X-Box2? neXt-Box? X-Box3000? X-Box XP? Or the Y-Box (Good Question)
Where is the X-Box going?
Well, well, well. Microsoft have announced that they want the X-Box2 to be released in late 2005. This will mean that their next console will be the first of the Next Generation. They want to steal a march on Sony (and, secretly, Nintendo, of whom they have become terrified).
In effect, Microsoft are willing to ditch their much vaunted X-Box for newer technology. Financially, the X-Box has been fairly disastrous for Microsoft, and it is no secret that the US giant is massively disappointed with their market share (So-so in the US and Europe, abysmal in Japan.) Even Nintendo, who have had their problems in recent years, are still turning massive profits; X-Box, meanwhile, is haemorrhaging money.
The X-Box has been a difficult lesson for Microsoft who are used to defeating and then feasting upon their boiling remains of their opponents; Microsoft are not used to losing and, privately, Microsoft minions have started to analyse their failures. In their infinite wisdom (phewww) they have concluded that the X-Box failed because Playstation 2 was released 12 months before the X-Box. They have decided to give Sony a taste of their own medicine: Microsoft have decided to jump the gun.
In fact, this is another example of Microsoft's misreading of the market, and a total ignorance of Video Game history. Does anyone remember the Dreamcast? Sega followed exactly the same strategy as Microsoft, and decided that all they needed to do to beat Sony was to claim 'first move advantage' and release the Dreamcast well in advance of the PS2.
The Dreamcast bombed in a fairly spectacular way, and it nearly put Sega out of business and ended their run as a major hardware manufacturer. I loved the Dreamcast, as a matter of fact, but it was flawed in some areas (the modem a case in point) and it was probably too expensive on release BUT it was certainly more powerful than the PS1... but this didn't matter to most people because they were happy with their Playstations. And it was far easier for developers to support the existing PS1 (of which there were millions), rather than spend massive amounts of money on development kits on the Dreamcast (of which there were none). Developers did not take that risk, and instead stuck with the PS1.
Translate this to now: Even if the X-Box 2 IS an inventive and innovative machine (which is a bit of an ask) why will developers spend money on expensive new technologies and development kits when they know that, initially, there will only be around 2-3 million X-Box 2s out there as opposed to the tens of millions of existing PS2s? It simply doesn't make business sense. Microsoft are trying to force developers to dance to their tune, and many of these developers do not want to dance; they don't even need to.
That is not to say that there will be no games for the X-Box2; I'm sure that Satan Incarnate Trip Hawkins will gladly invest in Bill Gate's new project (hey, there are share prices at stake here) but the smaller developers might not be so keen... and these smaller developers are KEY to the success of any console, no matter how good that console is. It was a contributing factor as to why the PlayStation (poor console) trounced the Saturn (good console); it was a contributing factor as to why the GameBoy Advance (good console) trounced the N-Gage (poor console).
In effect, Microsoft are trying to meddle with the natural cycle of the video games industry.
Even Sony have never tried that; like Nintendo, and Sega in years gone by, their new technology arrives on the market every five years or so. The X-Box2, however, will arrive LESS THAN FOUR YEARS after the first X-Box. By forcing the industry into a next generation with technology that IS NOT YET WANTED, Microsoft are going to annoy a lot of people - not only developers, but fans who are going to feel cheated that they spent their hard earned cash on something that has become obsolete just because Microsoft says so.
Simply put, Microsoft do not have that kind of power in the video game market. Only Sony have the kind of clout that could force this kind of shift. But, frankly, Sony have never needed to do this. Why? Because they know their market. Personally, I do not think Sony are particularly bothered about video games but then neither are their core audience. This is why Sony have succeeded; they know who they are, and they know their audience. Microsoft, on the other hand, do not know anything, apart from how to hold the world to ransom with their dodgy operating systems.
