The Genesis of Xbox (long)

I came across this quote a few months ago:

Microsoft\'s lawyers had initially declared the PlayStation 2 to be a real threat to the PC gaming industry back in 1999. Microsoft would officially announce their intentions to enter the gaming market with the XBox console in 2000.

Source

It sent me off to questioning just how important is PC gaming to Microsoft?

The sales trend for PCs has been on a downward slope for some time and was projected to be taking a sharp drop in the coming year long before the events of September 11th. I\'m in no position to give figures on how much gaming influences sales of new PCS but I\'m very certain MS will do anything within its power to see to it the status quo of PC gaming stays as alive and healthy as possible for as long as they can. MS is not about to let any incentive to purchase a new PC just slip off the radar screen and become an afterthought (along with the license revenues for their latest operating system).

A logical question would be; how will Xbox help PC sales, wouldn\'t its release hurt PC gaming more than help? A decent answer requires some explanation.

The PS2 poses a threat to PC gaming in a couple of ways. The obvious ones are the attraction of games that will be available only on PS2 with a visual quality that will remain unbeaten by the vast majority of PCs to be found in households for the next few years (not to say a top end PC running the latest games won\'t look better, only that the percentage of PC gamers who will be seeing the advantages would be tiny). A less glaring but possibly more onerous threat is the likelihood of all the best game developers shifting their focus to PS2 first, offering PC versions  as sloppy seconds long after being released on PS2. Making the situation worse, porting from console to PC would no longer be as straight forward as it used to due to the differing nature of the architectures.  What needs to be recognized at this point is the snowball effect that will take place in further drift away from gaming on a PC. As the console portion of the gaming pie continues to expand, the already meager PC slice would be rapidly eaten away to almost nothing.

Release of the xbox fights back and attacks on two major fronts. First, by perpetuating the long held belief gaming on a top of the line PC will continue to always be the best available. It has been working for over a year now with the promotion of xbox and has a ways to go yet as long as xbox advocates and PC diehards continue to keep the hype going with talk of ‘just wait until you see the games we\'ll be playing in the next year or two\'.

Second it provides game makers a wider outlet and added incentive for developing using DirectX. Make a game for xbox and porting it to PC is a low cost no-brainer. Or the reverse, score a minor hit with a PC title and an xbox version will be an automatic given.

What I\'m getting at is, whether the xbox ever makes a substantial dent in console gaming may be of secondary importance to Microsoft. What my spidey senses are telling me is the main motivation behind release of the xbox was to prolong the stranglehold of having their operating system continue to be practically the only choice for consumers, by any means available. Xbox is a smart form of insurance when looking at it this way and while there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of maintaining the foundation of an existing empire, the sooner an open OS is the standard instead of the exception, the better. That is, unless you\'re a big unibomber or Microsoft fan. Going from a threat to PC gaming to the domination of Windows operating systems being in jeopardy may seem like a bit of a stretch, ultimately it is what weighs in the balance. Hint: do you think the PS3 will have enough reserve power to handle all your home computing needs? I do and it sure as hell won\'t be running programs under the latest edition of Windows XPP plus or what ever version MS will be hawking by then.

So whether it ends up being a success or failure, I\'m fairly certain the xbox is here for the duration. I wasn\'t alone in thinking it was a long shot xbox would be a worthwhile gamble for Microsoft. But once I began considering everything MS had at stake in the long run it became clear the decision to herald the coming of xbox was born out of need, almost desperation, rather than want.

What say you?

With only one dominate console maker the industry will suffer and gaming will suck. End of discussion.

Yeah, I\'m grateful for MS lighting a fire under Sony\'s ass and I appreciate the unwillingness of an xbox fan to even talk about any ulterior motives behind the xbox.

Did the playstations total domination for five years suck for gamers? Umm.. No. Not relevant anyway.

competition is good

hopefully we won\'t see a war between Sony and MS in an attempt to see who can buy the most developers though

competition is good

No argument there from me. Which is why I\'m looking forward to a break from MS dominating  with its operating system.

Developer buy out wars. That\'s an ugly thought. I suppose competition does have its down side. They may be able to buy company names and franchises by the fistful, much harder to buy the creative minds responsible for making the games.

IMO, Microsoft\'s decision to enter the video game console industry had nothing to do with maintaining their OS dominance.  I am thinking that Microsoft saw how successful Sony, a company similar to Microsoft in more ways that I can count, was doing in the industry and probably thought, "Hey, if they can do it, why can\'t we?"

Microsoft saw another big way to make money, and they wanted a part of it.  Now you are probably thinking, "But Microsoft is losing billions of dollars with the Xbox."  Yes, they are now.  But if they can establish themselves as a video game company who is trusted by millions of people now, they will make tons of money in the long run with future consoles (and maybe even this console if it\'s accepted well enough).

Edit: And about this "Developer buy out wars," I don\'t see what\'s so bad about that.  If a developer is first party, they get extra money, extra information about the system they are developing for, and an extra push to put out high quality software.  This is bad how?  Also, we would then be able to say, "If we want games from this developer, buy console \'A\'.  And if we want games from a different developer, buy console \'B\'."  That\'s better than, "If we want a game from this developer, maybe buy system \'A\', but there is no garrantee that this system will be getting that game because they might announce it as an exclusive to console \'B\'."  It also makes sure that all the games being made for the console will use the console to its fullest potential, instead of just getting the "quick crappy port" treatment.

I\'m sure there are some bad things about company buy outs (feel free to tell me those things to help put things into perspective), but it would still be more good than bad IMO.

Originally posted by Heretic

Did the playstations total domination for five years suck for gamers? Umm.. No. Not relevant anyway.

well it was not 5 years total they did not have that big of a start. Remember psx was 299.99  when it first launch. And they didn\'t sell all those consoles until the price dropped.  And seeing how that was there first console and they where trying to break into the console industry it\'s is always good in the begining.

But when a company has no competiton we all suffer. Just look at nintendo\'s tatics in the 80\'s when they where dominating.

And now look at sony with ps2 and all the gripe developers have expressed on complex hardware. If it was just gamecube and ps2. When a company is on top and the only option they can do what ever they want.

Ironfist,

That is certainly the picture painted in interviews with MS talking heads released shortly before the xbox launch. ‘We just want a piece of the console action and figured we had a good shot\' is the way they tell it.

If that is the case you need to ask yourself why MS lobbied Sony so hard to allow them to help create a version of DirectX for the PS2 and only started to consider the idea of their own console after Sony flatly refused. How about those coktail napkin xbox specs of 350mpps announced shortly before the Japanese PS2 launch. Do those numbers sound like they were based on careful research or do they seem more like 11th hour grasping at straws in order to start the grandstanding before it was too late?

Those billions are chump change when you consider for every copy of xbox Halo sold today there will be a couple of PC enthusiasts holding out for a version they can play in ALL its glory next year or the year after on their smoking badass setup running Windows XP. As you should be able to tell, I\'m just speculating here to get the basic idea across.

You tell me what will be the reason for upgrading to WinXP, Y, Z and Z.5 over the next several years. To send faster video e-mail??? Consumers are on the verge of having no real reason to upgrade their home PCs except for playing the latest games with optimum performance. Lose that last incentive and the MS monopoly becomes a sitting duck, instead of just a lame one.
****************************************************

QuDDus,

I paid $160 for my PSX a year after launch, a few months later Sega gave up on Saturn. I thought it was 5 years ago, maybe it was 4. Close enough. How have you as a gamer been hurt by Sony since then?  

Did you know developers were overwhelmingly pissed at Sony for making the PS2 backwards compatible? They didn\'t want to compete with 500 old games. You bet Sony calls the shots. That includes designing a CPU, not just a hardware package, from the ground up for gaming graphics. A step to move video gaming towards the next level. Some devs bit(hed, others are still elated. All of them probably sweated bullets the first time out, except for TeamNinja at Tecmo, claimed it wasn\'t that hard at all :rolleyes:  So what? I\'d say for gamers so far it\'s worked out pretty sweet. Maybe Sony will learn to bite the hand that feeds it. Doesn\'t seem to be part of their plan.

BTW, Nintendo screwed gamers and devs plenty good in the 90s also. I mean $70 bucks for a nasty port of Doom? Jeez, the game was ancient history by then. Those N64 fans were starved I tell you.

Look what happened with the portable market.  Nintendo needs competition there for the benefit of us all.  

Microsoft needs competition in alot of areas.  OS, browsers, office software...

Very nice post there Heretic. I wanted to reply to this earlier, but since this would take up a bit more of my time than the other posts, I somehow got sidetracked and eventually forgot. I also thought that it would get more attention, but I guess I was wromg on this one.

After reading through your post though, it became clear to me that we share the same opinion on the Microsoft/Xbox entering the gaming market.

IMO, Microsoft\'s decision to enter the video game console industry had nothing to do with maintaining their OS dominance. I am thinking that Microsoft saw how successful Sony, a company similar to Microsoft in more ways that I can count, was doing in the industry and probably thought, "Hey, if they can do it, why can\'t we?"

Well, I think Heretic already did most of the job, but I will reply to this anyway. The main thing about the PS2 when it was first introduced, that it was feared to be the "PC-Killer". I am not sure from who this term eventually appeared; the PC-gamers or the market analysts, but I think it was probably both. While the PC will always be superiour with time in graphics, I think the "PC-Killer" was more ment about the PS2 being some Computer-Entertainment-Sytem and not just a video gaming system. If you have been following Sony closely, it won\'t take long to find out for what the PS2 is actually ment. Not just games, but also connecting cameras to it, checking emails, surfing the internet, write letters, calculations and even programming. If Sony goes for it, you could even connect your digital camera to your PS2 and edit your videos in real time. You can watch DVDs, enjoy digital surround and it\'s on your TV. Now lets compare:

who has the money to buy a PC that can do all that? well, I mean not just who as in single person, but as in mass. Not everyone can afford a PC that can watch DVD\'s, has a 5.1 output, can connect to the larger and bigger TV, can be used to edit video streams, programming games, browsing the internet, check emails. And even if you can, compare this to a TV that most people already own, and a PS2 for say 450 dollars ($300 PS2 + $150 HDD/BBA).

Now think what this would mean for Microsoft? Right now, the have the number 1 selling operating system on the market, but the market is shrinking (and so are Windows sells) and if the PS2 would really become that PS2 killer (which can still happen), the market will shrink evenmore, since I can imagine that there would be quite a few people that would use their TV and PS2 over a PC that costs way more.

And finally, while PS2 will not necesserally become that PC-Killer, read the latest interview with Kataragi about PS3 and the Cell. Now, if that\'s not a PC-Killer there, then what is it? What\'s at stake for Microsoft? Right now, they can do what they want and still make huge profits, but soon, this market could disappear and where would they be left?

By bringing Xbox into the gaming market, they made the first step to make themselves a name. They put in windows technology into their console and also DirectX. IMHO, makes it alot more attractive and this way, the can\'t really loose if the PC-Market is really at stake, since Windows will live on in some other form. I think Heretic also did a good job explaining this in further detail.

Just my 2 cents.

PS: I am pretty tired, hope there aren\'t too many mistakes.

Originally posted by ddaryl
competition is good

hopefully we won\'t see a war between Sony and MS in an attempt to see who can buy the most developers though

Yup looks like the only way for us gamers to lose out is if one gose T!ts up  OR Sony And Microsoft merge to form on Super Company. :P
only foolin

But what will they call themselfs ?
Microsony
Sonysoft
or will they just keep their old names $ony and Micro$oft ?

test

alot of crap was said there and all that is true can be said right here:

MS entered the console market because profits are almost always higher for console games, because userbases are bigger and games are less prohibitive, due to hardware incompatibilites.

MS also wants a way into the Living Room, which Sony is also set on doing. So far, Sony has put more PS2s into living rooms, but MS has brought more of a set-top box type of system to the scene. Next generation is when we really see what plays out.


Eric Jacob

Gee AB/Eric, I wonder why I\'m so shocked :eek: you would respond like that :rolleyes:

Respond like what? A person who makes sense? I don\'t need to type 4 or 5 paragraphs of pure drivel to get my point across. You ask a stupid question and you will get a direct answer.

Gee Heretic/Idiot, I wonder why I\'m so shocked :eek: you would respond like that :rolleyes:


Eric Jacob