ha, I think you know what I mean.  for a U.S. company to even attempt to break into a market that had Nintendo, Sega, and Sony as the only real competitors was a huge gamble.  And it was more or less successful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And for Sony to come out with Playstation when Nintendo and Sega had dominated the console market for years was a huge gamble. Many others, both Japanese and US, had tried in the past and failed.

 

The Xbox is the most successful US console, but that doesn't mean it success is somehow more of an achievement compared to the Playstation. They're successful because Sony and Microsoft have the clout to make it so.

 

Sony clearly won the previous round, and so far there is nothing to suggest Microsoft will move ahead in this round. I think it will be closer this time, as others have mentioned, but so far there is nothing to suggest any will triumph over the other, and your attempt to paint the success of the Xbox as somehow being different to the success of other systems is just plain wrong.

Edited May 16, 200619 yr by Hell Kitty

the Xbox should have been a giant failure but it was not because:

 

* they won over the FPS market for kids who couldn't afford PC powerhouses.

 

* very good live support to enable FPS gaming.

 

 

that is how the console even survived. now that they have a following, titles (other than just FPS) will allow for more survivability. And the trump card will be an Xbox PC that is much more value-priced than the PS3.

What FPS other than the two Halo titles caused Xbox not to be a "giant failure"?

What FPS other than the two Halo titles caused Xbox not to be a "giant failure"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm going by market share, not profits.

From a standpoint of pure self-interest, I want Microsoft to fail miserably in the console wars.  Not because I have an inherent dislike of MS or the system, but I'm tired of their blatant destruction of the PC as a viable gaming platform to make a buck.  Outside of their earlier role in it, they should just keep their filthy mitts out of the gaming industry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think MMOs have killed the cRPG. Consoles have not. If anything, the KOTOR games show you can have a true RPG experience on console.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, a number of factors have killed CRPGs. Primarily consumers. I wouldn't think of blaming consoles for it. Not sure what that has to do with me thinking Microsoft is trying to destroy PC gaming though.

This is rubbish. A couple of titles do not save a system.

 

Xbox and Playstation were successful in the same ways - made by by companies with the money and power to ensure success, and enough developer support for a multitude of titles to make the system worthwhile.

The success of the Xbox and Playstation was suprising in the same way - in a market dominated by Nintendo and Sega, they succeded where others tried and failed.

Oh, a number of factors have killed CRPGs.

 

Not to get too off-topic, but was there ever a time when CRPGs were popular ( I sure can't remember)?

the Xbox should have been a giant failure but it was not because:

 

* they won over the FPS market for kids who couldn't afford PC powerhouses.

 

* very good live support to enable FPS gaming.

 

 

that is how the console even survived.  now that they have a following, titles (other than just FPS) will allow for more survivability.  And the trump card will be an Xbox PC that is much more value-priced than the PS3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And it had a few good RPGs.

 

What FPS other than the two Halo titles caused Xbox not to be a "giant failure"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Farcry, Call of Duty, Rainbow 6 games, Castle Wolfenstein, Unreal, TimeSplitters... Even though I don't think any of those games are exclusives but they must have helped in some way.

Edited May 16, 200619 yr by Craigboy2

Xbox: The FPS machine

and yet when sombody tries to use their "uber-mad-skillz" from xbox on a Pc they get demolished.

 

Meh... without having the ability to try all three systems you can't really figure out whats going where...

 

I still think the three sixty is a failure right now... the only real game people like on it is Oblivion and that's just a PC copy. Generally it's entire repitoir of games is either a mildly prettied up version of the xbox and Ps2 version or a port of a pc game. Nothings really made an impact like Halo did early in the Xbox's run.

 

Yes... in my opinion Halo did really get the Xbox going last round. the Cube appears to be what the 360 will be when the other two really starts going.

what people fail to realize (when they compare Xbox to PS2) is that the Xbox came out of nowhere and did, in fact, get an awful lot of market share and leap-frogged the PS2 in terms of power.

 

It's not really difficult to leap-frog over a system when you come out after it.

Yes... in my opinion Halo did really get the Xbox going last round. the Cube appears to be what the 360 will be when the other two really starts going.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you mean the Cube that outsold the Box 4 to 1, or the one that managed to make a profit out of every sell?

Yes... in my opinion Halo did really get the Xbox going last round. the Cube appears to be what the 360 will be when the other two really starts going.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you mean the Cube that outsold the Box 4 to 1, or the one that managed to make a profit out of every sell?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hmm... I was referring to the american showing of the cube... not world wide... sorry. that was my fault.

Oh, a number of factors have killed CRPGs.

 

Not to get too off-topic, but was there ever a time when CRPGs were popular ( I sure can't remember)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mean when there were quite a few of them being released on the PC? Sure. If you mean they haven't ever really been consistently huge sellers, that's kinda my point.

Well, the industry's working against them, what with ever-increasing costs for important CRPG stuff like HDR and full VA.

Well, the industry's working against them, what with ever-increasing costs for important CRPG stuff like HDR and full VA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, if they were popular to begin with... Would that kind of stuff even matter?

Costs are increasing. Fanbase isn't. It matters.

 

The solution, of course, is to dumb it down to the common denominator.

As seen in Oblivion...

 

Sad, in the end they don't even resemble each other though.

everytime I try to think of why one system will win, I come up empty handed.

 

The 360 has it's lack of line-up and lack of appeal to non-US consumers, but good power for a decent price.

 

The PS3 is just so ****ing pricey, has similar thin line-up (it is new), but it is the leader of the last gen with all the bells and whistles you could ask for. Except there isn't a single blue-ray dvd out....

 

The Wii....well the name hurts a bit, many big titles missing launch, not nearly as powerful as the other systems, but it's got Zelda on launch, the controller, and will be signifigantly cheaper.

 

all three are basically a wash in terms of online support, imo, but the 360 is the only one that has proven anything so it has the edge.

 

I dunno, anyone who says they know is REALLY just guessing (this includes myself).

anything could happen, but in the end i hope nintendo comes out on top.

The PS3 will flip everyone over and attack their weak spot for massive damage.

The PS3 will flip everyone over and attack their weak spot for massive damage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL, nice one. :D

Who will win?Hmm.Last time I heard Sony had a small overheating problem with the PS3(whole inside melted after some gaming event it was at),then again,that was back in October,so they may have resolved the problem by now(if they haven't,then the PS3 obviously won't sell pretty well,if at all).I also heard people are having problems with the 360(memory problems,from what Ive heard),so it's alittle early to say who'll win right now.

Edited May 16, 200619 yr by jodo kast 5

I think I will win.