J. Allard interview by Hiroshige Goto pt.2

[Spidermate]

Not because Allard is right, which of course he is - but because it was Microsoft's own fear of Sony indeed succeeding in changing the paradigm in line with what they were stating at the time that got Microsoft to take the plunge into the console market in the first place, in order to counter the threat. I guess it's ironic to hear Allard talk about it so nonchalantly when it's his division's entire reason for existence.

Come now, do you know that it is "[the] division's entire reason for existence"?

MS had been involved in games for a long while. They had encouraged that the PC be used as a gaming platform.

MS was obviously aware of the fact that Nintendo was making a killing in this market and that Sony was able to jump right into the market with the PS and take a commanding lead. MS could have easily gone, "If Sony can just jump in and make a big dent in this VERY profitable business we can do it too. We specialize in software and already have a game devision and dominate an entire platform. Why not leverage that and take a cut out of what Nintendo and Sony are makring?"

There is also the issue of the digital hub in the living room. I am not convinced that the digital hub will replace the family computer. We predict the death of formats all the time... so far the PC has proven very resilient with billions of R&D from massive corperations every year. They have an investment to make it evolve and stay relevant (and 200M yearly sales says it still is). Anyhow, MS wants to be in everything. By being the OS/provider of the digital hub they can leverage their PC dominance with services and software. It is a natural extension for them and allow them to reach more potentual customers. So while I do not see a "revolution" and the replacement of the PC, I can see how there is a new niche market appearing and MS wanted a part in the action.

Anyhow, I do believe it is a gross overstatement to say MS only got involved in the living room as a protective measure. There is a mountain of profit to be made in selling games. And I can think of no better way to upsell products and services than to have a box in someones house. Not to mention porting console games to the PC keeps the PC alive and healthy.

There are just way too many flaws I can point out in your reason for them entering the console wars with Sony and Nintendo - starting with money. Despite Microsft's wealth, if they were so determined to make more money, they wouldn't have second thoughts about entering the handheld market. Not only that, but they rushed the Xbox out of the door within a two year period, which resulted in many careless mistakes, in hopes of stripping a piece of Sony's fan base. Dont' tell me these were all intentional because I know better.

 

[jvd]

So why should Sony not include it. We now it isn't the extra money. They have already proven that money isn't the reason, so whats the deal?

Short sightedness?

i think it came down to bluray vs the hdd and for sony it was an easy choice

 

[mckmas8808]

i think it came down to bluray vs the hdd and for sony it was an easy choice

Well that for sure was NOT what it came down to. First of all the Blu-ray drive was a choice that was made years ago. The HDD choice is still not made yet as of this day. Blu-ray was never a should we do it or not kind of thing. Again they have not made the choice yet.

 

[jvd]

heh keep saying it to yourself . Fact is there is x amount of money they will loose per system and the bluray takes up y amount of x . Cell takes up b amount of x , rsx takes up a amount , ram takes up c amount and so on and so forth .

 

[Acert93]

There are just way too many flaws I can point out in your reason for them entering the console wars with Sony and Nintendo - starting with money.

MS is not short sighted. They made mistakes with Xbox (specifically IP arrangements), but getting into the console business IS about money. No way around that. Games are very profitable. Nintendo and Sony each are pocketing $500M profit a year (or more) from their respective console businesses. Companies like MS are stock driven, and stocks only go up in value if the company increases growth. Getting a cut in a fast growing market is a good financial move, especially if it is a nuance of your already profitable business.

And games are growing. Last year video games actually finally passed the movie industry. MS already had a game division and is a software company. It is a natural extension of its business.

Just as Sony making consoles was a natural evolution. They had a gaming division, and they develop and manufacture high tech consumer electronics. One could argue that the console was a way, and is a way, to safeguard their primary business and to leverage new consumer elecontronics. And the PS has very much been that and done that--all along gaining them a nice financial windfall that has prevented Sony from hitting really hard times.

Despite Microsft's wealth, if they were so determined to make more money, they wouldn't have second thoughts about entering the handheld market.

Nintendo even scared off Sony for a decade from entering the handheld market. It is not nearly as easy as you deposit. You cannot enter a market half hazard in most situations and expect to succeed. Unlike the home console business, which has seen many success and turn abouts (Genesis/SNES, PS/N64/SS, PS2/Xbox/GCN) Nintendo has utterly destroyed the handheld competition. Part of that has to do with the fact Nintendo started the handheld gaming business (at least the form they compete in), and second is because they have a TON of support. Sony had to wait for the right time to leverage their strengths and image against Nintendo. Having the right technology, the right games, and the right developer support is not an easy effort. You never want to spread yourself too thin.

So whereas MS had a PC gaming division and porting PC games to a console was already invogue before the Xbox shipped, MS has no real portable game presence.

And for the record, they do have a portable presence. It just is not a gaming focused presence. These companies do not overlap in every way. You wont see MS competing in generic consumer electronics. MS's forte is their software, and that makes them a presence in the Pocket PC arena (whereas Sony is a much smaller player). Pocket PCs play to MS strengths, yet portable gaming seems out of their reach at this time.

It is all about picking your battles. MS has no real internal properties to make a handheld gaming machine nor the people to push out the needed software. Just wanting a portable device does not make it a success. MS had a gaming division, has control of the PC APIs, has a lot of connections with console game publishers, and sees a vision where they can leverage their strengths (like the OS) into the living room and make money at it.

So this point is definately not as slam dunk as you present. MS has no chance of making marketshare in the handheld business. On the other hand MS bested Nintendo this generation in home consoles.

Not only that, but they rushed the Xbox out of the door within a two year period, which resulted in many careless mistakes, in hopes of stripping a piece of Sony's fan base. Dont' tell me these were all intentional because I know better.

Are you even replying to my post?

The Xbox was the cost to get into the console business in a short period of time. Using off the shelf PC parts made them attractive for PC porting (which did not occur as much as I thought it would). It allowed an accellerated time scale to get to market, and gave them an instant developer base who would be familiar with the platform.

Of course it would have been best to get IP deals instead of chip deals but I know NV was not interested in such (it seems they went that route with Sony because they did not want to be closed out this gen in the console market). Anyhow, MS did not have a lot of options if they wanted to leverage their strengths. They were an outsider looking in. And of course they made a lot of mistakes, but when you have nearly $50B in the bank and are looking at long term profits you make those gambles.

And looking at the Xbox 360 it looks like MS stole the page right out of Nintendo's gameplan.


MS made mistakes and continues to make mistakes. All three do. Yet I think it is extremely overstated that MS "ONLY" got into the console business for any one single reason. I know for a fact from past interviews that MS considers consoles an extension of their business and a very profitable field they feel is growing and that they want a chunk of.

 

[Spidermate]

There are just way too many flaws I can point out in your reason for them entering the console wars with Sony and Nintendo - starting with money.

MS is not short sighted. They made mistakes with Xbox (specifically IP arrangements), but getting into the console business IS about money. No way around that. Games are very profitable. Nintendo and Sony each are pocketing $500M profit a year (or more) from their respective console businesses. Companies like MS are stock driven, and stocks only go up in value if the company increases growth. Getting a cut in a fast growing market is a good financial move, especially if it is a nuance of your already profitable business.

And games are growing. Last year video games actually finally passed the movie industry. MS already had a game division and is a software company. It is a natural extension of its business.

Just as Sony making consoles was a natural evolution. They had a gaming division, and they develop and manufacture high tech consumer electronics. One could argue that the console was a way, and is a way, to safeguard their primary business and to leverage new consumer elecontronics. And the PS has very much been that and done that--all along gaining them a nice financial windfall that has prevented Sony from hitting really hard times.

Despite Microsft's wealth, if they were so determined to make more money, they wouldn't have second thoughts about entering the handheld market.

Nintendo even scared off Sony for a decade from entering the handheld market. It is not nearly as easy as you deposit. You cannot enter a market half hazard in most situations and expect to succeed. Unlike the home console business, which has seen many success and turn abouts (Genesis/SNES, PS/N64/SS, PS2/Xbox/GCN) Nintendo has utterly destroyed the handheld competition. Part of that has to do with the fact Nintendo started the handheld gaming business (at least the form they compete in), and second is because they have a TON of support. Sony had to wait for the right time to leverage their strengths and image against Nintendo. Having the right technology, the right games, and the right developer support is not an easy effort. You never want to spread yourself too thin.

So whereas MS had a PC gaming division and porting PC games to a console was already invogue before the Xbox shipped, MS has no real portable game presence.

And for the record, they do have a portable presence. It just is not a gaming focused presence. These companies do not overlap in every way. You wont see MS competing in generic consumer electronics. MS's forte is their software, and that makes them a presence in the Pocket PC arena (whereas Sony is a much smaller player). Pocket PCs play to MS strengths, yet portable gaming seems out of their reach at this time.

It is all about picking your battles. MS has no real internal properties to make a handheld gaming machine nor the people to push out the needed software. Just wanting a portable device does not make it a success. MS had a gaming division, has control of the PC APIs, has a lot of connections with console game publishers, and sees a vision where they can leverage their strengths (like the OS) into the living room and make money at it.

So this point is definately not as slam dunk as you present. MS has no chance of making marketshare in the handheld business. On the other hand MS bested Nintendo this generation in home consoles.

Not only that, but they rushed the Xbox out of the door within a two year period, which resulted in many careless mistakes, in hopes of stripping a piece of Sony's fan base. Dont' tell me these were all intentional because I know better.

Are you even replying to my post?

The Xbox was the cost to get into the console business in a short period of time. Using off the shelf PC parts made them attractive for PC porting (which did not occur as much as I thought it would). It allowed an accellerated time scale to get to market, and gave them an instant developer base who would be familiar with the platform.

Of course it would have been best to get IP deals instead of chip deals but I know NV was not interested in such (it seems they went that route with Sony because they did not want to be closed out this gen in the console market). Anyhow, MS did not have a lot of options if they wanted to leverage their strengths. They were an outsider looking in. And of course they made a lot of mistakes, but when you have nearly $50B in the bank and are looking at long term profits you make those gambles.

And looking at the Xbox 360 it looks like MS stole the page right out of Nintendo's gameplan.


MS made mistakes and continues to make mistakes. All three do. Yet I think it is extremely overstated that MS "ONLY" got into the console business for any one single reason. I know for a fact from past interviews that MS considers consoles an extension of their business and a very profitable field they feel is growing and that they want a chunk of.

Hold on for a sec. Why is Microsoft even in the mobile phone industry? Answer: they can expand their OS. Sony is annoucing web browsing for the PSP in Japan. What do you think will happen next? I can almost gaurantee that once this gets popular enough, Microsoft is going to enter the handheld market in which they said they would never do. They are now having seconds doubts.

It funny you mentioned this. Yes, we know Microsoft has lots of money, but this doesn't explain why they would wait until the last minute before they decided to enter the console market. The Xbox had only been in development for two years. Even the people behind the Xbox admits that it was a rushed job. If this was their plain all along, why didn't they just launch an Xbox around the time of the first PlayStation? That would have been a perfect time to eat away at Sony's market before everything else got out of hand. OBVIOUSLY, a plan wasn't intact then until after Sony mentioned the PS2 taking over the PC. The Xbox was rushed in a desperate attempt to freeze Sony in their tracks.

Let me also point out that you are still talking about money and risks. If Microsoft can afford to lose so much money as well as be as careless as they want to penetrate the console market, then why can't this very same tactic apply to the handheld market? They have more than enough money to bury Nintendo anyday of the week just like they are doing with the Xbox console. Again, the Xbox was designed in two years. A plan was most likely put together in half that time for it to have gone as bad as it did.

Regardless of how you spin it, Microsoft is trying to secure their OS.

 

[jvd]

I think the plan was to get in the dc and use that experiance in thier own box but the dc only lasted 2 years instead of the most likely 4-5 years ms thought it would . So the xbox came out 3 years before they wanted it to

 

[one]

MS is not short sighted. They made mistakes with Xbox (specifically IP arrangements), but getting into the console business IS about money.

If so they could do it with the Dreamcast style business, or providing softwares such as games, middlewares, and tools, since MS is a software company first and foremost. Maybe it could be an EA and could make enough money. However, they chose to take the way to be a hardware vendor which was supposed to be impossible for many investors of the day as they had watched Apple became less important because it had a risky hardware business (there was no iPod back then), or WebTV had failed miserably. The only reason those investors could justify XBOX is, an investment not to be controlled by the future PS2 presented where Wintel PC is non-significant. It's the same kind of investment MS had put into SCO against Linux. </slashdot_linux_zealot_rant>

I think the plan was to get in the dc and use that experiance in thier own box but the dc only lasted 2 years instead of the most likely 4-5 years ms thought it would . So the xbox came out 3 years before they wanted it to

It doesn't explain why MS waited for 2 years without doing a hardware R&D to be "outdone" by Sony with the 18-months early launch.

It's kind of funny to see the reality gets revisions, but does anyone read Dean Takahashi's book about XBOX?

 

[randycat99]

Here's my list of myraid points, after reading through this rather lengthy topic:

•Why support so many static memory interfaces? Well, a "media center" should be friendly toward a variety of popular interfaces. Chances are (or the chances increase, at least) whatever you are using already, you will be able to use on the PS3. This is a very positive point. Naturally, you can't cover everybody, but if you cover a good amount of them, this comes off as a benefit.

•The "HD present or not present" issue may well end up being nearly seamless as far as implementation in games, depending on how the resource is threaded into the OS. In modern day operating systems, the stuff cached to a HD isn't really visible to the computer app, in the first place. The "logical memory space" is simply a big pool of resources which may contain RAM + space on a HD or RAM and no HD at all. The app doesn't really know. It just tells the OS that it needs to store some stuff, and the OS or kernel decides where to stuff it in the "memory resource pool", as is deemed appropriate.

Games saves can be saved to memory cards or HD (if present), simple enough.

So the only thing left is to implement some flags here and there to handle online content. Small stuff can be saved to cards if no HD is present. Large stuff (like game levels) can be cached to HD (whenever present) or just downloaded as needed via broadband. It's not "perfect", by any means, but enough to make the whole "HD to be or not to be" issue largely academic. That a HD could be connected at a later point by the user (in lieu of the built-in scenario), is decoupled from the "support or no support" issue. It is supported whenever present on an OS level, and if not present, there are various other resources that can be hooked as an alternative, anyway. This is only a further non-issue, in consideration of the next point...

•Multiple ethernet ports can be useful, if Sony makes PC connectivity part of the core package. Once you have "network access" to a PC, you easily have inherent HD (speaking of "harddrive", not "hi-def") support. Gb bandwidth is simply future-protection. If HD-media (speaking of "hi-def", this time) streaming from PC-based storage somehow becomes a part of the picture, that Gb ethernet port will have been a very smart choice, indeed.

As a sidenote, the whole "Gb ethernet" thing has been around for a while. Granted it hasn't taken off to challenge 100 Mb networking to any extent, and DSL bandwidths aren't particularly challenging for 100 Mb networking, either. However, that's not where Gb ethernet was intended to help-out, necessarily. Computer-to-computer on a LAN is where Gb ethernet was intended to shine. Naturally, the computer that is present needs to support it, but more and more computers do come with it built-in as the years go on. Powermacs have supported it out-of-the-box since nearly the "turn of the century", so to speak. PS3 to PS3 will be covered, naturally. So for this day and age, Gb ethernet is simply being cogent of present and future day possibilities, especially when it comes to media streaming from LAN-based sources.

•The BR drive issue becomes all the more pertinent now that XB2 has "backpeddled" to mere DVD support. The sheer potential userbase for PS3's will also make a considerable BR player presence in the market where either BR or HDDVD need it most (in starting out of the gate). HD-DVD has lost a crucial foothold into the market when it lost XB2 support. Now it will need to only lean that much harder on component player sales to attempt a hold on the market, while BR will have 1:1 benefit of every PS3 sale plus the component player sales from those who will be shopping for HD media delivery, but are not necessarily into "gaming". I know perceptions will vary amongst all here, but to me, it don't look good for HD-DVD at this point. If you are a moviehouse deciding which media to support, do you pick the one that will have the typically slow early-adopter rate or the one that will have that PLUS the rampant buy-up of product from the dominant console maker in the entire industry? I know which one looks like the "sure-business-move" to me...

You are free to believe that Sony rode-in on the DVD player wave in the PS2 generation (or maybe it just did it's own little part to really blow the DVD scene open), but it's certainly about to "return the favor" for the BR debut in the PS3 generation. It will be good for BR in locking in the market, and then BR will be good for PS3 when studios see BR locking in the market, and begin supporting BR movies en masse... This is a well-executed, symbiotic debut of 2 big technologies. No doubt about that.

 

[mckmas8808]

That last post needs to be on its own website. I really like the part where randy explains the whole BR thing. This is only good for Sony, companies who join the party, and comsumers who will buy the PS3. Its obvious to me that 100 million BR units are not a bad thing.

Look at the movie industry now. They're all jumping onto the PSP. The only one not doing so is supporting it own mini-DVD format. Don't we all expect the PS3 and Blu-ray to do the same.

 

[randycat99]

Website??? I'm not worthy, honest! I thank you for the complement, though.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If you're a movie company you're gonna do wha the vast majority of them are doing right now....WAIT.

Most of the official "supporters" of blu-ray have not ruled out HD-DVD, and they're simply waiting. There's no rush here. It will be 3 or 4 years at least until the market for HD Movie's gets to be a decent size, HDTV's have to sell first! So there's no telling what will happen.

As far as the PS3's installed base helping blu-ray become the supported standard, i really can't see how rival movie studios will be in favour of supporting Sony's Entertainment's console, so how is this a benefit?

 

[jvd]

The BR drive issue becomes all the more pertinent now that XB2 has "backpeddled" to mere DVD support. The sheer potential userbase for PS3's will also make a considerable BR player presence in the market where either BR or HDDVD need it most (in starting out of the gate). HD-DVD has lost a crucial foothold into the market when it lost XB2 support. Now it will need to only lean that much harder on component player sales to attempt a hold on the market, while BR will have 1:1 benefit of every PS3 sale plus the component player sales from those who will be shopping for HD media delivery, but are not necessarily into "gaming". I know perceptions will vary amongst all here, but to me, it don't look good for HD-DVD at this point. If you are a moviehouse deciding which media to support, do you pick the one that will have the typically slow early-adopter rate or the one that will have that PLUS the rampant buy-up of product from the dominant console maker in the entire industry? I know which one looks like the "sure-business-move" to me...

or the ps3 can become a failure do to being out priced by ms , or bluray can become a failure due to being out priced by hd-dvd and cripple the ps3 .



Its good only looking at the postive sides for sony eh. I like how you put the dig in to ms and only go on to point out sonys strengths and make it all nice and rosey .

Fact is each choice sony has made has a good side and a bad side and its not really up to sony completely if its good or bad , most of it is outside forces .


The 3 lan inputs is going to be used by few people . I wouldn't use my ps3 as a router unless sony wants to give me very good fire walls for free . But that means one more thing running on the ps3 while playing games .

For i would say 99% of those using a ps3 they will already have a router or will be a router to hook up the ps3 too . The only time i can really see it being a perk is if you want to get a lan game with friends and not disturb the home network .

As for the hardrive that is a set back for online gaming . Yes thigns can be saved to memory sticks but as iv'e explained those cost money and the consumer has to foot the bill and for every memory card he has to buy that is x amount of micro transactions he has to pass up on .

Not only that but with out the hardrive even if you want to stream from a hardrive on your pc you will have to acess your network . So not only are you sending data from the ps3 to the internet for gaming but u will be sending maps and perhaps new textures for the maps over the same connection . None of these are ideal nor are they as fast as a local hardrive .

Not only this but if someone else was to use the pc that will slow things down even more for transfering data from the pc over the the ps3 . Not a good idea

As for your idea about setting up code for the game to check if a hardrive is there , well the default set up will be much slower than a x360 is at loading games right off the bat .


What would be interesting (stealing your idea here ) is if after a certian amount of time that the data is unused (user defineable ) the ps3 or x360 compresses that data and sends it from the local drive to the pc drive untill your ready to acess it again .


That way if you have 30 maps for pdz but haven't played it in 5 months its not taking up room on your xbox 20 giger and its sitting in your pcs 200 giger . It will also make it easier for backing data up to cd or dvd

 

[mckmas8808]

As far as the PS3's installed base helping blu-ray become the supported standard, i really can't see how rival movie studios will be in favour of supporting Sony's Entertainment's console, so how is this a benefit?

Umm... I see it as a benefit because of... check this out

Since the introduction of the PSP two Sony titles have hit the 100,000 mark in unit sales, Resident Evil 2 and House of the Flying Daggers. Both titles shipped on April 19th, reaching these numbers within a month of release. To put that in perspective the first DVD title to reach 100K was Air Force One and it took 9 months to reach it.

Hollywood has taken notice on these numbers and all but one are jumping in with select titles that they feel will best play to the PSP's target audience of teens and twenty-somethings.

The only studio sitting out right now is Warner Brothers and the reason is because they have a competing technology called mini-DVD. With the success of UMD sales Paramount, Fox and Universal, who previously agreed to support mini-DVD, have dropped it.

Is that good enough reason for you. Again if movie studios see huge movies sales from a hardware unit they will support it. Remember all of those people saying the UMDs were DOA, well I guess they were wrong LOL.

I told those guys what was going to happen, but they never listen. They keep on doubting Sony. *shakes head*

 

[PC-Engine]

Is that good enough reason for you. Again if movie studios see huge movies sales from a hardware unit they will support it. Remember all of those people saying the UMDs were DOA, well I guess they were wrong LOL

So you actually believe people are going to be building a collection of UMD movies?

Keep deaming buddy.

Know what novelty means?

 

[jvd]

Is that good enough reason for you. Again if movie studios see huge movies sales from a hardware unit they will support it. Remember all of those people saying the UMDs were DOA, well I guess they were wrong LOL.

I consider them in the same situation that mini discs were , sony just trying to make it happen .

We barely have any umd movie choices and they are almost all sony or disney movies .

Just like mini disc even if umd movies is a failure sony will continue to push out titles .

just like i think even if hd-dvd wins sony will continue to push out bluray movies along with hd-dvd



though i must say we have one guy who keeps buying up umd movies , then i told him about psp 9 and he stoped buying them... Seems like that might come back to bite sony in the butt

 

[randycat99]

...or the ps3 can become a failure do to being out priced by ms , or bluray can become a failure due to being out priced by hd-dvd and cripple the ps3 .

^^^^Nobody thinks this sounds even slightly desperate?

Yeah, and Godzilla might decide to have an unscheduled run through Japan, destroying Sony corporate, and then no PS3's for the world... People are chomping at the bit in droves for PS3's. They will buy when they hit the shelves. There's no way around that other than to lock yourself in some magical denial bubble. Sorry to tell ya...

 

[randycat99]

Know what novelty means?

I understand Nintendo is rapidly discovering this meaning...

(c'mon, it's just jokes, people- you know he totally set himself up for that one)

 

[PC-Engine]

Know what novelty means?

I understand Nintendo is rapidly discovering this meaning...

(c'mon, it's just jokes, people- you know he totally set himself up for that one)

Actually I think you meant SONY and its PSP not because of UMD movies but because it has only sold 2.5 million units while DS has sold 5 milllion. I guess people aren't buying the games and instead buying one or two UMD movies.

In other news, Randcat99 goes back to working on improving cooling system...

 

[mckmas8808]

though i must say we have one guy who keeps buying up umd movies , then i told him about psp 9 and he stoped buying them... Seems like that might come back to bite sony in the butt

Yeah I also see this as quite desperate quote to make. What are you talking about Sony and Disney. 5 out of the 6 top movie studios are pushing movies onto the PSP. What are you talking about? How about reading some actually news about the huge numbers that the UMDs are selling at.

Paramount's Viacom buddies, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, and MTV are also jumping on the UMD bandwagon announcing the release of several popular programs including Chappelle's Show and SpongeBob. For mass transit commuters, half-hour TV programs may prove the ideal content for that train and bus ride into work.

USA Today also commented that 70 movie titles have either been announced or released on the PSP, also noting that two UMD titles (House of Flying Daggers, Resident Evil 2) have sold over 100,000 copies (not counting Spider-Man 2, which was packaged in with the PSP).

PC-Engine you see this as of novelty. Explain why the other big boys are putting movies on UMDs so much. The first DVD hit 100,000 copies in 9 months. Two UMDs did it in 1 month. How can you possibly still have a negative appoach to this. Just face it UMDs are the future.

They will never be as big as DVDs but something people will buy for the road. Also think about it two different movies hit 100,000 in one month with only 3 million PSPs. Imagine 12 million PSPs by the end of this year. JVD and PC-Engine I think its more on you to explain how UMDs and Blu-ray movies aren't going to be successful than me and others explaining to you why they are.