshiba.:cool:
-
Lol. You get your Wega, it\'s sh!t for the amount you pay. Do some research. On second thought, get the Wega. You\'re right, it\'s the bestest.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
Lol. You get your Wega, it\'s sh!t for the amount you pay. Do some research. On second thought, get the Wega. You\'re right, it\'s the bestest.
You betcha you cute little Watchdog you. :D
-
Originally posted by fastson
but the company is prepared to keep supporting its central offensive against Sony and Nintendo by launching a version with new features next year.
yeah X box Version XXP will be smaller, so that it can fit into your Trashcan with more EASE....;)
-
I just wanted to add that I\'ve had my PSX since 1996 and it\'s still working. Perfectly? - No, I have to set it horizontally to get it to read disks.. but it\'s not like a major problem and I didn\'t have to buy a new one. I bought one for my cousin on his birthday in 1997.. it also is working.. and perfectly.
Heh.. while it dosen\'t sound all that amazing, if you people only knew the kind of pure hell my PSX has gone through, you\'d understand just how solidly built this little tank is. Maybe I got lucky, since it seems if Altered yanks on the controller cord too hard it\'ll irreversably destory his PSX.. but I can honestly say that this thing stands head and shoulders up there with my TI/99 4A and Sega Master System as one of the toughest and longest lasting consoles I\'ve ever owned.
-
I still have a nintendo that works perfectly to this date... ok so I have to blow on a few games. But WTF do you people do to your systems???
-
I don\'t think anyone can deny that there are problems with the original PSX. Sony has admitted that they didn\'t anticiapte people playing for more than a couple hours a week--lol. The increased use lead to track problems. Mine still works (on the flip side), so it\'s not as wide spread a problem as some would lead others to believe.
As for the people who have had multiple PSXs--it happens with electronics, especially the first wave: PSX had them, PS2 has had its share of hardware problems and xbox had troubles too. It\'s unlucky that you get a bad one, but in no way is Sony unique.
What gets me is that people like Fatson, mm and Billy, repeated post threads about how faulty the xbox hardware is. Or how bad all thier games are or how MS can do no right. They blame MS and their crappy system completely ignoring the exact same problems currently befall their own beloved console.
This is the kind of crap that makes it seem like all I do is defend the xbox. No one would say a word if Sony was charging for their online, but since it\'s xbox, it\'s a crime against humanity. It\'s the double standard that gets me. FFXI\'s incompatibilty with some PS2 got hardly a mention, and certainly none from the fanboy gang. But if something like that happens to xbox, that\'s all we\'ll hear about for months on end.
I don\'t know how you guy rationalize this kind of crap, but I guess you do. Most of you must know, but refuse to admit it.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
I don\'t think anyone can deny that there are problems with the original PSX. Sony has admitted that they didn\'t anticiapte people playing for more than a couple hours a week--lol. The increased use lead to track problems. Mine still works (on the flip side), so it\'s not as wide spread a problem as some would lead others to believe.
As for the people who have had multiple PSXs--it happens with electronics, especially the first wave: PSX had them, PS2 has had its share of hardware problems and xbox had troubles too. It\'s unlucky that you get a bad one, but in no way is Sony unique.
What gets me is that people like Fatson, mm and Billy, repeated post threads about how faulty the xbox hardware is. Or how bad all thier games are or how MS can do no right. They blame MS and their crappy system completely ignoring the exact same problems currently befall their own beloved console.
This is the kind of crap that makes it seem like all I do is defend the xbox. No one would say a word if Sony was charging for their online, but since it\'s xbox, it\'s a crime against humanity. It\'s the double standard that gets me. FFXI\'s incompatibilty with some PS2 got hardly a mention, and certainly none from the fanboy gang. But if something like that happens to xbox, that\'s all we\'ll hear about for months on end.
I don\'t know how you guy rationalize this kind of crap, but I guess you do. Most of you must know, but refuse to admit it.
w00t! Go Watchdog, your my favorite member!!! YEAH!!! YOU TOTALLY ROCK!!! He\'s my idol!
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
I don\'t think anyone can deny that there are problems with the original PSX. Sony has admitted that they didn\'t anticiapte people playing for more than a couple hours a week--lol. The increased use lead to track problems. Mine still works (on the flip side), so it\'s not as wide spread a problem as some would lead others to believe.
As for the people who have had multiple PSXs--it happens with electronics, especially the first wave: PSX had them, PS2 has had its share of hardware problems and xbox had troubles too. It\'s unlucky that you get a bad one, but in no way is Sony unique.
What gets me is that people like Fatson, mm and Billy, repeated post threads about how faulty the xbox hardware is. Or how bad all thier games are or how MS can do no right. They blame MS and their crappy system completely ignoring the exact same problems currently befall their own beloved console.
This is the kind of crap that makes it seem like all I do is defend the xbox. No one would say a word if Sony was charging for their online, but since it\'s xbox, it\'s a crime against humanity. It\'s the double standard that gets me. FFXI\'s incompatibilty with some PS2 got hardly a mention, and certainly none from the fanboy gang. But if something like that happens to xbox, that\'s all we\'ll hear about for months on end.
I don\'t know how you guy rationalize this kind of crap, but I guess you do. Most of you must know, but refuse to admit it.
Good points Watchdog. Sometimes I feel the same way.
-
As far as consoles go, it\'s gonna be give and take for a long time. Sony is in the lead because they had a years headstart plain and simple.
That may be part of the reason but its not the full reason. If GC, PS2, and X-Box were all released with in the same week which console would be doing better?
America- PS2 (followed by X-Box than GC)
Japan- Without a doubt PS2 (followed by GC than X-Box)
Atleast 9/10 of the other countries in the world- PS2 (followed by GC than X-Box)
My opinions are based on the past console sales. PSX beat out all te other consoles. People loved it in every county. The people who were satisfied with PSX expected even more from PS2 thats why it would come first. X-Box was 2nd in America for a couple of reasons One because not many people about the age of 5 looked forward to GC and two X-Box is from America. GC came 2nd in the other places based on X-Box and GC were released within the same moth (week?) and thats wut the results showed.
-
Originally posted by cloud345
That may be part of the reason but its not the full reason. If GC, PS2, and X-Box were all released with in the same week which console would be doing better?
In that case, it would all depend on launch games and what\'s available shortly thereafter...the PS2 would still had the hype train from it\'s predecessor so it would have done well no doubt, but it wouldn\'t be the industry leader by such a large margin. With two other consoles that would be just as powerful and easier to develop games for...I see a different story.
My opinions are based on the past console sales. PSX beat out all te other consoles. People loved it in every county.
Really, what else was there? Sega Saturn was obsolete and the N64 released 3 games a year...
-
and the N64 released 3 games a year
yeah, and two of em were pokemon related
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
Win 2000 and Xp are great OSs.
LOL
-
:rolleyes:
Win2k Pro IS a good OS you monkey. Maybe if you\'d ever actually spend some time using it you\'d see. Win3.1, Win95, Win98, WinME, and pretty much ever DOS itteration before 6.11 were all crap. Expecially Dos 5.0 and it\'s horrid Win/Dos hybrid "Dosshell".
I haven\'t used XP yet, but I\'m not hearing too many complaints about it either.
-
>"I haven\'t used XP yet, but I\'m not hearing too many complaints about it either."
XP has this brand new feature, I call it slowphobia
the longer you use the OS, the slower your computer runs.. I never had this probably with 98
-
Lets take a vote which windows is the worst windows yet?
My vote goes to ME
-
PSX2cetral has this brand new feature, I call it Chronoisa****ingidiot
the longer you use the forums, the worse it gets ... I never had this problem with other forums.
-
ohh no! I said something bad about windows and Watchdog gets all protective...
Did you help program it or something?
-
the longer you use the OS, the slower your computer runs
this is a well known problem with all versions
its known as "OS decay"
caused from memory leaks, registry problems, swap file errors, etc.. etc..
there\'s a reason why people call is Winblows
-
>"this is a well known problem with all versions"
well, I knew that
but I seem to notice it more in XP
-
I run win2k at home and XP at work and I don\'t get OS decay. It happened a lot with 95 and 98 though.
No Chrono, I didn\'t program winXP, but it\'s not as if you are a respected or trusted person around here with regards to Microsoft. Besides, I wasn\'t even contesting what you said per se, I was just informing people of a feature at PSX2C that they might not have been aware of.
-
Hmm, glad to know my comp will never be as fast as the day I got it... well until I upgrade it... bwahahahaha...
::end laughter::
-
thats true, the computer will only get slower and slower
-
Do you think they will drop it like a hot potato?
Did Sony do it with their flawed piece of hardware=PS2 ? :D
ps: remember that the ONLY reasons why PS2 did and is doing great are:
1) The success of PSX
2) The Huge Hype
3) A head start of almost 2 years
4) "Zombie gamers"(me included) who chose PS2 instead of the better console(games)=DC in that period!
Remember that many people had been calling the PS2 the next gen Flop during the first Year of life! ...
ps: I still consider PS2 a flop...that\'s the reason why I sold it!
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
Remember that many people had been calling the PS2 the next gen Flop during the first Year of life! ...
Nobody did. It had (mostly) crap games, but its sales were through the roof. And continued to sky rocket. Seeing as "Flopping" refers to a console that sells poorly, how was the PS2 flopping in its first year?
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
Nobody did. It had (mostly) crap games, but its sales were through the roof. And continued to sky rocket. Seeing as "Flopping" refers to a console that sells poorly, how was the PS2 flopping in its first year?
naah...even some media called PS2 a flop and it dropped in Japan in sales during the first year...it was terrible...no games...and I know it very well...I got a Jap PS2 !;)
XBox\'s already getting good games! ...and I do care about games...so,for me,PS2 was a flop in the first year while XBox a success!
-
Sales dropped? Hardly, the thing was sold out. Any lack of sales were purely because there werent enough units. You cannot compare the first year of each consoles sales wise. Just imagine if Sony hadnt have had the shortages :eek:
And sometimes you have to realise it doesnt all come down to good games. Look at DC
-
and I don\'t get OS decay
thats because you ....
well nevermind. no need to state the obvious
:)
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
And sometimes you have to realise it doesnt all come down to good games. Look at DC
I know...and I\'m scared:)
-
My dear Bizio.. Welcome back.
ps: remember that the ONLY reasons why PS2 did and is doing great are:
1) The success of PSX
2) The Huge Hype
3) A head start of almost 2 years
4) "Zombie gamers"(me included) who chose PS2 instead of the better console(games)=DC in that period!
This is pretty funny.
So PS2 is still living on PSX sucess? Hardly.. There are TONS and TONS of great games out for PS2 now..
I agree though that PS2 had a bad start with lack of good software.
Remember that many people had been calling the PS2 the next gen Flop during the first Year of life! ...
They did? :eek: Ive must have missed that.. Please give me some quotes.
naah...even some media called PS2 a flop and it dropped in Japan in sales during the first year...it was terrible...no games...and I know it very well...I got a Jap PS2 !
Hihih.. No, PS2 sold 1 million units in TWO days. (Xbox STILL hasnt sold its initial shipment.. Biggest.. flop...ever!) After that Sony could not keep up with the demand. It was sold out everywhere.. But media did not call it a flop, they called it the best selling console ever ;)
-
Actually I\'d say GC is a bigger "flop" than the xbox.
-
The PS2 was just met with criticism due to the quality of the launch games and what was available shortly afterwards.
It was lackluster to say the least and more than a few people were disappointed that in some cases the DC had better looking games...
That\'s all way behind us though, what\'s the point in bringing it up?
-
Im confused?!!:confused:
PS2 = Flop when...
a) #1 in sales through entire life, X-Box and GCN can\'t even touch it
b) It has more games than probably GCN and X-Box combined
c) Biggest Userbase near 35 Million
You base that all on hype, M$ fanboys should be the last to complain about hype. Dissapointing sales in both Europe and Japan, and you call that a success? What X-Box has halo and everyone thinks it\'s god??? I respected the X-Box as a system, but I knew it wouldn\'t compete w/ PS2.
In this day and age, the difference between PS2, GCN, and X-Box\'s graphics or negliable. The future of gaming is gameplay.
-
gameplay, yes
online, no
sorry watchdog
:)
-
Originally posted by mm
gameplay, yes
online, no
sorry watchdog
:)
w00t on mm, w00t on!
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
XBox\'s already getting good games! ...and I do care about games...so,for me,PS2 was a flop in the first year while XBox a success!
X-Box has good games ? [other then Morrowind?]
-
Yes, mm, but online gameplay is an even bigger yes.
-
since when is morrowind a good game?
online gaming will not be the wind that carries console gaming, although m$ has a billion dollars that says otherwise
*laff*
-
All I care about is what is best for my time. And online is it.
-
well, what if they put online pong on xbox live?
sure it till have a "lag free" and "secure" service *snicker*
you gonna play it?
is xbox live gonna be the messiah that saves xbox\'s piss poor [© 2002 ooseven] sales?
gameplay is whats gonna carry console gaming, nothing else
-
Like I said, I don\'t care what\'s going to carry console gaming. I care about what\'s best for me.
There are plenty of sure bets for online games this fall: UT, sports, Midtown Madness/Twisted Metal, SOCOM, MechAssault, etc--it would take a dissaster for these games not to be fun. And that beats any SP game without question.
-
nah, im not gonna dig playing socom with some snotty little 12 year old kid across the nation
there\'s pros and cons to everything, unfortunately, there\'s more cons on the xbox side thats all
-
Yeah, MM.. I can figure why you wouldn\'t want to play from such a distance!
You\'re the type of guy who\'d like to have a 12-year-old kid locked away in your basement that could be summoned for "play" any time, rather than fantasizing about them while they frag ya in SOCOM! Har har har! :) Har.. :sleepy:
Bah, well.. it was kind of funny anyway!
-
blade,
1. STFU
2. get back in the closet, thanks
:P
-
I agree with MM :D
-
No, but that\'s why you have friends to play against. Besides all those games will have SP too, so I don\'t know what you\'re *****ing about now.
-
im not *****ing, im merely stating that "online gaming" WILL NOT be the hype that m$ and sony (or you) think it will be
-
I don\'t think either company really thinks it\'s going to b3 huge this generation.
-
yer joking right?
a billion dollars dumped into xbox live and they\'re not betting the farm on it?
*laff*
-
How long will Microsoft be supporting Xbox Live?
The short answer to that is: until it dominates like Windows. Microsoft has set modest goals for the service early on but the company fully expects Xbox Live to catch fire in the very near future. Allard has used the phrase "tens of thousands" to describe the number of subscribers Xbox Live needs in 2002 to be considered a successful launch. By definition this means anywhere from 20,000 all the way up to 90,000 paid subscribers to the service. The phrase "hundreds of thousands" was used to describe the number of subscribers expected in 2003. Again anywhere from 200,000 to 900,000 Xbox Live users would make Microsoft happy. However, it\'s the 10 million Xbox Live subscribers by the end of 2007 the company expects that should raise a few eyebrows. This timeframe invariably would put us into the next generation of videogame consoles (from one manufacturer or another), and would mean growing the current Xbox\'s intalled user base considerably.
[/b][/i]
Dominate like windows? OMG :eek:
I think both companies expect online gaming to be huge this generation just by looking at the current online games in production.
Source http://xbox.ign.com/articles/361/361526p1.html
-
Originally posted by mm
yer joking right?
a billion dollars dumped into xbox live and they\'re not betting the farm on it?
*laff*
Not for MS it isn\'t. (Unless you\'re saying MS has a bunch of farms to bet with):D
-
20-90k is not huge considering even the xbox\'s userbase. They are betting the farm on 2007, not now. But now, they will be content to build slowly. That billion dollars is not a quick fix, it\'s an INVESTMENT.
-
I don\'t think either company really thinks it\'s going to b3 huge this generation.
.....
-
I think online is ****. I always play single player to the fullest before venturing online in a PC game. It\'s an afterthought for me, a neat addition that takes a backseat to a good story and great single player gameplay. I just hope online doesn\'t completely saturate the market and we are stuck with way to many "multi-player only" games. Screw that.
-
Online is a huge plus for people in my situation. I have friends all over the world basically, since I move so often. Its good to get together and play videogames as if I never left sometimes, sure its not the same, but its as close as you can get. Online is great, multiplayer, yes, is better.
-
hate to break it to ya, but playing friends that reside half a world away online = teh suck
especially since yer on the west side of the country
ever try pinging a UK server? ouch
-
Online is good if it\'s free. Ask us Warcraft 3 nerds.
-
lol
-
Yeah, it\'s tough to play people in the UK.
-
Man I agree with MM. I don\'t see online gaming caring the console industry. Unless it\'s free I don\'t see it being huge on consoles yet.
Sure people are getting all pump but when it comes to paying that monthy bill people are not going to be willing to fork over the cash. majority of kids and teenager can\'t afford it. And then there are those like me who are 18 and over and just don\'t care.
-
mm - funny I don\'t notice anything different playing UK people over US people when I am on broadband. Perhaps that is why MS chose BB?
I am very excited about online gaming for all the systems. Each system has at least one online game I am excited for. If a game on DC can get over 250,000 constant users at it\'s peak, I am sure people on the other 3 systems will have no problem finding competition.
Eric Jacob
Eric Jacob
-
Woah.. two Eric Jacobs for the price of one :eek: Bonus!!
Sorry this thread is just the same stuff over and over so i have no need to add to it :)
-
funny I don\'t notice anything different playing UK people over US people when I am on broadband
thats because:
a. you just love to disagree with anything i say
b. you dont know wtf yer talking about
pick yer answer, there both the same
ANYONE will tell you playing online across the big pond = teh suck
tracert a euro site and watch how many hops yer packets take
here\'s mine to BBC website, if it makes any sense to you
C:\\>tracert http://www.bbc.co.uk
Tracing route to http://www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.122]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 467 ms 393 ms 300 ms 10.17.36.1
2 196 ms 299 ms 302 ms 24.50.161.6
3 199 ms 297 ms 299 ms 24.48.8.117
4 198 ms 299 ms 309 ms 24.48.8.61
5 289 ms 308 ms 299 ms g1-02-00 00.r0.pit00.adelphiacom.net [66.109.11.
133]
6 229 ms 296 ms 301 ms p3-01-00-00-n0.dca00.adelphiacom.net [66.109.0.7
3]
7 200 ms 302 ms 300 ms p3-00-00-00.r0.dca00.adelphiacom.net [66.109.0.1
42]
8 202 ms 302 ms 298 ms p3-00-00-00.p0.dca90.adelphiacom.net [66.109.6.1
50]
9 222 ms 303 ms 295 ms rt3-atm-2-0.thny.bbc.co.uk [198.32.187.113]
10 360 ms 301 ms 301 ms rt3-A2-0.thny.bbc.co.uk [212.58.255.37]
11 433 ms 297 ms 297 ms rt1-GE2-0.thny.bbc.co.uk [212.58.255.82]
12 508 ms 296 ms 297 ms rt0-POS7-1.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.255.181]
13 273 ms 299 ms 306 ms 212.58.224.122
Trace complete.
and how about a ping
C:\\>ping http://www.bbc.co.uk
Pinging http://www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.122] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.122: bytes=32 time=395ms TTL=242
Reply from 212.58.224.122: bytes=32 time=304ms TTL=242
Reply from 212.58.224.122: bytes=32 time=503ms TTL=242
Reply from 212.58.224.122: bytes=32 time=402ms TTL=242
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.122:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 304ms, Maximum = 503ms, Average = 401ms
oh, imagine that
:rolleyes:
-
would playing with UK people on UK servers in PSO be any different? Cause I experienced no slowdown and no problems when doing that.
I do love disagreeing with you. It makes me look good.
Eric Jacob
-
yes it would make a difference
PSO is EXTREMELY bandwidth NON-intensive
try playing a racing game, or a FPS, or a fighter with a 300ms ping and see what happens, *shudder*
yes "look good", as in "appear good"
when we know better
:)
-
I agree with MM. I used to play Q3 CTF on a Netherlands server because I got along with most of the regulars well but my ping was 180-240 most of the time, I ended up not going there anymore cuz it was to damn laggy. Compare that to 30-70 when I am on a North American server.
-
mm\'s got you here Altered.
-
Its all a matter of what the game requires.
RPGs are less subject to lag then a critcal intensive game like Q3 would be. While bandwidth required is purely speculative (nobody has any hard numbers) I think one can draw a conclusion that a RPG would run ok on a bad ping time compared to a racing game, fighting game, or FPS on the same ping.
-
I was wrong, I will admit it, I am not too experienced in online gaming other than the occasional Anarchy Online or old game of Quake, etc.
Eric Jacob
-
i wouldnt say you were "wrong"
nothing\'s wrong or right, me thinks
im merely saying that people and these companies are putting too much emphesis on "online gaming" as being the messiah of consoles, when it clearly isnt
-
I would say that there are plenty of people in N.A. for me to play. And plenty in Europe for them to play. There\'s no reason to playa cross the pond.