Is XBOX 360 the Dreamcast of the Next Generation?

It's almost frightening how may parallels there are between the XBOX360 vs. PS3 battle and the Dreamcast vs. PS2 battle.

Consider the following

RELEASE

Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast is released a full year before the PS2. Sony steals some of Dreamcast's thunder by releasing detailed specs for the PS2 days before the Dreamcast's 9/9/99 launch, thereby making the PS2 a little more real in the customers' eyes and causing some consumers to decide to wait for the spec-superior hardware.

360 vs. PS3: 360 is released a full year before PS3. Sony starts its thunder stealing in May by releasing detailed quasi-final specs on the PS3 to coincide with when stores start taking 360 preorders. Many consumers vow to wait for the PS3, confused at the 6 vs. 18 month difference.

BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY

Dreamcast vs. PS2: Sony vows PS2 fully backwards compatible with PS1. Dreamcast is not backwards compatible with Saturn or Sega CD. In practice this is a minor issue as most people will want to see new graphics on their new system and are unlikely to use the feature extensively, however Sony spins this into a major selling point. Bleem company has vowed to make emulation software that will allow the Dreamcast to play the entire library of PS1 titles on Dreamcast thereby eliminating Sony's advantage. In the end technical limitations reduced Bleem's success to a handful of PS1 games playing on Dreamcast, and the Sony legal machine abused its massive budget to starve the fledgling Bleem out of business before the technical issues could be resolved. End result, PS2: almost fully backwards compatible with previous generation, Dreamcast: sort of backwards compatible with the previous generation.

360 vs. PS3: Microsoft flip-flops on backwards compatibility for 360 first we're getting full compatibility, then we're getting partial, then nobody knows. Sony vows PS3 fully compatible with PS2 and PS1. The 360 hardware is completely different from XBOX so emulation software has to be written for each individual game. Games like Panzer Dragoon Orta, Shenmue II, and X-Men Legends aren't compatible, but Halo and Barbie Horse Racing are. It all depends on whether or not anyone takes an interest in writing the emulation software, and also on how difficult such a project becomes. Sony takes Microsoft to task over this, once again turning this into a selling point for the PS3. (Sony will most likely implement its backward compatibility by including the processors from the PS2 and PS1 in the PS3 hardware.) End result, PS3: almost fully backwards compatible with previous generation, 360: sort of backwards compatible with the previous generation.

FORMAT

Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast was released prior to DVD becoming a mass-market product. Most DVD players cost more than $500 and only a handful of titles are available. Due to the increased expense in both hardware and licensing fees, Dreamcast ships with a proprietary CD drive with enhancements for reading a special 1GB disc format that Sega dubbs GD-ROM. In keeping with the previous generation (Saturn, PS1, 3DO, Jaguar CD, CD-i) The only mass market media that Dreamcast plays is Audio CD (Red Book). Part of Sony's motivation for waiting a year longer than Sega to release PS2 is to incorporate a DVD drive into the system. Not only does this afford the system a massive 9GB canvas for games, but at $299, it makes the PS2 one of the more affordable DVD players on the market, while at the same time boosting the DVD format itself as millions of gamers now have a DVD player built-in. The PS2, of course, also plays Audio CD. Sega vows to level this playing field by offering an add-on DVD drive for the Dreamcast. (They will not be able to offer a Dreamcast with a built-in DVD drive without alienating their original customers, and even if they did so, they could not use the format to enhance games as that would force publishers to split their product lines or limit their market potential.) But ultimately it was too little, too late. The viability of such a device diminshed as the prices for standalone DVD drives declined and the logistics of an addon drive were the least of Sega's worries as Sony remorselessly crushed its hardware business as a whole.

360 vs. PS3: In keeping with the functionality of the previous generation of hardware, the 360 sports a standard DVD-ROM drive with a maximum disc capacity around 9GB. Due to increased interest in anti-copy technology, the formats and playback schemes for the next-generation disc formats were not finalized as of the time that the 360 was released. Sony, however has played the waiting game once again to incorporate a Blu-ray Disc drive in the PS3, in hopes of duplicating its success. The Blu-ray format affords PS3 a theoretical 200GB-per-disc canvas (although 50GB is more realistic). As of this writing there are only two Blu-ray video players available on the market, both of which cost around $1000. At $600, the PS3 will appear to be a cheap alternative to a stand-alone player, and Sony is banking on the PS3 to simultaneously boost the Blu-ray format by installing a Blu-ray movie player in the homes of millions of gamers. Microsoft has vowed to even this playing field with an add-on HD-DVD drive - another high-capacity format in direct competition with Blu-ray. Microsoft will not be able to offer a 360 with a built-in HD-DVD drive without alienating its original customers, and even if it does so, it cannot use such a drive to enhance games without forcing publishers to either split their product lines or limit their market potential to one or the other. Technical limitations between the 360 and the HD-DVD format (the 360 does not have an HDCP compliant video output and this may be required by some HD-DVD movies to show full resolution) are threatening to limit the performance potential of such an add-on drive. Couple this with the logistics of trying to sell such a peripheral and the fact that no solid details have been released after over 6 months of speculation and this add-on is starting to look like vaporware. As of this writing neither the add-on drive for the 360 nor the PS3 have been released yet, however the lines are already drawn.

PRICING

Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast - $199, PS2 - $299. Difference - PS2 is $100 more.

360 vs. PS3: 360 - $299(stripped-down)/$399(complete), PS3 - $499(stripped-down)/$599(complete). Difference - PS3 is $100 - $300 more.

COSMETICS

Dreamcast vs. PS2: The standard Dreamcast is white with a white controller. The controllers used the colors red, green, yellow, and blue for its buttons which were labeled A, B, X, and Y. The standard PS2 is black with a black controller. The buttons are black with colored markings. The colors are green, pink, red and periwinkle, labeled (square), (triangle) (circle) and X.

360 vs. PS3: The 360 is white with a white controller. The controllers used the colors red, green, yellow, and blue for its buttons which were labeled A, B, X, and Y. The most recent prototypes of the PS3 are shown to be black with a black controller. The buttons are black with colored markings. The colors are green, pink, red and periwinkle, labeled (square), (triangle) (circle) and X.

OPERATING SYSTEM

Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast used Windows CE as its OS. PS2 used a proprietary Sony OS.

360 vs. PS3: 360 uses a heavily modified version of Windows 2000 as its OS. The PS3 OS has not been fully divulged but is clearly proprietary to Sony.

PHILOSOPHY

Dreamcast vs. PS2: Dreamcast was a system designed based on gamer feedback, made by gamers for gamers. It featured a very long controller cord, and four ports for multi-player gaming. It seems clear that the aim of Sega with the Dreamcast was to provide a system that was easy to develop for, and would have beautiful games. Many developers went on record praising Sega for making a system that was such a joy to develop for. The PS2 was designed by Sony with little customer interaction, there was little or no innovation included in PS2 aside from beefier hardware. The aim of the PS2 seemed to be squeezing the most profit possible out of the consumer rather than to make it easy to develop for or have beautiful games. This is evidenced by the fact that the system is notoriously difficult to develop for, that games released on both systems looked better on the Dreamcast than their PS2 counterparts, and the seemingly endless stream of mediocre or downright worthless games that Sony points to as a strength by way of diversity.

360 vs. PS3: This battle has not yet begun in earnest, however the lines have been drawn. In addition to nearly a year of customer surveys and customer focus groups, nearly every feature of the 360 was designed around the desires of the gamers who would be playing it. The 360 has been described as a joy to work with by many developers because the OS is very similar to the original XBOX (even if the hardware is drastically different) and they are required to re-learn less. Several games on 360 have been gorgeous. With the XBOX, Microsoft sought to distance itself from the PC game world - particularly some of the stigmas associated with it (PC game publishers are notorious for releasing unfinished software with the intention of finishing it via patches later on, but these patches only get made if the game is commercially successful, so there are many PC games that remain forever deeply flawed.) Although many of the best games on 360 are PC ports, they still seem to be maintaining their insistence on quality that console games have come to expect. Sony on the other hand is taking their quest for a deluge of mediocre gaming that they can point to and say "we have something for everyone" to the next level by actually describing the PS3 as a PC. The accuracy of the statement itself is irrelevant, it is the implied connotation of the statement that Sony wants to make the console gaming industry more like the PC gaming industry that is so revealing. Just as with the PS1-PS2 generation hop, the only real innovation with the PS3 over the PS2 is beefier hardware, these systems are largely identical in terms of player interaction.

CONCLUSION

Although some of these comparisons, such as the cosmetic ones, may seem frivilous, there is still something to be said for the eerie conclusion that they all culminate to. Has Microsoft done more with their year head start on Sony than Sega did last generation? Is XBOX Live the PSO of this generation? In 5 years will there even be an XBOX Live? Or will it do its stint in the limelight and fade into obscurity? Will Sony succeed again in misdirecting customers by dangling Metal Gear Solid 4 in front of them just like they did with Metal Gear Solid 2, when the game will not be available for years after PS3? Does Sony have anything other than new Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy titles to draw customers in? Honestly there are only a couple of PS3 launch games I might even care to play, and none that I'm actually excited about. Warhawk? Isn't that a remake of a PS1 game? You'd think if it had any potential it would have already had a sequel by now - but perhaps not. As far as game prospects, the Nintendo Wii has already blown its competition out of the water with new Zelda, Mario, Smash Bros, Metroid, Sonic and Final Fantasy titles, but at least the 360 had some great stuff lined up for launch (even if Oblivion was only a feint - at least I didn't have to wait a full 2 years after launch to play it). Will the promise of games like Gears of War, Mass Effect and Halo 3 keep gamers faithful to the 360, or will brand loyalty, Blu-ray playback, and backwards compatibility win the day again?
Microsoft had better just hope that history doesn't repeat itself.

My PayPal Rant

I signed up for PayPal several years ago when it was a fairly new business - way before it was acquired by Ebay. For those of you unaware of this service, PayPal is sort of an online escrow service that mediates payments between buyers and sellers. It's super convienent for paying for auctions to private individuals because you can pay them with a credit card and they don't have to have any special equipment or service accounts with the credit card companies to accept payment.

PayPal sets a cumulative spending limit on its customers. You can only spend so much (I think it was something like $2000) unless you give them bank account information to "confirm" your account. At the time, I didn't think much of this. I guessed that maybe it was more difficult to open a false checking account than it was to get a false credit card?

It wasn't until about a year later when Ebay auctions began to show the "Pay Now" tag that convienently lets you go right from your auction to your PayPal account that I figured out what was going on. Each and every time you go to make a payment, PayPal tries to do a direct bank withdrawal. No matter how you set your account preferences, they always set it back. You can, of course use their "other funding sources" option to change where that particular payment is taken from, however, the very next time you go to make a payment they try it again.

Now, PayPal claims that I should prefer this method of payment because I'm insured for a greater amount of money, and that it's somehow more secure - or at least so says the interrum confirmation page that tries to discourage me from using a credit card as a funding source each and every time I switch the payment method.

A quick look at your bank statement after one of these "direct transfer" bank withdrawals will show what's really going on. PayPal hawks their service as a way to make convienent online payments with your credit card - that's their description of the service, but they don't like to do this because like any other vendor they have to pay the card company for the transaction fee. But with a bank withdrawal, its the customer that gets stuck with the fee.

I confronted them about this, advising that I would never want to pay this way, and that I would like my account to stop setting that as the default payment method because the only way I would ever use it was if I was tricked into doing so. (Which is exactly what this "default" setting is intended to do, I'm sure.)

Their reply was to tell me that I should switch the funding option manually every single time I use their service and if I didn't like that answer, I should call their non-toll free number. Luckily I actually live close enough to PayPal's office that I don't have to pay for the call, but it is pretty obvious that this is only a pretense of recourse. Of course, although the webform I created resulted in an email response, when I attempted to respond directly to the email, they explained that they ignore email responses. I wonder why....

In short, I'll be shopping around for a more honest alternative to PayPal. I can't stand it when companies lie to me.