Peter Moore on X360 worldwide release

[Epiphany]

Appears as though he, and the rest of Microsoft view it as a mistake.

 

"There's a reason no-one has done this before and we are figuring that out," said Xbox marketing boss Peter Moore.

"If we knew what we were getting into, we might not have done it," he admitted at a recent Xbox event in Amsterdam.

 

The downside has been a rush to get the console, the games and the online support ready for the 22 November launch in the US, and in Europe for 2 December and Japan for 10 December.

"We're going to ship all around the world; how we're going to do that, I don't know," said Mr Moore. "We're going to rent every 747 we can find."

 

Not sure about the "rush games" part, as a few titles have slipped from launch day to the launch window release.

[Judge Hades]

Ambitious but a mistake? that remains to be seen. Personally I think a world wide release can be seen as a very good thing. It promotes conformity and that sort of thing is good in sales. I think the only major mistake that the Microsoft crew did is not waiting for the HD-DVD. DVDs are not obsolete in my opinion, but the HD DVD would indeed make X-Box 60 more competitive on a technological stand point.

 

With any luck things will turn out for them but if it doesn't, well Gates has a few spare billions here and there. I am sure MS can weather the loss if it is so.

[Guest Fishboot]

This thread is going places.

[mkreku]

I thought the decision to try and launch the console all over the world at almost the same time was one of the good decisions made by the Xbox 360 team. No, it has never been done before, which is why it's so impressive if they pull it off. I'm betting it'll be worth the hassle once the entire world is grabbed by the same hype on almost the same day (well, same month).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The mistake is that you run out of units in territories that want them and you have them on shelves in territories that dont. Security is also a bit of an issue..

 

The other problem is that a lot of launch titles are just not ready and the rush to get them ready is going to lead to mistakes.

 

Dont see the big deal about a world wide release. Sure if your impatient you get things faster, but by having to wait you have a much wider selection of software to choose from , most of which has already passed inspection in other countries.

[Epiphany]

Ambitious but a mistake?  that remains to be seen.  Personally I think a world wide release can be seen as a very good thing.  It promotes conformity and that sort of thing is good in sales.  I think the only major mistake that the Microsoft crew did is not waiting for the HD-DVD.  DVDs are not obsolete in my opinion, but the HD DVD would indeed make X-Box 60 more competitive on a technological stand point.

 

With any luck things will turn out for them but if it doesn't, well Gates has a few spare billions here and there.  I am sure MS can weather the loss if it is so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I still stick behind their DVD-9 choice - it keeps cost down, and still provides the ability to have hella large games with boat loads of FMV since you can swap media during gameplay.

 

I think the console will easily compete and win on a technological point, since it's a better gaming platform to begin with. As games start to roll out, and people realize that the 360 is putting out higher quality products, on average, the whole disc medium will go unnoticed.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I sense much fear and much desperation. I also sense a lack of confidence in the 360's overall market share.

[Child of Flame]

I still stick behind their DVD-9 choice - it keeps cost down,

 

It does do that, but if you think those savings are passed down to the consumer you are sorely mistaken.

 

and still provides the ability to have hella large games with boat loads of FMV since you can swap media during gameplay.

 

So you are saying having to swap discs is a good thing?!! Do you even read what you post?

 

I think the console will easily compete and win on a technological point, since it's a better gaming platform to begin with.  As games start to roll out, and people realize that the 360 is putting out higher quality products, on average, the whole disc medium will go unnoticed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

These points remain to be seen. Both consoles hardware are pretty similar, minus the crappy storage medium on the Xbox 360, if either console's hardware is better it is the PS3, judging by the Video RAM (360 uses shared RAM, this is never good. ) and possibly the Cell, depending on whether the entirety of it's power can be harnessed. Every time you post that the games are of a higher quality when you haven't even played them yet and the platform is better when you haven't even touched one yet I question your sanity. If anything th gameplay footage from PS3 looks better so far, and no, I am not talking about the Killzone 2 footage, but rather things like the MGS4 footage and the demos with the ducks and such at E3.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Just FYI your paying

[Darque]

If it works, it'll work well.

 

If it doesn't work, they're screwed

[Epiphany]

It does do that, but if you think those savings are passed down to the consumer you are sorely mistaken.

 

When the PS3 is released for over $399 - then you'll see the savings.

 

So you are saying having to swap discs is a good thing?!!  Do you even read what you post?

 

DID I SAY IT WAS A GOOD THING? Do you even read what is written, or do you just throw thoughts/words into people's post to try and pick them apart because you have no substance to your thoughts otherwise?

 

These points remain to be seen.  Both consoles hardware are pretty similar, minus the crappy storage medium on the Xbox 360, if either console's hardware is better it is the PS3, judging by the Video RAM (360 uses shared RAM, this is never good.  ) and possibly the Cell, depending on whether the entirety of it's power can be harnessed. Every time you post that the games are of a higher quality when you haven't even played them yet and the platform is better when you haven't even touched one yet I question your sanity.  If anything th gameplay footage from PS3 looks better so far, and no, I am not talking about the Killzone 2 footage, but rather things like the MGS4 footage and the demos with the ducks and such at E3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Both consoles are not pretty similar. Their architecture is completely different. The X360 was built with gaming in mind first. Xenon was strictly built as a gaming CPU, with various instruction shortcuts that get rid of tedious gaming code. Xenos was built with gaming in mind, on a brand new architecture that also allows developers to do more, since a USA approach will always be superior to a structured pipeline that doesn't run at optimal efficiency.

 

512 meg of shared RAM is better than being stuck with only 256 for video and 256 for the system. It gives developers more choices, which is what they need in order to provide gamers with their "visions" for games. If they only need 128 for video, then they can use the rest for streaming data, if they need 356 for video, then they can have it. How are giving developers options worse than saying you only get one option for video and system? Your logic is flawed.

 

The cell was architectured to be a workstation CPU, not a gaming one. It's FLOP performance, vs ALU performance is evidence of that. Nvidia bailed the console out by giving them the RSX, which at least allows the console to push "next gen" graphics, but the poor ALU performance on Cell leaves the console on the short end of the stick for everything that's not FLOP - mainly AI.

 

MGS4 was a cinematic trailer - it was purely scripted down to the last bit of dust. Yes it was kinda pretty, but it is not representative of gameplay, unless, of course, you want to play 100% scripted games where you have no effect on the outcome... The PS3 doesn't lack graphical power, it lacks the power to compete with the X360 on all almost all other fronts.

[mkreku]

512 meg of shared RAM is better than being stuck with only 256 for video and 256 for the system.  It gives developers more choices, which is what they need in order to provide gamers with their "visions" for games.  If they only need 128 for video, then they can use the rest for streaming data, if they need 356 for video, then they can have it.  How are giving developers options worse than saying you only get one option for video and system?  Your logic is flawed.

Really? So, if that was true, why isn't every computer in the world built with shared RAM, if it is so superior? You just don't understand anything beyond the hype of Microsoft, do you?

The PS3 doesn't lack graphical power, it lacks the power to compete with the X360 on all almost all other fronts.

The rest of the world must wait and see on this.. Except for Epiphany because he has read Microsoft's hype!!1!

[Darque]

Maybe he works for M$ as a developer?

[Guest Fishboot]

M$! M$! I LIEK MILK

[Child of Flame]

It does do that, but if you think those savings are passed down to the consumer you are sorely mistaken.

 

When the PS3 is released for over $399 - then you'll see the savings.

 

So you are saying having to swap discs is a good thing?!!  Do you even read what you post?

 

DID I SAY IT WAS A GOOD THING? Do you even read what is written, or do you just throw thoughts/words into people's post to try and pick them apart because you have no substance to your thoughts otherwise?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I snipped off the last part of the post because mkreku covered it pretty well.

 

As for the first part, if the only savings you are talking about is the initial console price tag (I thought you were ranting about the actual games costing more) then yes, so long as the PS3 doesn't release above $550 I see no problem. It has a lot more power than the Xbox 360 from everything I can tell, and when you factor in that Blu-Ray is going to be what DVDs turn into, well, it's a good deal, as Blu-Ray players are gonna be hella expensive at first.

 

As for you saying it was a good thing, I used me 1337 reading comprehension skills there to infer that at the very least you weren't saying it was a bad thing because of this statement:

 

and still provides the ability to have hella large games with boat loads of FMV since you can swap media during gameplay.

 

Basically, what I got out of this was "Hey, it's not like it's a big deal, we can just put the games on ten different discs and swap them out!!!"If anyone read this differently, please speak up.

[alanschu]

An interesting snippet from my very first lecture in my AI course this year:

 

Trends Since 90's

 

Relying less on logic and more on probability and statistics

[Epiphany]

Really? So, if that was true, why isn't every computer in the world built with shared RAM, if it is so superior? You just don't understand anything beyond the hype of Microsoft, do you?

 

Because the fact that the Xbox has 64 megs of shared memory, and is capable of running games that a computer with the exact same specs couldn't begin to think about running. You simply don't understand the fundamental concept that consoles aren't personal computers.

 

The rest of the world must wait and see on this.. Except for Epiphany because he has read Microsoft's hype!!1!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Says the guy that refutes everything he doesn't understand.

[Child of Flame]

If I was able to build a barebones computer with no OS to speak of I bet it could run the same types of games as the Xbox with the same specs, but then, you know, it'd be an Xbox.

[Epiphany]

If I was able to build a barebones computer with no OS to speak of I bet it could run the same types of games as the Xbox with the same specs, but then, you know, it'd be an Xbox.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Xbox has an OS.

[Child of Flame]

It has pretty much the tiniest OS ever, just like all other consoles.

 

A PC has to have better specs to run the same quality games because it has a freaking huge OS doing all sorts of things in the background.

 

I should totally get on making a gaming OS, all just running the games and not much else, you could install it on a second partition or what not for gaming.

[mkreku]

Because the fact that the Xbox has 64 megs of shared memory, and is capable of running games that a computer with the exact same specs couldn't begin to think about running.  You simply don't understand the fundamental concept that consoles aren't personal computers.

 

So you're implying that because the Xbox has shared memory, it will outperform an ordinary PC with the same 'stats' when it comes to gaming? Are you retarded? Do you honestly think that the shared memory is why a console is better at running games than a PC..? And then you accuse me of not knowing the difference between a console and a PC..

 

You're so far off it's not even worth trying to explain reality to you.

 

Edit: Typos.

Edited October 15, 2005 by mkreku

[Epiphany]

So you're implying that because the Xbox has shared memory, it will outperform an ordinary PC with the same 'stats' when it comes to gaming? Are you retarded? Do you honestly think that the shared memory is why a console is better at running games than a PC..? And then you accuse me of not knowing the difference between a console and a PC..

 

You're so far off it's not even worth trying to explain reality to you.

 

Edit: Typos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you had any intelligence of your own, you'd realize that shared memory was one of the many factors that allowed the Xbox to perform the way it did, versus a PC with higher specs. 64 of shared is simply a better choice vs 32 video and 32 system. Of course, it must be a horrible idea, since developers love the freedom it provides, and the fact it's a proven formula for success in a closed system environment.

 

But hey, I'm retarded, so **** off.

[Child of Flame]

VOTE NOW!

[alanschu]

If you had any intelligence of your own, you'd realize that shared memory was one of the many factors that allowed the Xbox to perform the way it did, versus a PC with higher specs.  64 of shared is simply a better choice vs 32 video and 32 system.  Of course, it must be a horrible idea, since developers love the freedom it provides, and the fact it's a proven formula for success in a closed system environment.

 

But hey, I'm retarded, so **** off. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That depends. Onboard video chips that utilize the same memory as the system perform worse than equal memory amounts that are separate on PC boxes.

 

Shared memory isn't always better.

[Judge Hades]

RAM is RAM, shared or not. It is all a matter of resources being used. Shared RAM that has next to no resources being ran on will be faster than nonshared RAM trhat is full up. The reverse is also true.

Edited October 16, 2005 by Hades_One