What made Bill Gates so successful and why Microsoft won’t be the same without him12
Matt posted in The Industry, Xbox 360 on June 28th, 2006

If I had to choose one word to describe Bill Gates, it wouldn’t be any of the usual suspects. It wouldn’t be rich, although he is the wealthiest man in the world. It wouldn’t be powerful, although he has shaped the future of computing. It wouldn’t be nerdy, but some may describe him as such. It definitely wouldn’t be evil, although many people think that is the case, and in my Mac loving days, that thought probably crossed my mind. No, the word that I would use is “passionate”. That may seem like a strange choice of words, but in my opinion, it is the best way to describe Bill Gates.

Through the Microsoft intern program, I was fortunate enough to meet Bill Gates. After the internship program is over, Bill Gates hosts a barbecue in his backyard and talks with all the interns. It seems like they mob him and hang onto every word and for good reason – he’s shaped the computer industry and helped make it what it is today. The one thing that really struck me when listening to him speak is his passion for computing. Many people see him or Microsoft as an evil corporation with plans for world domination, but to me, it seemed like passion was driving the company. Bill Gates wants Microsoft to be the best software company not because he needs or wants the money. That’s evident by the fact that he plans to give away his earnings. He wants it to be the best because he’s passionate about making software and because of that, is competitive.

Oftentimes, the most passionate people are the most competitive. If you really love something, you’ll strive to be the best at it that you can, and that’s what Bill Gates has done. I’d really describe him as the “Air Jordan” of computer software. Sure, many complain that Microsoft’s business tactics are bad and all that. I don’t know all the ins and outs of Microsoft’s dealings, but I imagine if you look at other large corporations, you won’t find any angels. I’m not trying to make excuses. Rather I’m just trying to say if you are going to villify Microsoft, be sure to villify all the other guilty parties also. A very good consolation for any Microsoft misdeeds is that Bill Gates is spending his money on his philanthropic organization (which he also spoke very passionately about) rather than building himself a giant castle. That was another thing about the intern BBQ – I was amazed by how modest his house was. I’m sure it cost quite a bit, but for being the world richest man, I was expecting a palace, and it wasn’t all that large. He only had two cars, a daily driver (Lexus) and a rare Porsche. I’m still the Porsche cost quite a bit, but I imagine it’s a lot cheaper than the fleets of fancy cars other successful people have.

I think Bill Gates passion for software is what really drove the company to success. Microsoft is a company that has made software for quite a while, and regardless of how you feel about any particular piece of software, all of the products are at least competitive in quality to their rivals if not better. I’m writing this inside OpenOffice, and I’d say that OpenOffice is a poor substitute for Microsoft Word. Without Gates’ passion, I don’t think Microsoft will be the same. If Microsoft weren’t trying to be the “best” – weren’t trying to outdo all its rivals – then the products might stagnate. One might say Internet Explorer was victim of that until Opera and Firefox started gaining popularity (although, I wouldn’t say it’s as clear cut because I ended up sticking with IE after using both since I don’t find all the new features that other browsers offer all that useful). If someone with less passion about making the best product is in charge of the company, they might stick with their leading advantage and no longer innovate. Even though Microsoft has a huge advantage in many fields, the computer industry is so competitive that someone else would rise to beat their product. That’s why Microsoft Research is an important division of the company. I remember when everyone used Yahoo! to search. Yahoo! was happy with their success and branched into magazines and all sorts of other stuff, but then Google came out of nowhere and became the search engine of choice for pretty much everyone. Microsoft is trying to take Google on in the search arena, but MSN search has yet to dethrone Google, but if Google quits innovating (and I haven’t seen the search part of Google get any better recently), Microsoft or some other company could best them in that regard.

Bill Gates’ passion for technology has led Microsoft to be the most successful software company. In my opinion, no one else has that level of passion, so no one else will be able to fill his shoes successfully. Right now is a scary time for Microsoft. Personal computers are becoming less and less important as consumer electronics gain ground. Things that people used to do on PCs, they are now doing on ipods, cell phones, Blackberries, Palms and Playstations. The desktop is becoming less important and new platforms are emerging: pocket devices used for communication (like cell phones and PDAs), and the entertainment PCs in the living room (what used to be game consoles, but are expanding to be more and more multimedia devices). Microsoft is the king of the desktop and may always be, but what happens if the desktop decreases in popularity? Bill Gates has led the company to great success, so I would think in this uncertain time for Microsoft, I’d think his guidance would be the most important. But on the flip side, maybe his passion (and money) focused on world health is much more helpful anyway. I can only hope that his passionate drive can achieve the same kind of successes for world health that he did for personal computing.

Why We Can’t Be Hollywood and What We Need to Do to Innovate0
Matt posted in Playstation 3, The Industry, Wii, Xbox 360 on June 15th, 2006

Many people compare the video game industry to Hollywood. Most recently, Chris Crawford in an interview with Gamasutra, explained that Hollywood has less expensive “indie movies” that innovate. He as well as others asks why can’t the games industry do the same?

The answer while not obvious is really right before our eyes. As the cost of a movie goes down, the quality doesn’t diminish nearly as much as with games. For example, I could spend a few thousand on a good DV camera, get some friends together and make a very good movie. That hinges on me and my friends abilities. The lightening might not be as good, we’d have to film on location, and we wouldn’t have any big name actors, but it could be a very good movie that is competitive with a Hollywood film. Now, there are restrictions. We couldn’t have special effects, big name actors or anything like that, but it wouldn’t have to look really amateur if we had the talent. For example, one of the funniest movies ever is “Cannibal: The Musical”. Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame made it over their spring break when they were still in college. IMDB.com estimates there budget was $125,000. The movie had some really bad special effects, but it contributed to the campy fun. Napoleon Dynamite had an estimated budget of $400,000, and it looked perfectly professional. Sure, it didn’t have any big name actors, but I think Jon Heder is funnier than a lot of big name comedians. Garden State is another one of my favorite films and IMDB estimates their budget at 2.5 million. Sure, that seems like a lot of money, but compare that to the $40 million or more that many Hollywood movies cost.

Now, here’s the other important thing. These indie movies cost the same to see in the theater and the DVD pricing is usually about the same too. So, despite that the Blair Witch Project cost $35,000 to make, it was able to make $140 million in the United States because the ticket prices were the same as a huge Hollywood blockbuster. If tickets cost 1/10 of that of a blockbuster (similar to how indie games cost $5 when regular games are $50), then the Blair Witch Project still would have made a profit, but it wouldn’t have been the giant hit that it was. The fact that a company can make so much money off of something so cheap means they can invest in a lot of failures and still come out ahead. If the profit margin isn’t so incredibly high, then it’s more of a risk and not worth doing.

Games aren’t the same as movies. If you make a game for $400,000, it’s not going to be anywhere close to the quality of a next gen game that costs $20 million. This is why the film model doesn’t work as well when it comes to games. A better analogy would be the CG film industry. Almost all of the CG films are really high budget, and the ones that aren’t, really show. Hoodwinked cost $15 million to make and it doesn’t look nearly as good as Pixar or Dreamworks animated films.

So, good indie or cheap games aren’t going to be very appealing to consumers because due to budget constraints, that prevents them from making them at the same quality as other titles. Now, quality means a lot of different things to different people, but one of the things that adds to a game’s immersiveness is a lot of characters populating the world. An indie game can’t have that. An indie game probably can’t afford to have a lot of unique human characters. This is something indie movie producers get for free, but it’s a great cost for video games since they either have to be painstakingly motion captured or more often than not, modeled by an artist. Now, some people say that good graphics don’t matter for games. Nintendo is betting a lot that people don’t want better graphics. I think that’s incorrect. Just as some people won’t watch a black and white movie now that color movies are available (even if it’s Citizen Kane), many people might not be interested in old generation games when they can get the latest and greatest looking games. If you can have realistic looking characters, they make it seem more real, and that lends to the immersion. Even if it’s a cartoony world, if everything doesn’t look like it’s made out of polygons or plastic (unless you’re playing a next gen Army Men game), then that really adds to the experience. I think people want that immersion. As much as I love Katamari Damacy, the graphics are pretty bad to look at and the loose collision bothers me just because it takes away from the immersion. Katamari has innovative gameplay that can overcome that especially because the games were budget priced. But, I imagine its sales weren’t several orders of magnitudes greater than the cost like for some movies. Because of that, indie games aren’t as appealing to the publishers as they are for movies.

Here’s the question that the industry is asking: is there anything that can be done to reduce the costs of next gen development so innovation isn’t as risky? I’d say yes, but definitely not the extent that it is feasible in film. Middleware helps cut the costs. Before EA bought Renderware, Criterion was trying to position themselves as the common platform that would drive costs down. No graphics library has risen up to replace them, but presumably, one could be developed. Common objects and characters could be sold/rented or publishers could come up with asset systems to share across their developers. Potentially, generic characters could be developed to meet certain clothing sizes, and then clothing could be applied just like a costume. In the end though, the benefit a company gets by using their own custom technology and art styles always makes a game significantly better, so it might be worth going the extra mile in a lot of cases.

One of the reasons that Nintendo Wii is so appealing to developer and publishers is that the cost of development is a lot less. Since the hardware is similar to previous gen, the cost of development will be on par with last generation unlike the almost astronomical cost of the new generation. This will allow each product to be less of a financial risk, so developers can afford to innovate. Whether publishers will allow them to innovate or whether any creative uses of the controller remains to be seen. I didn’t think there was anything all that “innovative” at E3 for Wii, but it may take developers a while to get accustomed to it. Unfortunately though, any gameplay innovations developed for Wii that are based on the controller (which is probably where any innovation would happen) won’t be too applicable to Xbox 360 and may not be too applicable for PS3. Despite what Nintendo thinks, I think the future of the industry is going to be with bigger budgets and better graphics because as I mentioned before, they aid to the immersiveness. Sony and Microsoft suggest buying Wii as a second console, but even if Wii is a financial success, I think most gamers will buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 also because they want to get lost in a realistic world. Only time will tell in that regard.

In the end though, I’m not as pessimistic as most when it comes to the state of the industry because I see titles looming on the horizon (Gears of War, Assassin’s Creed, etc) that are new enough for me to be interested in playing them. Yes, I agree that overall the industry produces a lot of sequels, but honestly, who hasn’t bought one? Who isn’t planning on getting God of War 2 or playing the next gen Sonic the Hedgehog? For all Nintendo talks about innovation, their staple games have changed very little since the NES days. Other than I may be able to use a pointer to shoot an arrow in Zelda: Twilight Princess and transform into a wolf, the gameplay looks identical to Windwaker, which was identical to Ocarina of Time, which was the same gameplay of the original Zelda only with an extra dimension. The two Zelda games that tried to innovate (Zelda II and Majora’s Mask) are usually regarded as people’s least favorite in the series. So, it’s almost as if consumers reward companies for NOT innovating. Mark Cerny said in the GDC panel on “What’s Next?” that with every new IP, you don’t get a return on your investment until the 3rd sequel. This is part of why there is so little innovation. People will usually buy a sequel if they like the first game, so what incentive is there for publishers to innovate? If we as consumers really want innovation, then stop buying sequels! If enough people get sick of it, then the economics will change and so will gameplay. As game developers, its a lot harder to have a say about what we work on, but if we tried to put one new gameplay element or innovation that hasn’t been done before, hopefully, it will help the industry from stagnating, and it will be similar enough to an established game or genre such that publishers won’t be afraid of funding it. For example, if your publisher wants you to make a GTA clone, put an original spin on it by having some levels that allow you to be a modern day pirate in international waters. Maybe you can take the passengers of boats hostage, or pilfer their possessions. Maybe you can work your way up in the size of boats you can steal. Maybe you can put enough unique mechanics in it that your publisher will allow you to do a game based on that mechanic for the sequel. (My apologies if GTA or some other crime game already did that. I don’t play them because I find the content offensive…) Maybe my maritime piracy game mechanic doesn’t sound all that great or it’s been done before, but it’s just an example I came up with quickly. If your entire development team tried to think of an original gameplay innovation within the context of your project, then I’m sure you could come up with something.

Maybe the key to changing the industry is evolution not revolution. CliffyB in his Game Developer magazine article talked about how he was glad other games came out that used cover as a gameplay mechanic because Gears of War revolves around the concept of cover. The fact that other games are using it warms people up to the idea. Maybe if Gears of War showed up and was the first game to use cover, people might not be interested in it. “Hiding sounds lame! Screw that!” That might be the reaction had they not seen how it worked in Perfect Dark Zero and wanted more. All in all though, as consumers and developers we drive the industry. If innovation makes financial sense, then publishers will start supporting innovative projects. If people want to buy the same game over and over again, then why shouldn’t publishers give it to them? It’s a lot easier to do that then to come up with something truly innovative. Game developers like many artists, don’t get paid to create great art. They get paid to make money for the people funding them. This is an unfortunate truth, but within these confines, I still believe we can make great games.

My Xbox 360′s Blog1
Matt posted in Xbox 360 on June 13th, 2006

If you haven’t heard, you can set up a blog for your Xbox 360 here. I set one up a while back. Check it out. My poor Xbox 360 is pretty melancholy since I’ve been pretty busy with work lately.

Dear Microsoft, please don’t stop updating backwards compatibility! Sincerely, Matt1
Matt posted in Xbox 360 on June 8th, 2006

In High School, I chose to buy an N64 over a Playstation. Super Mario 64 is what really sold it to me on the console. I HAD to have the hardware that would enable me to play such a wonderful game. Several of my friends had Playstations, and all they talked about was Final Fantasy VII. I was unhappy that I missed out on it, but luckily, they created a PC version of Final Fantasy VII and then later, VIII. I wasn’t too happy when I found out that Final Fantasy IX would not be getting a PC release. When Final Fantasy X was released, I bit the bullet and got a Playstation 2. This way I could play Final Fantasy X, as well as Final Fantasy IX and several other interesting Playstation exclusive games that I didn’t get a chance to play. Fast forward five years.

Peter Moore said in an interview with kikizo, that “Nobody is concerned anymore about backwards compatibility. We under promised and over delivered on that.” I find this statement confusing because to gamesindustry.biz Xbox PR manager Michael Wolf said, “Our goal is to have every Xbox game work on Xbox 360.” Also, on the official Xbox Backwards Compatibility FAQ, it says “Our goal remains to get every game to be backward compatible.” They certainly haven’t over delivered on that particular promise. Now Peter Moore elaborates that “It’s a very complicated thing… very complex work. I’m just stunned that we have hundreds of games that are backwards compatible” I’m well aware of the intricacies of emulating the original Xbox on something with a different architecture. I’m not sure how they are going about it, but I have a few ideas. Some games might be emulated traditionally meaning that the old Xbox executable is loaded into memory and the emulator runs translating Xbox instructions to Xbox 360 instructions on the fly. A second method is that they could convert the binary from Xbox x86 to Xbox 360 Power PC and send that to you over Xbox Live. The binary would basically be pre-emulated, so that all the instructions from the original Xbox would be converted to Xbox 360 native instructions. I have no idea how they’d handle emulating the pixel and vertex shaders since ATI has a different ISA than Nvidia. For first party games, which Microsoft has the source for, they could recompile. Any x86 assembly would have to be rewritten or emulated. The shaders might have to be modified also. Regardless of which method Microsoft uses or if it uses a combination of all three, that’s a lot of work to get the game to run, and the testing to verify that the game runs well is very difficult.

So, if it’s so difficult why should Microsoft do it? Well the main reason is to provide the consumers who missed out on the Xbox exclusive gems last generation an opportunity to play them. For example, my favorite Xbox exclusive games are Panzer Dragoon Orta, Jade Empire, Shenmue 2 and Sudeki. Jade Empire is the only one that is backwards compatible. There aren’t too many Xbox 360 games being released, so a person who only owns a PS2 and an Xbox 360 could be filling their time by enjoying the gaming bliss that Panzer Dragoon Orta offers, but instead, they’ll be stuck playing Barbie’s Horse Adventures. Okay, Barbie’s Horse Adventures is a very bad example that people use. The only reason that is backwards compatible and Panzer Dragoon Orta isn’t is because it doesn’t use the full power of the platform and is therefore easier to emulate. They can probably emulate Barbie’s Horse Adventures in real time with no modifications to their simplest software emulator. Honestly, I think it’s just rude and disrespectful when journalists get on Microsoft’s case complaining that Barbie’s Horse Adventures is backwards compatible and their favorite game isn’t. That just shows their ignorance in how technically complicated emulating a complicated system like the Xbox is, especially on something so radically different like an Xbox 360. I thought journalism was about research: hunting out the story and finding the truth. It seems some journalists like to echo the sentiments of the fanboys without trying to straighten them out. Microsoft was the underdog last generation in terms of market share, but there are many quality releases that are nothing to scoff at. Maybe the Xbox games by themselves weren’t enough for gamers to buy the system, but the Xbox back catalog combined with Gears of War and Ninety Nine Nights might be just like Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy IX was enough to sell me on the Playstation 2.

It’ll be interesting to see what Sony does because emulating the Playstation 2 in software will be difficult also, although it isn’t as advanced hardware as the Xbox. There have been rumors that they may ship the Playstation 2 chips in with the early Playstation 3s to ensure that they have every game backwards compatible from the get go. If they just use the old Playstation 2 hardware to emulate the game, they might not be able to provide upgrades, which is one of the best features of the Xbox 360 backwards compatibility. In the QA with Todd Holmdahl, he states: “Every original Xbox game will be upscaled to 720p and 1080i, and will take advantage of Xbox 360’s anti-aliasing capabilities, delivering a picture that is clearer and crisper than anything available on Xbox.” That is pretty darn cool, and that’s nice that Microsoft wanted to provide a superior gaming experience on the 360. I was hoping for more of a graphical upgrade when I played my PSX games on PS2, but I didn’t get any because it was just running it on the old hardware. So, hopefully, Sony will follow Microsoft’s lead in that regard.
Sony has committed to provide full backwards compatibility whether they choose to include PS2 hardware or emulate it in software, and Wii will provide full GameCube compatibility since the hardware is so similar. So in order to stay competitive, it would seem like Microsoft should try to be completely backwards compatible. Also, if someone is buying a console for the first time and wants to play the hits of the previous generation, they can buy an Xbox 360 for $400 (the core system is a bad deal since you need a $40 memory card… Seems pretty steep for a measly 64 meg, but…) and a PS2 or Xbox for $130 (since the backwards compatibility list is pretty limited for 360). For $500, you can get a similar PS3 since both have 20 GB, both lack digital video out and 802.11b/g, but the PS3 will probably have full or close to it backwards compatbility.

As a sidenote, lacking Digital Video Out for both PS3 and Xbox 360 can be a problem if you want to use them as next gen video players since at some point, the movie studios might put ICTs on the discs, which would downsample digital video through component outputs to 540p instead of 1080p. For Playstation 3, this is a nonissue if you spend the extra $100 up front, but if you don’t, you may limit your Blu-ray selection. For Xbox 360 with the HD DVD add on, ICT may screw everyone unless Microsoft releases an HDMI or DVI video out, but the current Xbox 360 hardware may or may not be able to output digital video. There’s talk that movie studios might not do this until 2010, but I wouldn’t expect them to hold to it. You’d think that they wouldn’t do it at all since it’s been proven that HDCP is fundamentally flawed and easy to hack, but I don’t think the people at the movie studios really understand that.

But as I mentioned earlier, providing backwards compatibility doesn’t just allow Xbox converts to play the back catalog of games, but it can enhance the experience for previous Xbox owners. Yes, Xbox owners could sell their Xboxes if the full catalog were available, but that’s not the appeal for me. I’d much rather play games on the 360 than the regular Xbox because they have upgraded graphics, a better controller that’s also wireless, and potentially, they could release a version of the emulator that shares some of the unique features that Xbox 360 offers like the guide, custom soundtracks, friends notifications, etc. All in all, I think backwards compatibility is a really cool feature and I think Microsoft would be foolish to stop supporting more titles.

Blu-ray vs. HD DVD2
Matt posted in Playstation 3, Xbox 360 on June 5th, 2006

Sony and Microsoft have chosen opposing sides on the next gen video format war. Some people speculate that the next gen console wars either decides or depends on the outcome of the next gen media format. I disagree with this. The average consumer doesn’t have an HDTV, and if he/she did, he/she probably wouldn’t value the higher quality picture enough to spend the extra money on the Blu-ray or HD DVD disc. I, on the other hand, love the higher quality so much that I’m probably going to re-buy many of my favorite films in a HD format. But, which format is better?

Despite a number of technical differences, the formats are very similar when it comes to the consumer. Both support 1080p. Both use the same video and audio codecs. HD DVD is required to be backwards compatible with DVD and Blu-ray is not, but I imagine all Blu-ray players will be. There are a few differences that may play significantly in the format war. The first difference is the cost. Blu-ray discs are more expensive for a number of reasons. The first reason is that the manufacturing techniques to create them are completely different than for DVDs. You can retool a DVD factory to make HD DVDs, but you have to create a new factory for Blu-ray. The other difference in cost is that all Blu-ray discs need to have a hard coating layer on them. The advantage of this is that they should be even more scratch resistant than DVDs, but the disadvantage is that adds to the cost.

 They have different disc sizes. HD DVDs hold 15 GB a layer whereas Blu-ray discs hold 25 GB. Is the extra 10 GB necessary? Is it worth the extra cost? Let’s look at the format from two perspectives. The first perspective is the home PC manufacturers. Of course for the PC you want more space. A lot of the home PC manufacturers are siding with Blu-Ray, but that doesn’t have too much of an effect in the home video market. The PC market will probably be stuck with both formats until the holographic disc technologies get cheap enough to replace them. This doesn’t really matter for gamers because most PC games are still released on CD anyway. For video, I’d say the size difference doesn’t matter all that much. Maybe the special features will be released on another disc like they are on DVD. Still, I’d rather have a cheaper two disc edition than a one disc assuming all the other factors were the same.

Although HD DVD and Blu-Ray have essentially the same read speed (actually HD DVD is 0.55 Mbps faster), Blu-ray seems to require a 1.5x at least (54 Mbps) for movies, so movies can be encoded at higher quality, but it’s uncertain if movie studios will use this because at that rate, they can only fit a 2 hour movie on a 50 GB disc. I imagine that most content providers will try and fit everything on a 25 GB disc if they can help it because of the cost. In fact, since Blu-Ray is significantly more expensive, it may be cheaper to release a dual layer HD DVD (30 GB), so  HD DVD might be higher quality for some releases. I’ve not used the video codecs myself, so I can’t tell you if 36.55 Mbps will be high enough quality for all HD digital files at 1080p, but that’ll probably be just fine because the DVD forum uses AVC at 8 Mbps as reference, so I imagine that the extra space and bitrates won’t give a noticeable quality boost. Certainly, that’s a biased figure, but everyone’s given good reviews to the released HD DVDs so far, and I believe they are all single layer.

Although I’m speculating the potentially higher bitrates that Blu-ray can hold won’t be noticeable, even if there are quality differences is that enough to sell Average Joe consumer on the format when the cost is more? Many people compare this to the VHS and Betamax war. Betamax was better quality (probably much more so than Blu-ray might be over HD DVD), but it was more expensive so consumers opted for the cheaper one. To even further the comparison Betamax was backed by Sony and they are the driving force behind Blu-ray. There’s a lot of hardware vendors that are part of the BDA (Blu-ray Disc Association, not British Dental Association), so in that regard, it’s dissimilar to Betamax. Also, a lot of console providers (Sony owned Sony Pictures, Columbia Tristar as well as 20th Century Fox) are part of the BDA also, so there will be a lot of content exclusive to the format. However, Universal is backing HD DVD, and they have the rights to a lot of my favorite movies, so HD DVD is quite appealing.

So, in the end, who will win? Cost is definitely a factor. Quality and size is probably not as much of a factor as the Blu-ray camp would like us to believe. But really, it comes down to the content. As far as currently announced titles, there are exclusives to both formats that I’m excited about. For Blu-ray, I’m interested in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Reservoir Dogs and Terminator 2: Judgment Day. For HD DVD, I’m excited about 12 Monkeys, Dark City, Dune Theatrical ( Blu-ray is getting the sci-fi channel’s Dune, which was closer to the books, but the acting was quite bad, so I’m not interested in that one), and La Cité des Enfants Perdus. I have all these movies on DVD, but I’ll rebuy them in HD, so I can enjoy them with much better picture quality. Even though Blu-ray has more content providers behind it, I’m more interested in HD DVD titles just because I prefer those movies. Once 20th Century Fox starts releasing Simpsons and Family Guy on Blu-ray I might be more interested in that format.