Things the Xbox 360 needs to do to succeed?

[Rangers]

I was listening to Takahashi's new interview with Peter Moore and it struck me I kind of have philosophical differences with him on some directions of the business. Not all these specifically relate to that but here are some things I think ms could do to ensure continued 360 success, and or a greater amount thereof.

One they talked about Devs, Takahashi mentioned Sony has 2500 employees under first party devs. Microsoft only has about 1100. Moore doesnt think they need to increase that number, because he said exclusive third party ms published games are basically to the consumer, the same thing. The examples he gave included Gears and Mass Effect. He asked, why do they need to own Epic for Gears to do well?

Well I disagree, I'm not saying they should match Sony but first party exclusives will be crucial, and the amount of dev employees ms has should be upped in my opinion. It should be a focus. Exclusives are a huge part of the battle.

Another thing is MMO's. Too me whoever develops the first decent MMORPG will have a HUGE market edge and just stun console gamers by bringing them something the mainstream (wow notwithstanding) is not accustomed to, and it could blow the doors off. Awesome things could be done by using gamepad controls and being more actiony imo as well. The mic is already there to further just make a possible awesome experience. These games take so much time to do well, so it should be a priority yesterday. Peter on the other hand seemed to think it was no big deal, and played up the marvel comics MMO they have coming (which I'm not familiar with).

Third is right now they need to be really aggresive on price. PS3 is languishing but wait till some games and price drops hit. They are playing with fire imo. They need the top unit (premium) at 299 pronto.

Four, I'd say the need to make Live Gold fully free. It's just another unnecessary barrier to a great experience, and really dont think that $50 helps their bottom line that much. They sell so much on the Live now such as movies and everything else, that the money is there, and niggling people to pay for the basic service isn't a good idea imo.

So you can add any comments or your ideas..

Edited in link to interview:http://www.mercextra.com/listen/index.php?id=271

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Another thing is MMO's. Too me whoever develops the first decent MMORPG will have a HUGE market edge and just stun console gamers by bringing them something the mainstream (wow notwithstanding) is not accustomed to, and it could blow the doors off. Awesome things could be done by using gamepad controls and being more actiony imo as well. The mic is already there to further just make a possible awesome experience. These games take so much time to do well, so it should be a priority yesterday. Peter on the other hand seemed to think it was no big deal, and played up the marvel comics MMO they have coming (which I'm not familiar with).

Xbox 360 is getting three big MMO's this year, Huxley, Age of Conan and Warhammer: Age of Reckoning

 

[PiNkY]

I actually agree with Moore on this. Obviously you need some 1st party developers to be able to have stuff for launch and in those dry summer months. However they also tend to scare 3rd parties away if they dominate the plattform sales (see Nintendo, where it was always hard to compete with their own studios). A large variety of small and -more or less- independent developers, all with their distinct working culture will propably on the whole provide more interesting content then a small number of monolithic companies.

 

[one]

Yeah, it's well known that Microsoft have an unlimited supply of money and is out of the law of economy... or maybe not.

 

[Gubbi]

I was listening to Takahashi's new interview with Peter Moore and it struck me I kind of have philosophical differences with him on some directions of the business. Not all these specifically relate to that but here are some things I think ms could do to ensure continued 360 success, and or a greater amount thereof.

One they talked about Devs, Takahashi mentioned Sony has 2500 employees under first party devs. Microsoft only has about 1100. Moore doesnt think they need to increase that number, because he said exclusive third party ms published games are basically to the consumer, the same thing. The examples he gave included Gears and Mass Effect. He asked, why do they need to own Epic for Gears to do well?

Well I disagree, I'm not saying they should match Sony but first party exclusives will be crucial, and the amount of dev employees ms has should be upped in my opinion. It should be a focus. Exclusives are a huge part of the battle.

I think they are relying on PC devs crossing over to 360. These are de-facto exclusive, so no need to make exclusive deals here. The only reason for them to actually own a developer would be to ensure a level of quality, considering the quality of some of the 3rd party titles, this doesn't seem necessary at all.

Another thing is MMO's. Too me whoever develops the first decent MMORPG will have a HUGE market edge and just stun console gamers by bringing them something the mainstream (wow notwithstanding) is not accustomed to, and it could blow the doors off. Awesome things could be done by using gamepad controls and being more actiony imo as well. The mic is already there to further just make a possible awesome experience. These games take so much time to do well, so it should be a priority yesterday. Peter on the other hand seemed to think it was no big deal, and played up the marvel comics MMO they have coming (which I'm not familiar with).

MMOs require a (big) dedicated server backend that has to be financed in some way. This means people have to fork out extra cash on a monthly basis to play these games. This might not jive with the casual gamer profile of the average 360 user. Down the line with more units out I'm sure we'll see some subscription based MMOs. But might as well be 3rd party.

Four, I'd say the need to make Live Gold fully free.

Fully agree.

Cheers

 

[inefficient]

He asked, why do they need to own Epic for Gears to do well?

Just the fact that Epic's Unreal Engine3 is an official part of the PS3 SDK is a bit of a blow to MS. I'm sure they wish they could have had that tech to themselves.

And even if Gears stays exclusive, who is to say that they won't have exclusives for the other side as well. Epic could be persuaded to do the exact same thing for Sony. And then all that money MS poured into them which helped them grow as a company and improve their tech could be used against them on a different platform. I'm not saying any such title is in the works - just that this risk for MS exists.

Side topic - I wonder how much of the Gears game Epic would have to change in order to get around the exclusivity contract if they had to. A name change of course, renaming and changing the apperence of the main characters, renaming the enemy combatants, give them a slightly different backstory. Would that be sufficient to call it a different game al together? I don't think MS holds any rights to the Gears art assets, probably just characters and overall story idea. Or do they fully own the characters and story and could essentially make a "Gears of War: Sigma" in the future?

Another advantage to having your own developers, as opposed to basically contracting jobs out, is that you can pool and share your knowledge more freely. Lessoned learned by one team become lessoned learned by all. This improves the rate you are able to master the system.

 

[Rangers]

Yeah, it's well known that Microsoft have an unlimited supply of money and is out of the law of economy... or maybe not.

I am not saying they have unlimited money but sometimes they are too cautious with their money imo.

How long they are lagging on going to 299 falls into that area as well imo. They are already way ahead of Xbox on profitability, now they need to buck up a little bit imo..

 

[assen]

One they talked about Devs, Takahashi mentioned Sony has 2500 employees under first party devs. Microsoft only has about 1100.

Have in mind that in Japanese studios the workflow is very different, and the same game is done with more developers - somebody on a mailing list called it "the human wave approach to programming". Of course, not all of Sony's studios are in Japan, but still it's not the 2.5x difference it seems to be at first glance.

 

[baten]

I am not saying they have unlimited money but sometimes they are too cautious with their money imo.

How long they are lagging on going to 299 falls into that area as well imo. They are already way ahead of Xbox on profitability, now they need to buck up a little bit imo..

Price cut isnt necessarly followed imediatly by huge boosts in sales. MS will probably not be the first to make this cut. Right now they are squeezed by the Wii, if they make the core 250$ and not surpass Wii in sales - it will look rather bad. I think bundling is more of a right option, until Sony will cut their price (Ninty is usually last in this cutting game).

MS is currently playing very well their cards. They have a good machine, they have the right games (probably more jRPG would come in handy) and keep getting more, they have the right price (in regard to the others). Now is their time to get feedback on how the others are playing their cards.

I agree they need to make Live! free, and probably they will in the end.

 

[tuna]

Here in Sweden MS has effectively lowered the price. IIRC, Premium was 4000 SEK at launch, before xmas you could get different bundles (Prem + 1 game) for around 3500 SEK and now the ads I have seen list Prem as 3000 SEK.

10 SEK =~ 1 Euro

 

[baten]

Here in Sweden MS has effectively lowered the price. IIRC, Premium was 4000 SEK at launch, before xmas you could get different bundles (Prem + 1 game) for around 3500 SEK and now the ads I have seen list Prem as 3000 SEK.

10 SEK =~ 1 Euro

Was this ad online or on a mag?

 

[Graham]

Well I think they are experimenting on price somewhat, but only in smaller markets.
We had the Core+Kameo for $450nz before christmas, competing with the Wii which is still $500.

Four, I'd say the need to make Live Gold fully free. It's just another unnecessary barrier to a great experience, and really don't think that $50 helps their bottom line that much. They sell so much on the Live now such as movies and everything else, that the money is there, and niggling people to pay for the basic service isn't a good idea imo.

Either make it free or give significant other benefits. Timed released on content isn't really a benefit, but (say) the odd free XBLA game, themes, whatnot, would help people feel better about paying for the service.
I'd be inclined to say it's probably a very significant money earner for them. 5 million silver/gold for the 360 alone, say it's 50/50 silver/gold, and you are looking at $100m+/year. Thats not insignificant. It's one of the few profitable divisions in the xbox camp.

 

[baten]

Well I think they are experimenting on price somewhat, but only in smaller markets.
We had the Core+Kameo for $450nz before christmas, competing with the Wii which is still $500.



Either make it free or give significant other benefits. Timed released on content isn't really a benefit, but (say) the odd free XBLA game, themes, whatnot, would help people feel better about paying for the service.
I'd be inclined to say it's probably a very significant money earner for them. 5 million silver/gold for the 360 alone, say it's 50/50 silver/gold, and you are looking at $100m+/year. Thats not insignificant. It's one of the few profitable divisions in the xbox camp.

100 mil$ is just the revenue, you need to substract whatever the servers costs, and the money you have to pay to different game publishers that have games played on LIVE!. In the end, for MS is peanuts, compared to the bilions they have already wasted.
They will happily drop the charge on Live is PSNetwork (or how it is called) is going to even remotly show some succes. LIVE is MS strongest feature, and can be a differentiator one way or another.

 

[Qroach]

100 mil$ is just the revenue, you need to substract whatever the servers costs, and the money you have to pay to different game publishers that have games played on LIVE!. In the end, for MS is peanuts, compared to the bilions they have already wasted.
They will happily drop the charge on Live is PSNetwork (or how it is called) is going to even remotly show some succes. LIVE is MS strongest feature, and can be a differentiator one way or another.

The server costs are minuscule compared to the amount of revenue xbox live brings in. It's not that costly to run a service like this. I'd say live is probably 80% profit for them.

Um, I'm not sure what you mean, but MS doesn't pay publishers to have their games on live. Publishers only get money from microsoft for additional sales on add-ns or other downloads they choose to charge for ( on top of the membership fee).

 

[Arwin]

Um, I'm not sure what you mean, but MS doesn't pay publishers to have their games on live.

Wasn't it in fact the other way around, and didn't publishers have to pay MS some kind of fee for Live use?

 

[baten]

Wasn't it in fact the other way around, and didn't publishers have to pay MS some kind of fee for Live use?

That would mean MS is getting money for online multiplayer from both the gamers AND and publishers - so everybody should be better off on some other platform.

 

[superNoid]

I wouldnt' be surprised if MS has already laid an offer on the table to buy Epic. Seeing how popular Gears was, and KNOWING it will be a trilogy in the smallest portion (new AAA franchise), MS will likely try and seize Epic for themselves.

Like someone else mentioned, in doing so they secure the rights to the Unreal engine(s), which is more the enough reason to fork over the capital to buy Epic. Just my thoughts...

 

[tuna]

Was this ad online or on a mag?

Well, the one I can confirm was from a normal electronics retailer (Siba). It was in the pamphlet they stuff in my mailbox every week.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Komplett.se: 3590 bundless, 3895 bundled (TDU)

 

[dobwal]

I wouldnt' be surprised if MS has already laid an offer on the table to buy Epic. Seeing how popular Gears was, and KNOWING it will be a trilogy in the smallest portion (new AAA franchise), MS will likely try and seize Epic for themselves.

Like someone else mentioned, in doing so they secure the rights to the Unreal engine(s), which is more the enough reason to fork over the capital to buy Epic. Just my thoughts...

Doesn't MS already own the IP to GeOW? Why buy Epic, when MS can simply leverage the resources of themselves and the studios they already own and produce a rival product for cheaper than the cost of purchasing Epic.