The Shrine

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3160812

To sum it up, the 360 warranties are extended to 3 years now. It works retroactively as well, so if you paid the MSoft to fix your red-lit system they will pay you back if yours broek within 3 years of you buying it...... which would be any time between now and the 360 launch I guess. I was going to extend my warranty in January, so it's nice to know that I don't have to anymore.

bovine wrote:http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3160812

To sum it up, the 360 warranties are extended to 3 years now. It works retroactively as well, so if you paid the MSoft to fix your red-lit system they will pay you back if yours broek within 3 years of you buying it...... which would be any time between now and the 360 launch I guess. I was going to extend my warranty in January, so it's nice to know that I don't have to anymore.

Good thing I never bought a warranty...seems my launch model is going to be covered forever at this rate.

kali o. wrote: Good thing I never bought a warranty...seems my launch model is going to be covered forever at this rate.

If by "forever" you mean "November 2008" then sure

I've always been worried about my Xbox, although it's had no signs of damage...nice to know they've upped the warranty. Now I just wish I could find that damned receipt, lol.

Tessian wrote:

kali o. wrote: Good thing I never bought a warranty...seems my launch model is going to be covered forever at this rate.

If by "forever" you mean "November 2008" then sure

I've always been worried about my Xbox, although it's had no signs of damage...nice to know they've upped the warranty. Now I just wish I could find that damned receipt, lol.

"At this rate"...

Seems like every year I'm getting an extension. Frankly, I am not going to be surprised if 2008 rolls around and MS announces all models at or before a certain manufacturing date are covered free of charge and replaced with a newer model.

Great news. It was pretty funny to hear about Microsoft running out of pre-paid boxes due to so many faulty systems being sent in.

Tessian wrote:

kali o. wrote: Good thing I never bought a warranty...seems my launch model is going to be covered forever at this rate.

If by "forever" you mean "November 2008" then sure

I've always been worried about my Xbox, although it's had no signs of damage...nice to know they've upped the warranty. Now I just wish I could find that damned receipt, lol.

You don't need the receipt. Just call 1-800-4-MY-XBOX and talk to them about it. If you can pin the time of the manufacture of your console (you'll give them your 360s serial number) to the time you bought it, you should be covered. Just tell them you bought it about a month or two after you actually did, they'll never know the difference. That'll register your system with Microshaft and your warranty will be good.

I'm calling the fuckers right now to get my warranty extended and to get them to give me the $8 back in shipping I paid for my HD repair.

Of course, since I've only gotten 1 red light a dozen times and 2 red lights once, I'm not eligible for the extension. You see, it's only for those with 3 red lights, the rest of us who've had issues are SOL.

We hates them, stupid filthly Microsoftses

Ouch, it is going to cost them a lot to do this, nice to see they are a company or morals, lol.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/news-521686

Microsoft is set back 1.15 billion for the quarter. Though the real story will be how much Sony is set back for. A billion here, a billion there is no where near as painful to Microsoft as it is to Sony. Still a blow to Microsoft though. They have lost several billion dollars on their Xbox brand.

I wonder what sort of strategies they have in mind to actually turn a profit on the system? If it follows the span of Xbox, then in 2 years there will be an Xbox 1080 (or whatever they want to call it).

The Seeker wrote:Microsoft is set back 1.15 billion for the quarter.

I bet you the money they make from Live alone easily pays for this...

I don't think that entire 1.15bill will be used in this quarter...chances are that's how much money they've added to the budget for the next 3 years to help with this.

The Xbox makes money in a lot more ways than just gross console sales.

Tessian wrote:

The Seeker wrote:Microsoft is set back 1.15 billion for the quarter.

I bet you the money they make from Live alone easily pays for this...

I don't think that entire 1.15bill will be used in this quarter...chances are that's how much money they've added to the budget for the next 3 years to help with this.

The Xbox makes money in a lot more ways than just gross console sales.

This isn't about "just gross console sales" (and Microsoft loses money on that), this is about their quarterly finacials for their entertainment division.

If Xbox Live made up for this, they would not be reporting a quarterly loss of 1.15 billion dollars.

Seeker is right, Microsoft's still losing money on their entertainment division.

Does it really matter that Microsoft loses money off production and refurbs? They still have money to burn.

Black Lotus wrote:Does it really matter that Microsoft loses money off production and refurbs? They still have money to burn.

True, but the division has to make some money starting soon, man. You can't just keep losing money generation after generation

Black Lotus wrote:Does it really matter that Microsoft loses money off production and refurbs? They still have money to burn.

At this rate there won't be an Xbox 3. The sales are poor and it is losing them billions.

The Seeker wrote:
At this rate there won't be an Xbox 3. The sales are poor and it is losing them billions.

Hey everybody! Seeker got a degree in accounting/economics and never even told us!

Since when did the gaming industry become a money pit? It's bigger than ever. Sure it hasn't made really paid off for them yet, but the damned 360 is barely a year and a half old. They keep on coming out with new consoles and updates (Elite, 65nm core soon).

If the gaming industry wasn't making anyone money, especially MS, they'd ditch it. They really don't sound too concerned right now, nice seeing someone looking for the long term rather than "OMG we're not making money on this within 2 months!"

Tessian wrote:

The Seeker wrote:
At this rate there won't be an Xbox 3. The sales are poor and it is losing them billions.

Hey everybody! Seeker got a degree in accounting/economics and never even told us!

Since when did the gaming industry become a money pit? It's bigger than ever. Sure it hasn't made really paid off for them yet, but the damned 360 is barely a year and a half old. They keep on coming out with new consoles and updates (Elite, 65nm core soon).

If the gaming industry wasn't making anyone money, especially MS, they'd ditch it. They really don't sound too concerned right now, nice seeing someone looking for the long term rather than "OMG we're not making money on this within 2 months!"

You don't need an business degree of any sort to understand what a quarterly loss of 1.15 billion dollars is. It is quite simple.

Also, you're being ignorant, the Xbox 360 has been out considerably longer than "2 months!" and hasn't made a profit for any of the 19 months it has been out for.

Also, the president of Microsoft's Entertainment division stating "We don't think we've been getting the job done," hardly sounds as if they're unconcerned.

Yeah, I tend to agree with Seeker, but it brings up a point: How the hell do you manage to not make money in the gaming industry, especially with a really popular console like the 360? And why create consoles that are more expensive to make than is sold? I thought that piece of stupidity in economics went out of style with the Sega Saturn.

SineSwiper wrote:Yeah, I tend to agree with Seeker, but it brings up a point: How the hell do you manage to not make money in the gaming industry, especially with a really popular console like the 360? And why create consoles that are more expensive to make than is sold? I thought that piece of stupidity in economics went out of style with the Sega Saturn.

No, it's more popular than ever. It's the whole issue with reliance on escalating technology like gaming systems. It gets more and more expensive to make these systems and games which increases the break even point even more so. Considering prices have barely moved since the NES days (I used to pay for NES games then what I pay for Wii games now) but development costs have increased ridiculously, it's becoming a much more risky proposition.

It's the same with the systems. You have to be able to meet the horsepower demand to keep the games sexy and to attract those who aren't really gamers since they comprise over 80% of the market (we'll get to Nintendo's strategy in a minute). That's exactly the mentality behind Sega with the Genesis and Saturn consoles and Nintendo up to, i believe, the N64, which was making money from the very first unit on.

Nintendo took a look at this and said "this ain't something we could possibly win on against Sony and Microshaft, so let's change the market". It also really had nothing to do with their software strategy, which is their real competitive advantage. So they took a different direction. The real question is: is the market large and mature enough to move away from style over substance to less stylish games?

It's always been less style more substance on the handhelds, that's why the GBA demolished the Game Gear and Lynx even though it was just a calculator, but can the consoles be like that? I think the market's big and mature enough there's a good chance, but I ain't so sure it's gonna necessarily work for Nintendo. They may have jumped the gun one generation too early but so far, the results are showing that they've had good foresight. We'll see if it lasts the traditional 5-year life cycle. And will them releasing a system only slightly more powerful than the 360 in the next generation gonna work? Will Sony or Microsoft be able to actually come up with a cool-ass interface in the next gen that takes away from Nintendo's thunder while offering a system 5 times more powerful for $100 more?

You actually saw this similar trend in the movie industry during the 90's. T2 comes out and everyone's like "HOLY FUCK, look what we can do with CG!". Add to that the natural big increase in production value and all of a sudden movies were ALL about the style over substance. But the movie industry is far older and more mature of an industry and we saw a quick change after '94 with the release of Pulp Fiction. After that we saw "indie" start attracting big names (through 2000) to the point where it's now become the mainstream. Even though they're still coming, particularly this year (it really has been the return of the blockbusters this year), there's much less reliance on the "blockbuster" now.

I'm just not so sure the games industry is that mature to have the reliance on graphics switch after two generations (I say it started with the PSX/Saturn/N64 and the 3D).

Seems to me Sony and Microsoft are locked in the game industry's version of those airline price wars that nearly drove the airlines bankrupt.

Each one wants to put the other out of business either on graphics or price, and both consoles have become loss leaders so ridiculously unprofitable for the companies that Microsoft's 360 warranty extension is going to cost a billion dollars.

This war is very, very bad for Sony/Microsoft, but it's potentially good for gamers. I'm loving the 360 to death almost, and PS3 games *are* looking incredible, even if nothing else too significant is coming on that front.

It's curious - if gaming were either one of these companies' only business at present, they'd be out of business. But both are multinational giants in other areas, so basically we have two megacorps funneling money into a massive graphics upgrade at more or less their own expense.

I mean, I'd say something, but it's not like if I say anything, they'll go "Golly! You're right! We're going broke on this pricey hardware. We should have done like Nintendo and get out of the graphics wars while we still could." And it's not hurting me, really.

One hopes they know what they're doing in order to avoid a horrible, horrible 1984-style industry slump down the road, however.

Does it not worry anybody that the powerhouse systems with the awesome graphics potentials and advanced hardware aren't doing well compared to the simple system with the funny controller?

I'd be terribley upset if 5 or 10 years down the line console gaming was nothing but what Nintendo did with the Wii, moderate graphics, cute gimmicky controller, with no more MGS4, Gears of War, or Halo 3 looking games.

until they make HD tv signals the mandatory signal, I don't mind seeing the underpowered, SD wii out there. I still think it's too early for HD, it's WAY too complicated for the average consumer. 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p.... composite, component, S-video, hdmi, dvi, vga, it's gotten to a state of retardation that is alienating the average consumer. I bought my 360 before I got a HD television, but that was because I knew I was getting one in the future... and it is the only thing that I actually use my TV for above 480p. Do you guys have regular television HDTV... like digital cable or satellite? I watch a very minimal amount of television (news and cartoons), so I don't think I'll jump aboard until it becomes mandatory. So anyways, until they make the HD market a little more user-friendly, I think that the Wii will dominate and if it doesn't change for Nintendo's next launch, why would they go above 480p?

Eric wrote:Does it not worry anybody that the powerhouse systems with the awesome graphics potentials and advanced hardware aren't doing well compared to the simple system with the funny controller?

I'd be terribley upset if 5 or 10 years down the line console gaming was nothing but what Nintendo did with the Wii, moderate graphics, cute gimmicky controller, with no more MGS4, Gears of War, or Halo 3 looking games.

I'm absolutely terrified that this could happen. While I think there will always be developers putting out the multi-million dollar epics (Square, Konami, Bungie), there's a really good chance most companies will completely shift their focus to casual games. There's much less risk in, say, spending a million dollars on a minigame game for the Wii/DS, than it is to try and make something beautiful, original, and big in scope for the 360/PS3. There's great potential for the market to be flooded with the same uninspired crap in the future.

I was excited for the Wii initially but I've come to resent what it represents for the future of gaming. I will still, however, have to get one for Mario Kart.

Look, my guess is that Sony's in trouble games-wise. I'm not sure Microsoft is, to the same extent.

They're still losing money on the hardware, but they have between five and six million units shipped - which probably means subtract a few hundred thousand to loss or breakage, and that's the installed base. Yes, they're going to eat it on the warranty, but they can afford it right now. Whether or not they've become profitable, they *have* captured the minds and hearts of gamers to a certain extent - Xbox Live is usually considered one of the better game services running, at least as far as I know. And that company has some deep, deep pockets.

Yes, they're fucked WRT the hardware right now, but they *are* winning the market in a certain sense, capturing a very different market from the Wii (hardcore gamers), and I think they're on target to do very well if they can fix their profitability issues WRT to the hardware...

I dunno, maybe Microsoft should buy some failing East Asian chip companies or something.

Zeus wrote:No, it's more popular than ever. It's the whole issue with reliance on escalating technology like gaming systems. It gets more and more expensive to make these systems and games which increases the break even point even more so. Considering prices have barely moved since the NES days (I used to pay for NES games then what I pay for Wii games now) but development costs have increased ridiculously, it's becoming a much more risky proposition.

But, that hardware on the NES could be made with a 50 cent lightbulb, two cans, and a twine of string. The technology is easier than it was with the NES, and it's the developers' fault that it's costing millions of dollars to make a game. You can make a game without spending all of that money on voice actors and "model actors" and foley guys and a baseball team of 3D modelers.

Zeus wrote:You actually saw this similar trend in the movie industry during the 90's. T2 comes out and everyone's like "HOLY FUCK, look what we can do with CG!". Add to that the natural big increase in production value and all of a sudden movies were ALL about the style over substance. But the movie industry is far older and more mature of an industry and we saw a quick change after '94 with the release of Pulp Fiction. After that we saw "indie" start attracting big names (through 2000) to the point where it's now become the mainstream. Even though they're still coming, particularly this year (it really has been the return of the blockbusters this year), there's much less reliance on the "blockbuster" now.

And yet everybody is raving about Spiderman and Transformers. The blockbuster is far from dead, but yes, indie movies (and documentaries) have become valid choices in Hollywood.

Eric wrote:I'd be terribley upset if 5 or 10 years down the line console gaming was nothing but what Nintendo did with the Wii, moderate graphics, cute gimmicky controller, with no more MGS4, Gears of War, or Halo 3 looking games.

They will just end up on the computer systems, where they belong. After all, if you're losing money trying to turn a computer into a console, it's because you're trying to turn a computer into a console.

Black Lotus wrote:I was excited for the Wii initially but I've come to resent what it represents for the future of gaming. I will still, however, have to get one for Mario Kart.

If it means wonky controllers, spending your Wii time voting for stuff and making Miis, and only spending about a hour to real gaming because your hand hurts, then yes, I'm fearful for the future of gaming, too.

See, I'm not so sure that have an "underpowered" Wii is such a bad thing. Has anyone really complained about the graphics on the system? Like I've said a few times, is it such a big deal for this generation, the next few years, to have games looking only twice as good as RE4 rather than better than Gears in HD? Don't forget, Gears in SD still looks only slightly better than RE4 in SD. You really need to get an HD TV to really see the difference. I actually got an HD TV after Gears so I've definitely noticed it, but before that, it was gorgeous, but only slightly above RE4.

So, next generation, we're gonna end up with slightly better than 360 graphics for the Wii2. Really, that ain't so bad. If in 3 or 4 years we're gonna have the full takeover of HD TVs and signals, then maybe that's when it really matters to have one for the vast majority of the population. Right now it doesn't. Heck, only my up-converting DVD player and my 360 are doin' anything more than 480p. And 480p is more than fine for me and I'm more "hardcore" than about 65% of the population.

Really, the user-interface actually became antiquated in the last generation IMO. Nintendo introduced us to a proper analog stick on a console with the N64 and Sony brought is proper rumble and added the second stick. Not an enormous jump (it was still a controller that required you to hold it in your hands and hit buttons) but enough to change things a decent amount. But for the entire Xbox/PS2/GC generation, there was no change in the interface.

What we're seeing now with the Wiimote is just the tip of the iceberg IMO. As neat as it is, it's only got basic sensitivity in a 3D space. Wait until they refine that technology to the point where you don't even need a controller and or you just have a little watch-like device or sensor bar being able to sense your movements. Heck, right now, you could actually have a DDR game that doesn't require a pad if they're inventive (ie. strap the remote to your hip or something). And with the Sony Eyetoy added into the mix, the Youtube generation could increase their vanity to a whole new level.

Graphics in games, like in movies, will soon hit a point where we've gotten past the "wow, look how great that looks" stage to where people are more interested in gameplay just like in movies they've become more interested in story (not completely, but much more than in the mid-90s). We've already seen that shift IMO. Sure Gears and R6 sold well, just like blockbuster movies, but the market for games that aren't focused on graphics is growing considerably with graphic intensive games looking like they're hitting a plateau.

Take a look at any sales charts and you'll see that games that sell consistently aren't necessarily graphic intensive anymore just like nice-looking, CG intensive movies aren't always up there in ticket sales (these last couple of months have been an anomoly and other than Transformers, have all been sequels). By the end of this generation I think you'll see that graphics are gonna become less and less important, more like an expectation to reach a minimum, and complexity in the gameplay elements, such as volume of enemies rather than solely visuals, will be the dominant factors.

Don't get me wrong, I luvs my Gears on my HD, but it's really becoming less and less a factor in the decision making of consumers. I see this every weekend when I visit my bud's EB and the mom and pop shop I go to. And really, even for me as a gamer, I need more now and I have since the beginning of the PSX/N64 era when we first saw the jump to 3D and the re-focus on graphics started. By the end of that generation I started wanted more than just a pretty face. She had to have a brain, too :-)

I really don't see the Games being a problem... Microsoft/Sony are doing poorly with the consoles themselves, not the games.

Huge games like Gears of War, Halo 3, Bioshock, etc do amazing for the developers. Companies will continue to make these huge games because they do very well...it's just as Sine said at the worst we'll see a shift back to PC's because the console hardware is too expensive and high maintenance.

I myself keep switching back between my 360 and PC...one month I'll play nothing but PC, the next 360...just a matter of what I want to play.

The problem with Nintendo, is that they tend to innovate TOO much. The N64's head-first jump into 3D games was a mixture of "oh cool, 3D, this is neat" and "goddamn, this shit is buggy/boring as hell". They couldn't even invent a proper analog stick.

The Wii is just a big huge beta test. It's another "oh cool, gyro controllers, this is neat" and "goddamn, my arm is getting tired and I hate this buggy IR pointer". By the time Nintendo perfects the technology, they will ditch it in favor of the next cool neato thing. Sony will have a Wii-like controller that is near perfect, and Nintendo will force its base to try out the latest psychic controller.

"Oh cool, I can control this with my mind!"
"Goddamn, this is completely chaos! How do I control my brain waves?!"

SineSwiper wrote:The problem with Nintendo, is that they tend to innovate TOO much. The N64's head-first jump into 3D games was a mixture of "oh cool, 3D, this is neat" and "goddamn, this shit is buggy/boring as hell". They couldn't even invent a proper analog stick.

Are you talking about Super Mario 64, which routinely makes every Top 50/Top 100 list compiled by a major gaming publication, and has a 94/100 for critical reviews and a 9.0/10.0 for player reviews on Metacritic?

When I first played Super Mario 64 (a month early - I imported a N64 basically to do so), my sister and friend and I spent half an hour walking around outside the castle, swimming with the fish, jumping off trees, and just interacting with the game system itself, before we even went *in* to the castle. We were enchanted with the graphic quality, the level of interaction, the sense of wonder. It's still one of the more powerful gaming experiences I've had.

Sometimes I wish you'd at least make a basic concession to the fact that many of your derogatory views on things aren't shared by 99% of the world. It doesn't mean you have to think like they do, but you *talk* like everyone else should think like you do, Sine...

I am unsure of this notion of "Xbox supports hardcore gamers" comes from when the two series' with the largest hardcore following are Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy (with Warcraft or Mario probably being third now), neither of which are on an Xbox console.

Most of the gamers who seem to buy Xbox are casual gamers, and it is quite evident in the games that are the top selling games on the console: Call of Duty, Madden, Halo, Gears of War, etc.. Which are all geared toward casual game fans.

I think your lingo is a bit off, Seek. Most people don't consider Gears of War to be a "casual gamer's" game...

The Seeker wrote:Most of the gamers who seem to buy Xbox are casual gamers...

You've gotta be kidding me! The 360 is selling to the hardcore almost exclusively at this point. There is very little "casual" about Gears or Halo.

you count all of those 14 year olds on Live as hardcore?

Yeah, actually. I consider their mothers playing Uno on Live as casual.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:

The Seeker wrote:Most of the gamers who seem to buy Xbox are casual gamers...

You've gotta be kidding me! The 360 is selling to the hardcore almost exclusively at this point. There is very little "casual" about Gears or Halo.

I disagree, Gears of War and Halo are designed for casual play. They do not have hardcore fanbases anywhere near the size or strength as other series' (Zelda, Final Fantasy, Warcraft, Mario, even Street Fighter, Sid Meier's Civilization and Resident Evil). The main marketing point of the Xbox 360 is the graphics, an aspect that appeals more towards the casual gamer and technology gimps, rather than a hardcore gamer. Halo has its hardcore fans, but the vast majority of Halo players are casual gamers just looking for the newest game that they can shoot stuff up in; they just need a graphics and marketing hook.

What sort of games appeal almost exclusively to hardcore gamers? Those released by Working Designs and Monolithsoft come to mind. Few casual gamers will even touch Lunar or Xenosaga. Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy 7, Final Fantasy 8, Starcraft; most hardcore gamers will love at least one of these four games.

The Seeker wrote:I disagree, Gears of War and Halo are designed for casual play. They do not have hardcore fanbases anywhere near the size or strength as other series' (Zelda, Final Fantasy, Warcraft, Mario, even Street Fighter, Sid Meier's Civilization and Resident Evil).

Can somebody else dismantle Seek on this one? I got shit to do today.

"Hardcore" and "casual" have different meanings that from five years ago. "Casual" no longer means frat boys playing Halo. Now it means grandmothers playing Wii Sports.

Yeah, this is the problem. Different definitions of hardcore and casual.

Gears and Halo are not designed for "casual" play as casual play has come to be defined. Casual is Wii Sports, Uno, Solitaire, Nintendogs and PopCap's Flash games. Pretty much anything designed to make full use of a 360's or PS3's controller is not casual.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:Yeah, this is the problem. Different definitions of hardcore and casual.

Gears and Halo are not designed for "casual" play as casual play has come to be defined. Casual is Wii Sports, Uno, Solitaire, Nintendogs and PopCap's Flash games. Pretty much anything designed to make full use of a 360's or PS3's controller is not casual.

What he said... basically these days casual games are for non-gamers.

So the question then becomes: what is Madden considered to be? Casual or Hardcore? I mean, there are a TON of non-gamers who play only sports games and nothing else. They're not really gamers, they just buy the system to play Madden and/or Fifa or something.

I do agree that casual has taken on a new meaning with the popularity of things like Nintendogs or Brain Age or the thousands of Sims games, but what do we call people who are sports-only gamers or ones like them? Hardcore Casual? They generally play more but aren't really gamers.