The X Box Plot
Here is wild speculation about MS in the game business, and how they may be planning to take over that market, completely. Consider how MS makes money in PCs. Building hardware? No. They let others fight over that market, killing each trying to get ahead. MS gets their cut for use of the OS from all of them. If one goes out of business, another will take its place. They could care less. So what has that to do with games?
Consider for a moment that MS is not making the X Box to be in the hardware business. This is simply a temporary venture for them, doing whatever it takes to get market share, even if they lose money. When the time is right, they will offer an X Box license to other hardware vendors, the way they give a license to PC makers to use Windows. Once they get a lot of takers, MS will pull out of the hardware business and make money on the licenses. I can see the pitch now. Don't buy one of those proprietary systems. Get an open system, the X system. It is made by many different companies, not just one. If you have games that run on one brand of an X system, it will run on all the others. Your are not limited to proprietary hardware.
Just an interesting thought.
Consider for a moment that MS is not making the X Box to be in the hardware business. This is simply a temporary venture for them, doing whatever it takes to get market share, even if they lose money. When the time is right, they will offer an X Box license to other hardware vendors, the way they give a license to PC makers to use Windows. Once they get a lot of takers, MS will pull out of the hardware business and make money on the licenses. I can see the pitch now. Don't buy one of those proprietary systems. Get an open system, the X system. It is made by many different companies, not just one. If you have games that run on one brand of an X system, it will run on all the others. Your are not limited to proprietary hardware.
Just an interesting thought.
Comments
-Paul
<strong>I dont know, the money in gaming is the software, not the hardware... software companies take a hit on the hardware so they can sell more hardware. If the hardware company doesnt sell the software, there is no insentive for them to sell the hardware--whats the point? they wont make any money...
-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, one could argue that they are doing this to further entrench Direct X into the market to get rid of OpenGL. Since Windows games and XBox games are easily portable, this could translate into the more use of Direct X over OpenGl. MS also just bought some patents from SGI didn't they? Does this have anything to do with OpenGL?
The gaming of Xbox is nice, but the fact that it's really a computer dressed up as a gaming console is the REALLY interesting thing.
JEt
[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: Jet Powers ]</p>
There are a few flaws in this.
1.) Nintendo will never license it.
2.) Sony doesn't need to license it (they already have 90% of the games).
3.) The reason you see the tremendous graphics on the XBox is because of the hardware, and if M$ is going to simply 'license' the ability to play XBox games, it has to be compatible with the hardware. That means NVIDIA graphics and a P3.
It's not like Microsoft is way ahead in the 'console' wars any way. In fact, they are in LAST PLACE.
Nintendo is Number 1 in the video game market right now. They have the entire handheld game industry with the Game Boy. They also have the Game Cube, which will no doubtedly have some great games. If you add Game Boy sales with Game Cube sales, they are greater than Sony's or Microsofts.
Sony is a close number 2 because they have about 6-7x more consoles (PS2) then Nintendo (Game Cube) or Microsoft (XBox).
If you count Sega and the Dreamcast, they are third in number of total sales, but since they no longer make their consoles, and are primarily developing for the other 3 systems, not many people pay attention to them any more.
Microsoft comes in last in terms of sales. While it is true that Nintendo has had the Game Boy out for a long time, and Sony has had the PS2 out for a year longer, Microsoft still has no real leverage in the video game industry. In that regard, why would you want to license the M$ technology if you're either Sony or Nintendo?
<strong>I guess I did make my point clear, and it is of course wild speculation. The scheme would be for MS to get the lead in sales, not installed game base of game systems, by whatever it takes to do it. They can afford to lose money. When the X Box looks like the rising star to business, MS would license it to new companies. Of course Sony would not be interested, they have their own system, but new companies may see it as a way to get into this business riding on MS's coat tails, so to speak. The strategy could be to eventually suppress Sony and other non-X Box systems, because "they are proprietary systems and only play games written for one particular proprietart system." The X Box would be promoted as the open hardware game system. Games written for one will work on any other such system. It is the same argument for buying a Windows PC rather than the Mac, only up against bigger competition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that nobody would license the system because the margins are so thin (even negative!) on the hardware. The money on game consoles is in the games, and the hardware sales market is cutthroat because of the drive to increase the target market for the software. Microsoft seems to have already chewed its way through the early adopters and only time will tell if they can sell their rather expensive (and large) box to the rest of the buying public, for whom price is an issue.
There is no way for Microsoft to force their way in to the market. No single competitor, no once-in-a-lifetime agreemment that will seal the fate of the market.
People like to claim the desktop wars were won by the MS-IBM deal, or by the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft. No one can deny they played a major role, but it is revisionist history to ignore the fact that Microsoft's main competitors were horribly mismanged companies that consistantly squandered their chances to come out on top, or at least save themselves. Microsoft's progress was painfully slow, and the industry ended up being a case of the Tortise and the Hare. The big players like Commodore and Apple got far ahead, while PCs trudged along far behind, and this led to complacency. Combined with simply idiotic management, they woke up one day and found themselves irrelevant to most people.
I LOVE LOVE LOVE the gamecube, all the games are just good old fun. so far on xbox I've played DOA3 and SSX tricky(the owner of hte xbox doesn't have halo up here
at any rate first off, the xbox controller is HIDEOUS!, wow that thing is awful, its almost as if its designed so that your thumb flys off the controller into thin air, as oppossed to other buttons. but maybe thats just cause I'm really used to the game cube controller(which apart from the tiny d-pad is perfect)
the FEEL of the xbox controller is really good though, however the functionality is awful
as for MS winning the console market...unless they have some sort of real trump up their sleeves they would be wisest to pull out now, and stay out of consoles.