Gates lost Billions. LOL

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

He loses billlons? So the xbox was a flop and all this was done to get to
the next step in all this? Ok. So i was right about the xbox if not for
Gates pockets, the xbox would have folded if it was done by another company.
I cant see a non-gates company going through all these loses just to cross
their fingers on the next wave. The xbox should be done but if gates wants
to lose billions more then go ahead. He wont be making his money back on the
new xbox so i hope he wants keep this sinking ship afloat for another 3yrs.
Is funny that the GC wasnt losing money but yet is still fading. They cant
win even when xbox is faling.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Kwirl wrote:

> The next x-box is not only the most powerful gaming platform

Only time will tell if this is true. Though I agree with your rationale
that the post that initiated this thread was a bunch of bullocks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Do you know anything about technology? I think this post belongs on a /.
thread somewhere, because it seems that you know nothing about either the
technological or financial workings of the game industry.

The x-box was a non-profitable platform designed for one purpose, market
penetration. It worked, gloriously. The average game player is now
familiar and aware of the x-box brand, and developers have a history to look
back on.

The next x-box is not only the most powerful gaming platform, it is also a
multimedia device with way more applications than sony has the
infrastructure to develop. Home videoconferencing, the x-box live network,
chatting, instant messenging, automatic home networking...the X-box 360 will
to the savvy user become an entertainment hub in their household, and will
be a major success for MicroSoft in that regard. From there, they can
market products online, game content, or just communication. Each user has
a comfortable level of service that they choose to utilize.

He won't be making his money back? Excuse me while my laughter echoes
throughout my office.


"crystalskull" <radgamer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ao2dnSEyJrEeHQ7fRVn-3A@comcast.com...
> He loses billlons? So the xbox was a flop and all this was done to get to
> the next step in all this? Ok. So i was right about the xbox if not for
> Gates pockets, the xbox would have folded if it was done by another
> company. I cant see a non-gates company going through all these loses just
> to cross their fingers on the next wave. The xbox should be done but if
> gates wants to lose billions more then go ahead. He wont be making his
> money back on the new xbox so i hope he wants keep this sinking ship
> afloat for another 3yrs. Is funny that the GC wasnt losing money but yet
> is still fading. They cant win even when xbox is faling.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Do you know anything about technology?

No. I dont need to know anything about that when Gates lost billions. Prove
he will ever make it bsck from xbox sales. You cant so stfu. Any other Co.
would have folded. deal with it.

 

[Jordan]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

You could argue that if the Xbox had been done by another company it
would have had MORE support because the blind people who hate anything
"Microsoft" would have been on-board.

- Jordan

 

[Strychnine]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1116978576.903192.42170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You could argue that if the Xbox had been done by another company it
> would have had MORE support because the blind people who hate anything
> "Microsoft" would have been on-board.
>
> - Jordan
>

Well said. Or as I often put it, prior to the attacks the man the justice
department wanted to nail the most was Bill Gates.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Lost money, you mean like how cell phone companies, cable/sat companies, etc
all lose money on their hardware and then make it back in services and other
ways?

The hardware is only one piece of the puzzle, no company can make it on the
hardware alone in today's market.

"crystalskull" <radgamer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ao2dnSEyJrEeHQ7fRVn-3A@comcast.com...
> He loses billlons? So the xbox was a flop and all this was done to get to
> the next step in all this? Ok. So i was right about the xbox if not for
> Gates pockets, the xbox would have folded if it was done by another
> company. I cant see a non-gates company going through all these loses just
> to cross their fingers on the next wave. The xbox should be done but if
> gates wants to lose billions more then go ahead. He wont be making his
> money back on the new xbox so i hope he wants keep this sinking ship
> afloat for another 3yrs. Is funny that the GC wasnt losing money but yet
> is still fading. They cant win even when xbox is faling.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Kwirl <kwirlkarphys@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you know anything about technology? I think this post belongs on a /.
> thread somewhere, because it seems that you know nothing about either the
> technological or financial workings of the game industry.

The OP is correct, however, that without the deep pockets of Microsoft to
back it, a lesser company would have folded, or at least pulled out of the
console market altogether.

> The x-box was a non-profitable platform designed for one purpose, market
> penetration. It worked, gloriously. The average game player is now
> familiar and aware of the x-box brand, and developers have a history to look
> back on.

It may have been a minor success in this aspect in the US, but worldwide?
The thing *was* a flop in Japan as far as I can tell. I am seeing some
more promising things for the 360, but I think Microsoft has a long way to
go towards getting a significant portion of the Japanese market.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

The reason that it *flopped* in japan was in large part due to the size
constraints, the xbox system was too large for most japanese entertainment
systems, in addition it lacks the japanese game development backbone of sony
or even nintendo. however, i'm fairly certain all of this has been
addressed in the xbox 360


> It may have been a minor success in this aspect in the US, but worldwide?
> The thing *was* a flop in Japan as far as I can tell. I am seeing some
> more promising things for the 360, but I think Microsoft has a long way to
> go towards getting a significant portion of the Japanese market.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> The OP is correct, however, that without the deep pockets of Microsoft to
> back it, a lesser company would have folded, or at least pulled out of the
> console market altogether.

Same could be said for almost any industry. You need money to enter a new
market.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:11973ckscadv84c@corp.supernews.com...
> Kwirl <kwirlkarphys@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do you know anything about technology? I think this post belongs on a /.
>> thread somewhere, because it seems that you know nothing about either the
>> technological or financial workings of the game industry.
>
> The OP is correct, however, that without the deep pockets of Microsoft to
> back it, a lesser company would have folded, or at least pulled out of the
> console market altogether.
>
>> The x-box was a non-profitable platform designed for one purpose, market
>> penetration. It worked, gloriously. The average game player is now
>> familiar and aware of the x-box brand, and developers have a history to
>> look
>> back on.
>
> It may have been a minor success in this aspect in the US, but worldwide?
> The thing *was* a flop in Japan as far as I can tell. I am seeing some
> more promising things for the 360, but I think Microsoft has a long way to
> go towards getting a significant portion of the Japanese market.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Kwirl <kwirlkarphys@gmail.com> wrote:

> however, the faster cell chip that sony brags about is only one element of
> gameplay hardware, what about video processing? that is where the xbox 360
> really kicks the ps3's ass. the nicest comparison of the two systems
> benchmarking those numbers puts the xbox at least 10 times stronger than the
> ps3.

I would have thought that the current generation of consoles would have
shown once and for all that it's not the hardware - it's the games - that
make or break the console.

Xbox is clearly the most powerful of the current generation.

However PS2 outsold XBox by like 6-to-1 worldwide. Even ignoring the
PS2's backwards compatibility with the PS1, there are many more PS2 games
available than XBox games.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

schooner <schooner@accesswave.ca> wrote:
> > The OP is correct, however, that without the deep pockets of Microsoft to
> > back it, a lesser company would have folded, or at least pulled out of the
> > console market altogether.

> Same could be said for almost any industry. You need money to enter a new
> market.

Sure, you have to spend money. However, Microsoft lost a LOT of money on
Xbox. Certainly more than what a smaller company could have afforded to
lose - and I'm pretty sure that even some larger companies would have cut
their losses and pulled out of the market completely. You cannot deny
that the only reason Xbox stuck around this long, much less long enough to
spawn Xbox360, is because Microsoft has so much money at its disposal, a
few billion lost here and there isn't going to hurt them very much.
Especially when you consider that they're making more each quarter from
their software division than what XBox lost in its entire lifetime....

You also have to consider that Sony managed to make a profit (and a tidy
one at that) from its Playstation 1 - and that too was a case of a company
entering into an entirely new market.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Doug Jacobs wrote:
> Even ignoring the
> PS2's backwards compatibility with the PS1, there are many more PS2 games
> available than XBox games.

Let's also make it a point that more games doesn't mean anything. I'd
rather have 10 good games than 100 mediocre games. More games means
nothing -- how many good games you have means something. There are so
many games available for the XBOX that I would never in a million years
put $35-50 on the counter for. I am sure a similar ratio exists on the
PS2, though I don't own one and hence don't look at their games much.
More games raises the potential of having more good games, but it
doesn't automatically make a console better. Just look at the amount of
games available for the Game Boy...it plays all games dating back to
the first Game Boy, yet it's not all that great IMO.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"crystalskull" <radgamer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1pidnSxGcva0Ag7fRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>
> > Do you know anything about technology?
>
> No. I dont need to know anything

Typical ignorant bilgefake. ALL console hardware loses money and makes it
back in licensing fees.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

cjw wrote:

> Let's also make it a point that more games doesn't mean anything. I'd
> rather have 10 good games than 100 mediocre games. More games means
> nothing -- how many good games you have means something. There are so
> many games available for the XBOX that I would never in a million
> years put $35-50 on the counter for. I am sure a similar ratio exists
> on the PS2, though I don't own one and hence don't look at their
> games much. More games raises the potential of having more good
> games, but it doesn't automatically make a console better. Just look
> at the amount of games available for the Game Boy...it plays all
> games dating back to the first Game Boy, yet it's not all that great
> IMO.

The point with having a bigger library is you can find a better selection of
games for all tastes. The Xbox is lacking a large catalog of games in the
RPG and platformer department.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Hank the Rapper wrote:
> cjw wrote:
>
> > Let's also make it a point that more games doesn't mean anything. I'd
> > rather have 10 good games than 100 mediocre games. More games means
> > nothing -- how many good games you have means something. There are so
> > many games available for the XBOX that I would never in a million
> > years put $35-50 on the counter for. I am sure a similar ratio exists
> > on the PS2, though I don't own one and hence don't look at their
> > games much. More games raises the potential of having more good
> > games, but it doesn't automatically make a console better. Just look
> > at the amount of games available for the Game Boy...it plays all
> > games dating back to the first Game Boy, yet it's not all that great
> > IMO.
>
> The point with having a bigger library is you can find a better selection of
> games for all tastes. The Xbox is lacking a large catalog of games in the
> RPG and platformer department.

I wouldn't say it is lacking in the platformer genre anymore. But
JRPG? Definitely.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Hank the Rapper wrote:
> The point with having a bigger library is you can find a better selection of
> games for all tastes. The Xbox is lacking a large catalog of games in the
> RPG and platformer department.

True. I wish there were moer RPGs for the XBox but then I think that
RPGs oftentimes are better played on a PC. I have seen some of the
Japanese RPG type franchises on PS2 before and wasn't too interested in
those. Morrowind on the XBox is nice, but getting rather old in terms
of graphics, gameplay, etc. The new Elder Scrolls for XBOX 360 should
be a good start to get more RPGs on the XBOX. As far as platformers go
I am not sure, I haven't seen or played a platformer since Fury of the
Furries on PC.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"crystalskull" <radgamer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ao2dnSEyJrEeHQ7fRVn-3A@comcast.com...
> He loses billlons? So the xbox was a flop and all this was done to get to
> the next step in all this? Ok. So i was right about the xbox if not for
> Gates pockets, the xbox would have folded if it was done by another
company.
> I cant see a non-gates company going through all these loses just to cross
> their fingers on the next wave. The xbox should be done but if gates wants
> to lose billions more then go ahead. He wont be making his money back on
the
> new xbox so i hope he wants keep this sinking ship afloat for another
3yrs.
> Is funny that the GC wasnt losing money but yet is still fading. They cant
> win even when xbox is faling.
>

The main reason Japanese auto makers were so successful in the late 70s/80s
was this: American automakers were thinks 5 minutes into the future, while
the Japanese were thinking 5 years. The Japanese knew that they'd have to
take incremental steps to overcome the American auto makers. And they did
indeed.

MS knew that is would never overtake Sony with one console. Everyone on the
planet knew that (excepts some gamers, apparently). If MS is to overtake
Sony, it won't be until the 5th or 6th generation console, and even then it
is doubtful... but possible.

-Sammy

 

[theone]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

really? I think even the overly optimistic @ Microsoft knew that the
Xbox wasn't going to win over the market share. Surely not in Japan as
the fanbase will stay loyal to Sony and Nintendo (unless maybe the xbox
hits shops b4 the PS3 over there with a good "Japanese" lineup).

Why the ambiguity (understanding?) of Japanese automakers? Just like
the transistor. For anyone that has picked up a Far Eastern History
book, it's simple. They made longer lasting, economical cars. Better
fuel consumption, less repair cost, and cheaper to buy (and produce).
They're manufacturing lines were faster (and more efficient), the
people worked for (and bitched about) less because they were loyal to
the country's cause. Last but not least, big business has been in bed
with the Gov't and banks over there since the post-WWII rebuild. Think
super low interest loans to supply otherwise cost-prohibitive continual
R&D to stay ahead of the pack. When you refer to Sony, you might as
well say Japan Entertainment.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

cjw <cwinter@gmail.com> wrote:

> True. I wish there were moer RPGs for the XBox but then I think that
> RPGs oftentimes are better played on a PC. I have seen some of the
> Japanese RPG type franchises on PS2 before and wasn't too interested in
> those. Morrowind on the XBox is nice, but getting rather old in terms
> of graphics, gameplay, etc. The new Elder Scrolls for XBOX 360 should
> be a good start to get more RPGs on the XBOX. As far as platformers go
> I am not sure, I haven't seen or played a platformer since Fury of the
> Furries on PC.

I think it depends on the RPG. Japanese-style RPGs (the Final Fantasy
series, for instance) is better on a console. The port of FF7 to the PC,
was pretty awful, in my opinion. The graphics were terrible, and it
didn't incorporate the mouse at all - which would have sped up the menus
immensely. Likewise, putting a game which relied on the mouse onto a
console that can't use a mouse is equally painful. The analog sticks just
aren't as fast or sensitive as a mouse is. In conclusion, some games work
better on PC, some work better on a console. If you're OK with having a
gaming PC as well as a console, you might as well buy the game for their
strongest platform.

And, yes, XBox360 sorely needs more platformers and Japanese-style RPGs if
they want to have a chance at catching up with Sony.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Sammy \"The Bull\" Gravano" <Sammy@witnessprotection.gov> wrote:

> The main reason Japanese auto makers were so successful in the late 70s/80s
> was this: American automakers were thinks 5 minutes into the future, while
> the Japanese were thinking 5 years. The Japanese knew that they'd have to
> take incremental steps to overcome the American auto makers. And they did
> indeed.

> MS knew that is would never overtake Sony with one console. Everyone on the
> planet knew that (excepts some gamers, apparently). If MS is to overtake
> Sony, it won't be until the 5th or 6th generation console, and even then it
> is doubtful... but possible.

The Japanese automakers overtook the American ones in the 70s and 80s due
to their through understanding of where the markets (Japan, America,
Europe) were heading, and designed accordingly. Microsoft, like the
American auto makers from that era, haven't quite figured this out yet.
Hopefully Microsoft will do better this time around than they did last
time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:119psoaom2slf86@corp.supernews.com...
> "Sammy \"The Bull\" Gravano" <Sammy@witnessprotection.gov> wrote:
>
> > The main reason Japanese auto makers were so successful in the late
70s/80s
> > was this: American automakers were thinks 5 minutes into the future,
while
> > the Japanese were thinking 5 years. The Japanese knew that they'd have
to
> > take incremental steps to overcome the American auto makers. And they
did
> > indeed.
>
> > MS knew that is would never overtake Sony with one console. Everyone on
the
> > planet knew that (excepts some gamers, apparently). If MS is to
overtake
> > Sony, it won't be until the 5th or 6th generation console, and even then
it
> > is doubtful... but possible.
>
> The Japanese automakers overtook the American ones in the 70s and 80s due
> to their through understanding of where the markets (Japan, America,
> Europe) were heading, and designed accordingly. Microsoft, like the
> American auto makers from that era, haven't quite figured this out yet.
> Hopefully Microsoft will do better this time around than they did last
> time.

Agreed. This is what I meant by my "thinking 5 years" remark. Also, they
knew back then that quality control was important, while the American auto
makers had trouble spelling QA.

MS will do better this time around, but it's anyone's guess how much better.

-Sammy