Xenon info?

[Qroach]

Tecmo Pres Praises Xbox Next
Microsoft apparently more open than Sony.

November 19, 2004 - Tecmo President Junji Nakamura took a few shots at Sony Computer Entertainment's next generation offerings earlier today during Tecmo's quarterly press briefing in Tokyo. Regarding SCE's push for the PlayStation 3, Nakamura said: "We don't feel the heat." This is in comparison to Microsoft's heated worldwide lobbying efforts for developers to develop product for the next generation Xbox system.

Nakamura's comments didn't end there. "There's no information from Sony. It's very different from Microsoft America," he stated, hinting that MS has been the more open of the two companies with its next generation plans. Getting a bit more up front in his criticisms, Nakamura commented that Sony's cooperation with the home appliance industry gives him the feeling that game functionality is being added as just a part of the picture.
While Nakamura feels that the Xbox is going nowhere in Japan, the next generation Xbox has a different fate in his eyes. Nakamura expects Microsoft to make use of the experience it earned in this generation to make the system a "formidable success" in Japan.

We'd suggest that Dead or Alive fans be in line for Xbox Next on launch day.

kinda interesting. I'm not suprised there isn't any official PS3 info being given out.

 

[Readykilowatt]

The GCN is cute but ultra fugly if you consider the purple one.

The Nintendo Gamecube comes in three main colours, Jet, Indigo and Platinum.

 

[Vince]

They are pushing it for the benefit of BOTH platforms. It's not only in working in a single direction. What's your problem exactly? What wrong with a company that is already entrenched in creating developer tools with making MORE tools that will make porting easier between the platforms they support?

I've already stated my belief for their reason underlying XNA (Which I think is pretty transparent) and that it is nothing but textbook marktplace cannibalization.

If you want to take their line that they are ostensibly in it for the games on both platforms, then buy into it. Whatever. Yet, I think an objective look -- as tuttle has done -- will show static or near-static developer growth and MS's is aiming to increase this. The pieces fit.

You're totally wrong Vince! When was the last time YOU tried to negotiate a game development deal with a publisher? Oh that's right never! Or when was the last time you worked on a PC port of a game project Vince? Oh that's right, NEVER. If the transition from PC to Xbox or ANY platform for that matter is a "degenerative process" then why in gods name are companies making money doing this??

Wow, an Appeal to Authority. Is it going to work? No.

And to state it's not a degenerative process when you move from an open platform like the PC to a closed platform like a console is sheerly asinine. You're moving from supporting a plathora (more like infinite bound) number of hardware compositions down to a single on -- that, my friend, is degenerative. It's also lucrative for that very reason, simple to port, simple to support, huge potential upside in the platform size. Try understanding what I'm saying before responding.

Just as an example. Remedy entertainment developed Max Payne on and for the PC without a single though of porting it. Rockstar saw there was money in porting that game to both PS2 and XBOX. The PS2 port team (guys I happen to know and have worked with) went through 8 months of pure hell trying to get that game running on the PS2. They had a big team working on it and Rockstar spent quite a lot of money getting it out the door. The Xbox version took a fraction of the time to port (less than 1/4) with a team almost half the size. The PS2 version of course sold over a million units in North America, with the Xbox version reaching the around 600 (possibly higher I forget the final numbers).

This is supporting My Case -- it's a degenerative process to go from the PC -> Console. If you're sholdering the upfront burdens of the PC architecture, then porting to a console is a massive gain since it's degenerative. It's the inverse, the condition you believe XNA is targetted at (Console -> PC) thats prohibitive for anytitle that's not a million seller or another GTA.

So what you are trying to tell me, is that the port from PC-Xbox wouldn't bring in as much money - ROI - (due to the user base) as the PC-ps2 port, and becuase of this it's not worth it in the long run? You're telling me it's not worth it even though the Xbox port took less than a quarter of the time compared to PS2 with half the team size, there by reducing the overhead on the port, and it's still not worth it? That's idiotic man.

No, that's not what I've stated. No, you have no concept of what I stated -- perhaps read it again. Yes, you look foolish for supporting my case in the upside of moving from the [PC] -> [Console], but not the inverse. Thank you for your help.

There are plenty of games that have been ported from console to the PC because it's looked like extra revenue (depending on how easy the job is). If it requires a big team to port a game from console to PC, then it may NOT be worth it. If you can do it with a very small team, the return on investment could be excellent. Especially when you consider a single PC game sold can generate MORE profit than a single console game sold, due to the fees paid to MS, SONY or Nintendo.

If transitioning from ANY console to the PC is a degenerative process, then why do some of the biggest publishers out there, EA, UBISOFT, Rockstar, Vivendi, even bother porting most of their products to the PC? Why? ....Becuase there's freaking money to be had. Anytime you don't need a full team to create a port, and you don't need to spend a year on it, there's a chance you can make additional money.

When did I state that going from the [Console] -> [PC] is degenerative? I stated the exact opposite! Do you even read what I write or do you just hit the repond button? I stated:

• The transition from the PC to the XBox is a degenerative process, you're narrowing the potential externalities and associated costs. Going to the PC is the inverse and immensely expensive in fixed ways that aren't related to "porting" or the code-base.

And where are all of the smaller titles that go from a [Console] to the [PC]? It just doesn't happen since it's not fiscally favorable for any but the biggest of titles from the large dev houses or a break-out title backed by the billion-dolla publishing houses.

The entire concept behind having a unified toolset is to minimize the need to write different sets of code. If this "toolset" saves you money/time on porting, then it's worth it's weight in gold.

Oh, so now you're telling me the toolset is the limiting condition in the transition from a [Console] -> [PC]? Why do I think you're wrong, why do I think the price differential between the coding aspects are nothing compared to the art assets and creation, the API support, languages, the support of the game post-launch, etc.

Actually, I already stated this and you just misinterpreted it since you love telling me I'm wrong:

• Saying "the easier the port, the less is costs" doesn't mean anything holistically if you move the threshold by 1/10th the amount necessary to see a positive net ROI.

How so? Look at Nintendo's costs and hardware design, and then come back and tell me that the approach MS is taking is all that different to what Nintendo did this generation. Despite Nintendo not legally owning the architectures, they still have hardware that costs the least to manufacture.

Again, stop thinking about this from sheerly a Microsoft cost-basis view and realize that I was explicitly talking about their technological content. Didn't my constant comments long the lines of:

• And I just stated that the only way it's different is in them legally owning the architectures. What I also stated, that you didn't address, is how this is different outside of what is strictly a fiscal matter -- how is the engineering different? The GPU is a PC derivative, the CPU looks to be an offshoot of the 65nm Power designs... where's the difference in architectural design? Did ATI and IBM and Microsoft form a group and work together?

Isn't it funny how much I have to repeat myself since you're debating a strawman?

 

[Ty]

To Readykilowatt

Yes, that's it. Indigo. Pretty asstasstic.

 

[Squeak]

The GCN is cute but ultra fugly if you consider the purple one.

The Nintendo Gamecube comes in three main colours, Jet, Indigo and Platinum.

We've been toying a bit with colour settings in PS have we?
GC is not straight purple, neither is it blue, it's kind of dusty bluish mauve.

 

[Inane_Dork]

Hmm, interesting, eh?

The insane ravings of a warped old man? Not that interesting. I like how everyone's future, according to him, is so predicated on luck. That explains so much about Nintendo's steady decline in popularity.

 

[Readykilowatt]

The insane ravings of a warped old man?

I wish I was as "insane" as he is.

Not that interesting. I like how everyone's future, according to him, is so predicated on luck.

Luck is very important in the entertainment industry as with any business. You can do everything that you believe is "right" in running a business, but that alone does not guarantee success. What if some unforeseen event occurs that creates a downturn in the gaming industry? Who do you think would be the biggest loser if such an event was to occur? When running a company you have to be extra careful not to invest too much or too little. Sony is playing a very high risk game IMO. If they can sell 75 million + PS2s and can't post a profit in their gaming division, you as well as I know that something is wrong. Nintendo (knowing what happened to Sega, 3DO, etc.) is not going to play Sony's "game". It's good to see that Microsoft apparently agrees with Nintendo here. It was not wise to lose billions of dollars in an industry that essentially resets itself every 5 years.

That explains so much about Nintendo's steady decline in popularity.

Yet they still manage to make millions of dollars in profits every year. I wonder what will happen when, not if, but when their popularity begins to rise.

 

[Inane_Dork]

I wish I was as "insane" as he is.

The fact that no one here can say anything negative about Nintendo without you resorting to N's profit indicates your insanity matches his.

Luck is very important in the entertainment industry as with any business. [snip]blah blah blah[/snip]

Show me successful, growing companies that depend on luck.

Yet they still manage to make millions of dollars in profits every year.

Run back to your profit margin fortress. Fine by me.

I wonder what will happen when, not if, but when their popularity begins to rise.

*shrugs*

The future is not certain. If it were, there'd be no such thing as luck.

 

[Readykilowatt]

The fact that no one here can say anything negative about Nintendo without you resorting to N's profit indicates your insanity matches his.

Run back to your profit margin fortress. Fine by me.

I'm sure that all the CEO's of major corporations hate profits.

Show me successful, growing companies that depend on luck.

They do not "depend on luck" (that's a ridiculous statement), but luck does play a role in business.

The future is not certain. If it were, there'd be no such thing as luck.

I guess you were one of the many people who bought the argument that luck has absolutely nothing to do with the stock market. Yes, I know the 5 "P"s (Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance) but you cannot plan for every contingency.