13-01-2003 10:44									#91
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: So what you're saying is there are many variables and it doesn't make sense to assume a console can continue on a "monopoly"?

I don't know why you keep harping on this, like you think you have some sort of advantage here. I've plainly stated that MS doesn't need a monopoly; they don't even need to be #1 in market share. They just need to reach a critical mass of software sales that will make the Xbox 2 profitable. That certainly seems like an achievable goal to me, especially when you consider the vast resources at Microsoft's disposal.

	13-01-2003 10:45									#92
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten First of all, why would the Xbox 2 have to outperfrom the PS3. They could be exactly equaly in power and MS would still come out on top if they attracted the better games to their system.

Wow, you really don't get MS' philosophy behind the Xbox.

MS' gameplan is to always have the most powerful console in the market. They can afford to do it. By offering the most powerful console and the best value, they can gain more marketshare and attract more developers.

It was easier for the original Xbox since it could use technology 1.5 years newer than the PS2, but for the next generation the Xbox2 is going to come out before or at the same time as the PS3, and it still needs to be faster...

quote: Secondly, you know damn well that all the profits in the game industry are made off of software sales, not hardware. If MS sells enough Xbox 2 software, they can afford a big hit on the hardware.

Of course. The problem is, the average tie-in for hardware ends up being about 7 by the end of the console's lifespan. When you lose, say, $150 per console in hardware, not to mention marketing budgets (which are huge, $500M for the launch of the original Xbox), the R&D cost it took to make it (hundreds of millions, again), and then an average royalty of $10 per game -- you can see the problem, right?

	13-01-2003 10:48									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I don't know why you keep harping on this, like you think you have some sort of advantage here. I've plainly stated that MS doesn't need a monopoly; they don't even need to be #1 in market share. They just need to reach a critical mass of software sales that will make the Xbox 2 profitable. That certainly seems like an achievable goal to me, especially when you consider the vast resources at Microsoft's disposal.

You originally asserted that the Xbox2 will be easier because the original Xbox was paving the way for Xbox2's profitability.

Historically just because the predecessor was successful (even a monopoly in some cases) doesn't mean the successor will be as well. Which is why it doesn't make sense for you to assert that the Xbox is paving the way for profitability with the Xbox2.

The Xbox is here to prove MS is serious about staying in the market and start to build a brand. Just because the Xbox is a brand by the time Xbox2 comes out doesn't mean it's more profitable...

	13-01-2003 10:50									#94
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: MS' gameplan is to always have the most powerful console in the market. They can afford to do it. By offering the most powerful console and the best value, they can gain more marketshare and attract more developers.

You're contradicting yourself. You say that MS can afford to field the most powerful console on the market, yet you're sure that they can't turn a profit on the Xbox 2. Does MS know what it's doing are not? I think they do, but I can't tell what you think about it...

quote: The problem is, the average tie-in for hardware ends up being about 7 by the end of the console's lifespan.

The industry is growing quite rapidly, so I would expect the tie-in ratio to go up in the future. Plus, hardware costs always drop as a console ages. MS is only going to be losing $150 per Xbox for a couple years at most.

	13-01-2003 10:52									#95
	Remove this text

quote: Because of a flawed cartridge format and an arrogant attitude towards developers by Nintendo. Pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about console history...

If they actually were a monopoly, this wouldn't matter. Monopolies can make inferior products and still turn up #1.

	13-01-2003 10:55									#96
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten You're contradicting yourself. You say that MS can afford to field the most powerful console on the market, yet you're sure that they can't turn a profit on the Xbox 2. Does MS know what it's doing are not? I think they do, but I can't tell what you think about it...

In what way is this contradictory?
I should clarify: I'm pretty sure they can turn a profit eventually, maybe to the point of breaking even overall, but the way MS plays the game it should be obvious that profit is secondary to marketshare.

They want to ensure Sony doesn't have a monopoly. That's really all it's about. They would LOVE to make a profit in the process, and maybe they will make a small one, but it's a far cry from the money that would make them get into it solely for the profit.

There are MANY business markets they'd make much stronger profits off of. They choose not to enter them right now, because this one threatens them in their eyes (and mine).

	13-01-2003 10:58									#97
	Got spare money?

quote: Historically just because the predecessor was successful (even a monopoly in some cases) doesn't mean the successor will be as well.

"Historically"? Ignoring for a minute the complete idiocy involved in looking for historical trends in an industry that is only twenty-odd years old, where do you get the idea that a successful predecessor doesn't mean the successor will do well? There are as many examples that go against this statment as there are that go for it. NES led to a successful SNES. Playstation led to a successful PS2. There's the four market leader of the last four generations right there. What unsuccessful succesors are you talking about? The N64? That's only one and I can't think of any others. You can't say Atari because the entire industry died out after Atari. The NES brought console gaming back to life. So what are these other unsuccessful succesor consoles? Care to back this statement up with some examples?

	13-01-2003 10:59									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: If they actually were a monopoly, this wouldn't matter. Monopolies can make inferior products and still turn up #1.

Don't push Asher's "monopoly" rhetoric on me...

	13-01-2003 11:02									#99
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten "Historically"? Ignoring for a minute the complete idiocy involved in looking for historical trends in an industry that is only twenty-odd years old

You're the one who tried to assert having a successful predecessor is going to help the successor. And used the NES, SNES example... And PS->PS2 example...

quote: where do you get the idea that a successful predecessor doesn't mean the successor will do well?

My assertion is it can easily go either way, to the point where it'd be a stupid business move and a stupid idea in general to assume it does mean the successor will do well.

quote: There are as many examples that go against this statment as there are that go for it.

Precisely?

quote: What unsuccessful succesors are you talking about? The N64? That's only one and I can't think of any others.

Atari vs Nintendo --> Nintendo market leader
Nintendo vs Sony --> Sony market leader

quote: You can't say Atari because the entire industry died out after Atari. The NES brought console gaming back to life.

Nah, the Atari still had game releases and was still popular in the early 80s. The NES was its successor.

Then what about Atari Jaguar, etc?

quote: Care to back this statement up with some examples?

You're really confused.
I'm not saying a successful predecessor will mean the successor will fail, I'm saying it's not an indictator and can go either way. Simple stuff....

	13-01-2003 11:05									#100
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Don't push Asher's "monopoly" rhetoric on me...

Asher's Rhetoric? Is there any reason for your paranoia or is it just ingrained into you?

The main question is 'what monopoly'? As far as I'm concerned there hasn't been a console monopoly since the whole shebang began.

And no a successful predessor does not mean the successor will be as well. Look at Sega again. Genesis did not mean that Sega CD and Dreamcast were going to be successful.

Atari, once again. The whole industry dying out, doesn't mean a damned thing! Atari was never again successful in the console arena.

Nintendo is on the way out. If it truely was a monopoly one misfire would not doom it. You could not assert monopoly if that was the case.

	13-01-2003 11:08									#101
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think the fact that there has only been two market leaders in the history of console gaming shows the stability of the market and the fact that industry leaders can build off of previously successful consoles to create successful followups. After all it took a huge screw-up by Nintendo to let Sony gain control of the market...

Also, you might want to check your dates on the Atari Jaguar. It was hardly a follow-up to the 70's Ataris...

	13-01-2003 11:10									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I know, but it's just another example that a successful predecessor doesn't mean anything...

	13-01-2003 11:11									#103
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Nintendo is on the way out. If it truely was a monopoly one misfire would not doom it. You could not assert monopoly if that was the case.

My point was that I never asserted that Nintendo was a monopoly (although that case can be made). Why you brought it up, I have no idea.

And one misfire can bring down a monopoly, if it is a massive as the misfire Nintendo made with the N64.

	13-01-2003 11:13									#104
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I think the fact that there has only been two market leaders in the history of console gaming shows the stability of the market and the fact that industry leaders can build off of previously successful consoles to create successful followups.

A. The market is VERY young. 20 years at best?

B. 2 market leaders? What about Atari? Colico? And the Commodore 64 was for all intents and purposes a gaming machine.

quote: After all it took a huge screw-up by Nintendo to let Sony gain control of the market...

Check you dates on this. Sony ALREADY had control of the market before Nintendo's "screwup". The screwup was in response to Sega and Sony. They believe NES fans would come back to cartriges after CD loading times. They overestimated the successful 2nd console effect.

	13-01-2003 11:14									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: And one misfire can bring down a monopoly, if it is a massive as the misfire Nintendo made with the N64.

What happens if the 'monopoly' was already brought down before the misfire?

	13-01-2003 11:14									#106
	Tired of ads?

quote: I know, but it's just another example that a successful predecessor doesn't mean anything...

I don't know how you can say this after having seen the PS2 launch. I know you live in Canada, but you can't be this out of touch. The Playstation brand name, built off the success of the PS1, was the factor that led to the massive media hype and furor surrounding the PS2 launch. It made a rather lackluster console (technically) the hottest product in the world. How else do you explain the PS2's success, if you think the success of the PS1 had nothing to do with it?

	13-01-2003 11:15									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: The Playstation brand name, built off the success of the PS1, was the factor that led to the massive media hype and furor surrounding the PS2 launch.

What was its competition at the time? The lackluster Sega Dreamcast?

	13-01-2003 11:18									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Check you dates on this. Sony ALREADY had control of the market before Nintendo's "screwup". The screwup was in response to Sega and Sony. They believe NES fans would come back to cartriges after CD loading times. They overestimated the successful 2nd console effect.

You're going to have to rephrase that, because I have no idea what you're getting at.

quote: What happens if the 'monopoly' was already brought down before the misfire?

Again, what the hell does this mean?

	13-01-2003 11:18									#109
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: I don't know how you can say this after having seen the PS2 launch. I know you live in Canada, but you can't be this out of touch. The Playstation brand name, built off the success of the PS1, was the factor that led to the massive media hype and furor surrounding the PS2 launch. It made a rather lackluster console (technically) the hottest product in the world. How else do you explain the PS2's success, if you think the success of the PS1 had nothing to do with it?

It's VERY simple!

When the PS2 launched, the only real competition it had was the very-pathetic sales & hype-wise Dreamcast which was already being discontinued.

Sony's marketing machine is brilliant. There were talks of the "Emotion Engine", being a supercomputer-in-a-box, even of Iraq buying them to use the CPU for new guided missiles! Then to top it off, Sony sent less than 500,000 consoles to North America for the launch, when they could have easily sold ~2M, which resulted in spectacular part shortages and thereby lots of press.

Next thing you know it's a big news story, about how everyone wants to get one and no one can and free publicity and "Playstation" said over and over and over...

It wasn't until 1.5 years later that any competitors launched, long enough for Sony to get a HUGE lead. And when you have a huge lead, you have a larger software base. Larger software base, bigger game-brands. It's momentum, and that's why PS2 won this time.

It's FAR more than a simple name-thing. It was a brilliant marketing and product rollout, something that won't work as well the second time since people remember how craptastic the first games were on PS2.

	13-01-2003 11:20									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: What was its competition at the time? The lackluster Sega Dreamcast?

What's your point? Something made millions of people decide that they needed to buy a console at that time. Something made the people want to buy the PS2 or they just would've waited for the Gamecube or the Xbox. A lack of competition doesn't explain the PS2's success. The massive hype built up by the success of the PS1, however, does.

	13-01-2003 11:23									#111
	Suffering from ads?

quote: What's your point? Something made millions of people decide that they needed to buy a console at that time. Something made the people want to buy the PS2 or they just would've waited for the Gamecube or the Xbox. A lack of competition doesn't explain the PS2's success. The massive hype built up by the success of the PS1, however, does.

The hype wasn't due to the PS1, it was due to:
1) The Emotion Engine's design which allows for staggering theoretical performance, and thereby hype
2) Intentional part shortages, increasing the hype
3) Lack of competition. Many people wrote Nintendo, Sega off, and doubted MS could make a splash in the market. Sony was the only option.

You're trying to pin a whole bunch of **** on the PS1, which doesn't make sense.

The reason the PS2 still sells more right now is because it's firmly entrenched. The console with the largest install base tends to get the biggest-name games, which attracts more customers, etc. It's a cycle.

	13-01-2003 11:23									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: When the PS2 launched, the only real competition it had was the very-pathetic sales & hype-wise Dreamcast which was already being discontinued.

If a lack of competition equals success, then what happened to the Dreamcast? It was a great console with a great lineup of games, but it fizzled. Could it be that the unsuccessful Saturn ruined Sega's reputation, while the sucessful PS1 bolstered Sony's? Don't you think that the success of the PS1 influenced developers to support Sony?

	13-01-2003 11:26									#113
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: If a lack of competition equals success, then what happened to the Dreamcast? It was a great console with a great lineup of games, but it fizzled.

Because it's always a bunch of factors.

1) Sega wanted to be honest and, as a result, didn't hype their console. They provided realistic numbers that real games could achieve, unlike Sony.
2) As soon as the Dreamcast launched Sony began telling everyone how incredibly powerful PS2 would be. People saw Dreamcast as a bad investment.

Sony handled the situation brilliantly.

Oh, and a lot of Sega's games don't hold much mass appeal, despite how good they are. See: Jet Grind Radio, Shenmue...

	13-01-2003 11:26									#114
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You're trying to pin a whole bunch of **** on the PS1, which doesn't make sense.

You're trying to tell me that the successor to the most successful console in history gained absolutely no advantage from its predecessor. Do you know how absurd an idea that is? The success of the PS1 had everything to do with the success of the PS2, from gaining developer support to making the Playstation brand name instantly recognizable.

	13-01-2003 11:27									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: You're trying to tell me that the successor to the most successful console in history gained absolutely no advantage from its predecessor.

No, I'm not. It is an advantage, it's a small advantage. There are much bigger factors.

quote: The success of the PS1 had everything to do with the success of the PS2, from gaining developer support to making the Playstation brand name instantly recognizable.

You're joking, right? PS2's developed support SUCKED for the first year. MS did way better, for christ sake, and they were new...

	13-01-2003 11:29									#116
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: As soon as the Dreamcast launched Sony began telling everyone how incredibly powerful PS2 would be. People saw Dreamcast as a bad investment.

People also knew that the Xbox would be more powerful than the PS2, but bought the PS2 anyway. People had trust in Sony and the Playstation brand, because they were a proven success. You were guaranteed to get your money's worth, which you weren't with the Dreamcast. It's pretty obvious how the PS1's success benefited the PS2.

	13-01-2003 11:30									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten People also knew that the Xbox would be more powerful than the PS2, but bought the PS2 anyway.

Everyone thought the Xbox would BSOD, require software installs, and would catch fire.

	13-01-2003 11:31									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: You're joking, right? PS2's developed support SUCKED for the first year. MS did way better, for christ sake, and they were new...

You're the one who's joking, right? Sony had every major third-party in the world commited to making games for the PS2. MS has yet to get anywhere close to that level of developer support.

	13-01-2003 11:32									#119
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: You're the one who's joking, right? Sony had every major third-party in the world commited to making games for the PS2. MS has yet to get anywhere close to that level of developer support.

Look at the NPD figures.

Not only were more third party games released in the first year of Xbox's life, but more were sold too.

Developer support only began for the PS2 once it hit the market. That's why the good games took about a year to come out, and the first year's games all totally sucked -- they were crap games by crap developers.

Most companies were still working on PSX games, mostly because PS2s could play PSX games...

	13-01-2003 11:36									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Developer support only began for the PS2 once it hit the market. That's why the good games took about a year to come out, and the first year's games all totally sucked -- they were crap games by crap developers.

The quality of first year games is a completely different issue from developer support. First year games always suck and I don't think the Gamecube and Xbox have done any better than Sony.

The important point is that Sony has more third party support than any other console maker and had this support lined up before the PS2 even launched. This demonstrates the faith the industry had in the PS2, based on the massive success of the PS1. This is what MS wants to achieve with the Xbox 2.