Power On: The Story of Xbox [Documentary 6 Parts]

[eastmen]

Yes. PS1 took the market by storm. XBOX360 didnt



XBOX was just an ok product that was alone in the market for a long time. Minus the Wii. But that wouldnt even be considered a real competition.

Come on bro your bias is showing.

Xbox 360 was such a sucess that sony struggled to stay competitive even having a year longer to launch their over priced george foreman grill. One company at least quadrupled sales vs one struggling to sell 2/3rds of their previous generation.

The original playstation got lucky because nintendo was late to the market and came with carts. Sony wouldn't have had time to get any developers on board if Sega and Nintendo had their shit together.

 

[Globalisateur]

Come on bro your bias is showing.

Xbox 360 was such a sucess that sony struggled to stay competitive even having a year longer to launch their over priced george foreman grill. One company at least quadrupled sales vs one struggling to sell 2/3rds of their previous generation.

The original playstation got lucky because nintendo was late to the market and came with carts. Sony wouldn't have had time to get any developers on board if Sega and Nintendo had their shit together.

Yes MS killed it with the X360 (the best console they have ever designed, it was a beast) but Playstation didn't get lucky at all. They targeted Playstation like a serious console (look, games, ads) for adults + importance of developers + cheaper games thanks to CD and all that worked. The very known and respected Sony brand greatly helped. Today the name Playstation is more important of course.

I am saying that and still prefer SNES and N64 games. Most PS1 games were average with bad gameplay. Even the best games aged very poorly.

 

[Nesh]

Come on bro your bias is showing.

Xbox 360 was such a sucess that sony struggled to stay competitive even having a year longer to launch their over priced george foreman grill. One company at least quadrupled sales vs one struggling to sell 2/3rds of their previous generation.

The original playstation got lucky because nintendo was late to the market and came with carts. Sony wouldn't have had time to get any developers on board if Sega and Nintendo had their shit together.

Sony was selling a hugely delayed product at a significantly higher price at a significant loss. Ofcourse Sony would have struggled. They struggled with themselves. Yet they managed to catch up and even surpass.

 

[BitByte]

Yes MS killed it with the X360 (the best console they have ever designed, it was a beast) but Playstation didn't get lucky at all. They targeted Playstation like a serious console (look, games, ads) for adults + importance of developers + cheaper games thanks to CD and all that worked. The very known and respected Sony brand greatly helped. Today the name Playstation is more important of course.

I am saying that and still prefer SNES and N64 games. Most PS1 games were average with bad gameplay. Even the best games aged very poorly.

I'd argue that from a hardware perspective, it's the worst console they've ever designed with the near 100% failure rate prior to the redesign. In fact, I'd argue that the 360's sales numbers are highly inflated due to the ridiculous failure rate.

 

[see colon]

Prescient

The Claim that Sony said the PS2 would wipe out PCs is of course BS, The thing didnt even launch with a harddisk drive
So if this documentary is claiming that, you've gotten question its accuracy
edit: Also no internet until a couple of years later

It matters less if Sony said it and more that Microsoft believed that Sony said it or wanted it. Ans that there was a belief that they were acting toward those goals.

Also...

"The PlayStation [3] is not a game machine. We've never once called it a game machine," stated Kutaragi at the beginning of his latest interview. "The PS3 is the product we have been aiming for since the establishment of SCEI", said Kutaragi. "We haven't been creating our [past] PlayStations for the sake of games.

PS3 was the most "PC replacement" console ever created, IMHO. And Kutaragi says that was what they were aiming for all along. So in hindsight, he confirmed Microsoft's fears.

 

[orangpelupa]

In fact, I'd argue that the 360's sales numbers are highly inflated due to the ridiculous failure rate.

i bought 2 or 3 x360. the last i bought still going well! even after being abused (used as a stool, etc). The DVD Drive no longer can open without being punched/slapped tho.

 

[see colon]

i bought 2 or 3 x360. the last i bought still going well! even after being abused (used as a stool, etc). The DVD Drive no longer can open without being punched/slapped tho.

So I was going to link to a youtube video showing you how to change your Xbox 360 drive belt with a pair of long tweezers or kelly clamps, but every video I saw have people disassembling the entire system. I can't be the only person who knows you can do this. It take a little trial and error the first time, but a coworker and myself used to see how fast we could do it and I think his record was something like 45 seconds. We charged $10 to do it, so it cost $800 a hour to do that repair at that rate. Anyway, here's how you do it.

You can buy a new belt for a few dollars on Ebay or Amazon, but you can also boil your existing belt and it usually works. Just put it in a coffee cup with about a cup of water and microwave it for about 2 minutes. Dry it of and it should be good. If it isn't, just do it again. Sometimes it takes a little longer. Sometimes if you order a belt from ebay or amazon, it will say that it's a die cut drive belt, and it's just a tangle free hair tie. Like the ones kids make bracelets out of on the looms that were all the rage a few years ago. So maybe just buy a pack of those at the dollar store in a pinch. Kelly clamps make it easier. Any hardware store, including discount ones like Harbor Freight or even many dollar stores have them. If you can't get them you need fairly long tweezers with good grip.

So, pop off the faceplate and remove your hard drive. Get your drive to eject. With the drive open, unplug the power. You don't want the drive to try to close when you start messing with the belt. There is a black drive belt near the middle that connects a larger pulley in the front to a motor pulley in the back. Grab the belt with the tweezers and pull it off. When the belt is off, be careful not to let the drive close because it will no longer eject, and you will have to do it manually, which can be a bit tricky. Boil your belt or get your new one. Put the belt on the motor side first (the smaller part in the back), and stretch it around the larger front pulley. That's it.

Pro-tip: Have your console flat at eye level. Don't set it on your lap pointed upwards. The door will close and it's a pain.

Edit
Found a video of a guy doing this with an OG Xbox, which is actually a little harder because you have less room. The removable faceplate on 360 makes it easier. He also stretches big pully to little, and I do find that easier on OG Xbox for whatever reason, but little to big on 360 is easier for me. YMMV.

 

[eastmen]

I'd argue that from a hardware perspective, it's the worst console they've ever designed with the near 100% failure rate prior to the redesign. In fact, I'd argue that the 360's sales numbers are highly inflated due to the ridiculous failure rate.

ah so the ps1 and ps2 were highly inflated in sales due to the disc drives failing at absurd rates.

 

[eastmen]

Yes MS killed it with the X360 (the best console they have ever designed, it was a beast) but Playstation didn't get lucky at all. They targeted Playstation like a serious console (look, games, ads) for adults + importance of developers + cheaper games thanks to CD and all that worked. The very known and respected Sony brand greatly helped. Today the name Playstation is more important of course.

I am saying that and still prefer SNES and N64 games. Most PS1 games were average with bad gameplay. Even the best games aged very poorly.

I dunno I think MS has improved each generation. The x360 was the benchmark and the one surpased it. I loved the console as it was whisper quiet and fit right into my entertainment unit as a black box. The xbox series x is more so as its smaller and just as quiet .

Sony got lucky in terms of what their competition was doing. the playstation product was a good product to have when the competition was much more expensive and late to the party. in the USA sega messed up with the 32x and then barreled right into the saturn with a bumbled suprise launch. Nintendo came to the party 18 months late and was hampered by a cart system when everyone else was on cd. People complain about $70 games but I remember buying mario 64 for $90 launch day at toys r us.

Sony was selling a hugely delayed product at a significantly higher price at a significant loss. Ofcourse Sony would have struggled. They struggled with themselves. Yet they managed to catch up and even surpass.

Sony was coming off the highest selling console ever produced at the time and was barely able to keep up with Microsoft who came off a 20m selling console.

 

[AzBat]

Nice documentary. Liked how they showed warts & all. But they rushed the last 10 years though. I think they could have had a 9-part series easily. They had some really big omissions like backward compatibility on Xbox One, the One S & the Series S.

Tommy McClain

 

[Nesh]

Sony was coming off the highest selling console ever produced at the time and was barely able to keep up with Microsoft who came off a 20m selling console.

What part of hugely delayed and hugely expensive you didnt get?

 

[orangpelupa]

Nice documentary. Liked how they showed warts & all. But they rushed the last 10 years though. I think they could have had a 9-part series easily. They had some really big omissions like backward compatibility on Xbox One, the One S & the Series S.

Tommy McClain

Yeah more episodes would be nice.
ID@XBOX also got skimmed super fast in the documentary

 

[goonergaz]

I’m loving the complete rose tinted glasses views of some of the posters. A year head start, cheaper product, amazing looking games, great exclusives vs overprice, huge, unstackable, dust/finger magnet which still outsold the alternative.

In the end you could call both a success and a failure, MS gained ground and Sony lost a lot of ground but still edged it. To put it another way, if Sony were lucky with PS1 (lol-the perfect product at the perfect price, aimed at the perfect market at the perfect time, but let’s ignore that), then how lucky were MS with the 360 during the PS3 car crash where they ended last?

 

[JPT]

Personally I think we need to look at the goals each company had at the outset and did they achieve that. It does not matter what metrics we apply, if the intended goals skewed that. For instance if Xbox was meant to get a foothold no matter the cost, then we rating it based on profit is wrong.

My questions are

1. Who was in each gen?
2. What was the goal for each console
3. Did the vendor achieve that/those goals.

I think Sony was disappointed in the PS3 but happy about PS1/2/4, compared to what I think where their goals.
And MS was disappointed in the Xbox and Xbox One, but happy with X360.

As for Nintendo, Sega etc, I have no idea

 

[see colon]

I’m loving the complete rose tinted glasses views of some of the posters. A year head start, cheaper product, amazing looking games, great exclusives vs overprice, huge, unstackable, dust/finger magnet which still outsold the alternative.

In the end you could call both a success and a failure, MS gained ground and Sony lost a lot of ground but still edged it. To put it another way, if Sony were lucky with PS1 (lol-the perfect product at the perfect price, aimed at the perfect market at the perfect time, but let’s ignore that), then how lucky were MS with the 360 during the PS3 car crash where they ended last?

Microsoft didn't get any luckier with 360 than Sony got with PS1. Many of the problems that PS3 had were the same problems Saturn had (complicated development environment, priced higher, wacky marketing). I see your point, that it should have been more of a win for Microsoft given the missteps from Sony, but Xbox did do very well. PS3 might have overtaken 360 in worldwide sales eventually but PS3 still lost to Wii in that regard But Microsoft won North America big. 360 is the second best selling console in NA of all time, behind PS2 by less than 5 million units last time I checked. And as poorly as they did in Japan (PS3 outsold 360 6 to 1 or something there), that was a huge growth for Microsoft. I think they doubled sales over OG Xbox while Sony's sales were halved from PS2->PS3. Also, unless things have changed drastically since I last looked, PS3 is still ahead of PS4 sales in Japan. Who knows how long Sony will sell PS4's. Perhaps they will catch up.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Microsoft didn't get any luckier with 360 than Sony got with PS1. Many of the problems that PS3 had were the same problems Saturn had (complicated development environment, priced higher, wacky marketing).

I completely agree. In terms of the design (ignoring RRoD), Microsoft knocked it out of the park with the 360. They jumped right on unified shaders before they were the norm in the PC world, Epic had persuaded them to double the RAM to 512Gb whilst developing Gears of War, EDRAM allowed easy 720p MSAA and the console sold for a good price. The only thing Microsoft could have done better was a higher-capacity optical medium instead of DVD. For movies Microsoft backed HD-DVD but couldn't quite bring themselves to put the drive into the console. This meant a bunch of games shipped on multiple discs, but even this was a double edged-sword as it introduced the norm of installing consoles game to the HDD which was faster than PS3's Blu-ray drive.

 

[Nisaaru]

Sony was selling a hugely delayed product at a significantly higher price at a significant loss. Ofcourse Sony would have struggled. They struggled with themselves. Yet they managed to catch up and even surpass.

IMHO they only survived this failed PS3 design debacle because the PS3 was the best supported and cheapest Bluray player for a few years and a lot deluded early adopter fanboys until they actually had content to cover over the debacle.

Initial design for the console failed so they had to license a NV GPU to plug the hole but then they had the rambus/ddr split system and a Cell CPU they didn't really "need" anymore because they were financially locked into the rambus and cell/Toshiba-IBM deal.

The sheer luck surviving this mess...

P.S. MS had their own RoD mess but that wasn't really a system design problem and they had the money to pay for it.

 

[see colon]

I completely agree. In terms of the design (ignoring RRoD), Microsoft knocked it out of the park with the 360. They jumped right on unified shaders before they were the norm in the PC world, Epic had persuaded them to double the RAM to 512Gb whilst developing Gears of War, EDRAM allowed easy 720p MSAA and the console sold for a good price. The only thing Microsoft could have done better was a higher-capacity optical medium instead of DVD. For movies Microsoft backed HD-DVD but couldn't quite bring themselves to put the drive into the console. This meant a bunch of games shipped on multiple discs, but even this was a double edged-sword as it introduced the norm of installing consoles game to the HDD which was faster than PS3's Blu-ray drive.

There wasn't really an optical media available. Xbox 360 was released in late 2005, HD-DVD and Bluray weren't available until mid 2006. There are also only a few Xbox 360 games that require a HDD install. Many more PS3 games require an install. And many of them have longer load times than the 360 release that didn't need an install.

 

[eastmen]

IMHO they only survived this failed PS3 design debacle because the PS3 was the best supported and cheapest Bluray player for a few years and a lot deluded early adopter fanboys until they actually had content to cover over the debacle.

Initial design for the console failed so they had to license a NV GPU to plug the hole but then they had the rambus/ddr split system and a Cell CPU they didn't really "need" anymore because they were financially locked into the rambus and cell/Toshiba-IBM deal.

The sheer luck surviving this mess...

P.S. MS had their own RoD mess but that wasn't really a system design problem and they had the money to pay for it.

Sony only survived because of its music and property groups . If sony didn't have the vast resources it did have it would have gone the way of sega during the ps3 generation.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

There wasn't really an optical media available. Xbox 360 was released in late 2005, HD-DVD and Bluray weren't available until mid 2006. There are also only a few Xbox 360 games that require a HDD install. Many more PS3 games require an install. And many of them have longer load times than the 360 release that didn't need an install.

The Blu-ray standard was finalised in 2004. I don't know if this would have been a good idea, but given the size of many of the games, DVD wasn't an ideal choice. Quite a lot of high-profile games shipped on 2 discs (AC3, Borderlands GOTY, Dragon's Dogma, Skyrim Legendary Edition, Dead Space 2 and 3, Fallout 3 GOTY, FO New Vegas GOTY, Mass Effect 2 and 3, Witcher 2) and a bunch shipped with 3 discs or more (Blue Dragon, Elder Scrolls Oblivion GOTY, Final Fantasy XIII, LA Noire, Lost Odyssey, Rage, Star Ocean).

It obviously wasn't a deal breaker but it's the only technical aspect of 360 that felt like it hadn't moved forward from the previous generation.