Hmm. I tend to disagree. A lot of XBOX owners are ex PC gamers (or at least as EX as you can get) that are used to spending $200-$300 every six months. Now for me form the PC Gaming experience spending $300 bucks every 3 years would not even get a second thought. It's an upgrade and I would be there on the very first day.

I probably tend to agree here but we do have to get one thing straight. To me the masses are PS2 owners, out of XBOX owners I think that the adoption rate will be between 30-50%. And again this is something that I have been waiting for a while and when XBOX goes live so will I and a lot of my friends.

Some of us wouldn’t even had bought XBOX if it wasn’t for the broadband gaming.

How do you figure that?

Why would they do that?

I thought that's how it was supposed to be?? Anyone have any info on that subject?

Ok I forgot you have to be pretty specific around here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of my friends who are XBOX owners are ex PC gamers...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of my hardcore friends (including myself) are used to spending $200-$300 every six months, on new CPUS, Graphics cards, sound cards and speakers to have the latest and greatest PC gaming experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that was clear enough for you and I was just trying to bring a different perspective to this conversation. The perspective of somebody who wants a new console every 3 years.

That was my understanding for the new Xbox thats coming out soon. A standard Xbox with DVR capabilites added and a bigger harddrive. The true Xbox 2 will be years away.

Okay, good, that's what I thought. Thanks for the info.

It sounds like the article is discussing Microsoft building a current Xbox into a video recorder, not making a new console for next year.

My question is whether Microsoft can stay committed to a money-losing product in today's skittish market.

They've got 40 billion in cash, and the living room is very profitable, so I think they can.

Sure the hardest of the hardcore gamers and the PC gamers that have bought an X-box wouldn't mind upgrading in less than 5 years.

But the average gamer would be very pissed off about it, and it's these gamers that make or break a consoles success.

Hardcore gamers are an extreme minority.

Their stock has lost half its value in the past year or 2.

How do you figure that? The few attempts there have been at integration in the living room have failed. The best success story is probably the PS2 and a game machine that poorly plays DVDs isn't that great integration-wise.

That doesn't mean they are hurting too badly. It's still around the $50 mark. Let's put it this way: They aren't going to be going out of business because of the Xbox. They are going to be around for a very long time. And, try and give an example of a stock that hasn't lost half its value in the past year or 2. I think those stocks(if there are any) are in the minority.

Okay, fine, I apologize. I really don't know anything about the living room being profitable, but I feel that if Microsoft is willing to put that much money into making a set-top box that has a ton of features, it could be profitable. What I'm thinking is, if they can add a ton of features and make it as easy to use as Xbox Live looks like it's gonna be, some, maybe even most of the average Americans will buy it.

How do you figure? Thats been their focus for a year and a half. At least. MS is throwing nearly the whole company at that goal. The new OEM OS is as straight forward an entertainment center as you can get. Its called XP Media center ferchristsake. They will merge and when MS is commited theyre commited.

And where did they lose half their stock value in the past two years? Dont let the facts stand in the way of what you want to believe.

Thanks for the info joltaddict. I knew their stock wasn't doing that badly!

Just because they're commited doesn't mean it's going to succeed. No one's ever proven that integration in the living room is profitable either and that was my original point.

Where did you get that chart? Check this one out: http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/bigch...+CORP&time=5yr

Kellehair, you seemed intent to put a negative spin on things for Microsoft. Why is that?

And why exactly did you bring up the stock price issue in response to the $40 billion *IN CASH* comment? The point of mentioning their $40 billion hoard is to illustrate that they have the financial stability and flexibility to keep supporting the X-Box brand until it is a success. And while their stock prices have dropped (whose hasn't compared to 2 years ago?), that doesn't mean the company as a whole is in anything approaching dire straits. Their revenue is over $1 billion a month and they had a net income of $6 billion in the nine months ending 3/31/02. Whatever parenthetical facts you want to drag up, it will not change the fact that Microsoft is absolutely capable of supporting the X-Box for many years to come.

I know they have a bunch a of money. Bill can support the Xbox for the next 1000 years without ever seeing a profit from it if he wants to. But you have to ask yourself when is enough enough? Does he want to disappoint his investors? Does he want his stock to drop even more? Or does he want to return to his extremely profitable computing monopoly and let a company like SEGA get back into the console game?

M$ bought their way into the console market. Now they're trying to buy their way out of last place. Seeing as how Bill Gates is the richest man on Earth, that just doesn't seem fair. Also, I'm an avid computer user and I feel that M$ has been detrimental to the industry. The last thing we need is for M$ to monopolize the gaming industry as well.

Okay, fine, you're right. They did. But, do you think they did it with a sub-par console? No, they added a hard drive and broadband adapter, so we, the consumers wouldn't have to spend extra money on them. And yeah, you can say, they added those so they would benefit, but the truth is, we get a great product for less money.

I think I remember reading that the gaming industry was worth about $30 billion dollars and, supposedly, that figure grows every year. That's too much money to give up.


For some reason, it seems to me that you'd be perfectly fine if Sony or Nintendo were the ones monopolizing the gaming industry.

Thats the same basic chart. Funny how the dips follow the NASDAQs consistantly but still far outperform it. I know M$ bashing is cool but are you saying theyre responsible for the recession ( ) or should somehow be immune to it? I posted that graph for perspective. You see the blue line?

Thats hilarious...thats a technology industry problem and has little or nothing to do with the XBOX. If anything they will stay with console gaming to diversify and shield losses related to tech market volatility.

Who knows maybe they will stay with XBOX for the Tax Breaks resulting from their losses.

#1 - Are they "extremely profitable" or are they in trouble?

#2 - M$ could get out of the game yesterday that aint bringing back Sega Hardware.

I couldnt care less what brand my settop box ends up being. Nobody was more Segas bitch than me. But I still get Segas games. Im not a stockholder so I dont care. But betting against MS is never wise. When they decided the net was the future they flicked Netscape like a booger. The company is taking a similar shift towards the entertainment/media center.

I would really like someone(especially Kellehair) to name a stock in the Technology sector that hasn't lost half it's value in the past year or two. There aren't many(if any). And, also, could someone explain to me where the fun is in bashing Microsoft? I just don't understand it. To me, the Xbox is a quality product, but mostly everyone else seems to think that since its made by M$, "it's doomed."

Hey. You asked how I figured M$'s stock lost half its value. That's how. Rationalize it however you want.

I admit that there are many factors involved but by the same token no one can cay exactly how much a drag the Xbox has been. Let's just say unprofitable business ventures rarely help a company.

Their PC software is extremely profitable.

I know. I was just pointing out a where my bitterness came from.

Wasn't Bill wrong about the net at first though? He said it wouldn't be profitable and stayed away. When he realized his folly he bought his way into the industry. I don't think that improves anyone's perception of M$.

This I agree with. I'm worried about the future though.

You couldn't be more wrong. It wasn't good for gamers when Nintendo had a monopoly in the 80's and it wasn't good when the PSX had a near monopoly on 3rd party support last generation.

Do you think M$ is in the same boat as everyone else? I don't.

Hey now. I'm not bashing M$. I just don't like how he monopolizes the PC industry and how he bought his way into the console industry.

Why would anyone think that? Has M$ ever even had a product fail? When you've got money like them it's hard for a product to fail.

If 25% is almost half then fine youre right.


Theyre not, theyre FAR above the NASDAQ. (See previously refered to Blue Line).

Fair or not, once committed MS is the frickin Borg. Assimulate or be destroyed. The only comapany I can think of that has survivied a MS gutting is Quicken.

It sucks but one way or another all your games are gonna be played on one box in a generation or two. The bad thing is the fight is between two of the most predatory corporations in existance. Nintendo has pretty much opted out of the battle. I dont think Sony is any more open source friendly than MS. Just look at their proprietary Memory Sticks for Digicams. Its Betamax all over again.