indianajonz said:
so then if all was lost, using your logic why did they bring moore in??? if all was lost then wtf was the point? Jesus!
By that then, the sales in JP for DC was such a sad state that Sega was planning to exit the traditional console manufacturer role at that point (Naka and others hinted at set top boxes or portable DC with the casual announcement of the SOC version of DC architecture on many occassions), and would have still needed a good CEO to lead them in whatever role they morphed the company into.
It just happend that MS was about to enter the console scene as a maunfacturer and decided to head hunt Moore as he was to lead Sega into that new role. Like all execs that are pretty much free-agents, Moore took that opportunity and went on to greener pastures.
indianajonz said:
anyway i do not wish to debate the history of the ridiculous sega dreamcast with the likes of you at this time. i merely mention that peter moore is a senseless fool. i know he probably had little to do with the decision to launch an add on hd-dvd system, but at the end of the day he will be the scapegoat when it fails miserably.
consider this:
they have shortages which are of epic and historic proportions. they have released almost no new games since launch. now they feel they must "add" hd-dvd to catch up with a system that's not even released yet. do you think in redmond somewhere someone is thinking, "man, maybe we should have waitied and launched in the spring"...? they could have launched in march or april with hd-dvd built in, a nice crop of games, a healthy supply of hardware, and they would have had a great success. but peter moore and company felt it would be better to go in another direction...
Jesus man. Do you really think PS3 having BR play capability was a news to MS back when they were designing the X360? Or the launch timeframe of BR? They knew all about this shit WAY before you read about them for the first time on an internet messageboard.
They consciously decided to keep HD-DVD out of the core machine because it would have made the machine even more expensive than it is already. They needed to strike a balance between reletive low cost and power. Launching 4 months later and then including HD-DVD drive in the X360 would have raised the price of the machine and/or would have compromised other components to make up for the cost (namely the RAM count, but possibley the clockspeed of the chips to increase the yields to lower the costs on those parts as well).
And what would the inclusion of the HD-DVD drive really have gotten them? Consider:
- MS has no personal stake in the HD-DVD standard itself like Sony does with BR.
- HD-DVD is no where a guarantee of a success (many here would argue that it's guaranteed to fail). If it does fails, then you could not hope to lower the cost of that part over time, making it a huge future cost risk.
- The DVD replacements are launching in mid 2006 amongst a bitter format war, and will not help to bolster the sale of your console to a significant degree until at least year 3 or 4 when the winner would have been declaired and the media and the hardware would have been solidly established into the market, which would be 2009~2010. By then, the sales trend for the next gen console race would have been solidly established. Too late for the HD-DVD nor the BR drive to make a solid contribution to that console race.
NOT including the HD-DVD drive into X360 was a smart decision, not a short sighted mistake, no matter how much you loons rage on about it in this thread.