Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i think microsoft should hold off on xbox 360 for a lil bit longer so they can make it as good as it can be. i already think PS3 and Revolution are gunna beat xbox 360 because they r takin time to design the systems. Nintendo hasn't really even said what they are gunna do to their newest consol and PS3 has this crazy idea for "cell technology". so y doesn't xbox 360 try stuff like that?? if u dissagree then post sumthin.

Microsoft were thinking 3 years in advance. The 360 will be very powerful indeed and in ways is more powerful in some ways. But that stuff is just figures on paper, its what the developers can make of it.

hey....yea u got a point there

microsoft are trying to get the jump on sony and nintendo this time...and it'll probably work in the US but not in Europe or Japan...

yeah.. japanese dont seem to take foreign products seriously anyway

Microsoft isn't necessarily taking the wrong approach here... they're really in a losing position (potentially) either way you cut it. Sony definitely established itself as the frontrunner in this current console generation. By being first to market, Microsoft has the potential of stealing a little of thunder by appealing to the early adopters and getting free rein on the market before the other consoles arrive. The hope is that by the time Sony's and Nintendo's machines arrive, Microsoft has swayed enough people to their side...

The flipside is potentially more dangerous. Allowing Sony to be first to market pretty much prevents Microsoft from trying to sway any former "Sony only" people in the industry. Sony already established itself strongly in the last round... allowing the same to happen again would really put a damper on Microsoft's ability to steal some of Sony's market share.

In short, Microsoft has already mentioned how it wants to increase its market share... it's a lot easier to do so when you are first to market instead of playing catch-up.

Well, any console that has so far gone ahead of the Market Leader, has failed in any attempt to beat it.

It is the market leader that determines when the next generation starts. Sony did it with the Playstation and the PS2. Sega tried with the Saturn and Dreamcast and failed.

Logic tells us that nothing will happen until PS3 arrives.

However, Microsoft own the world anyway, so if push comes to shove they can always enslave the planet.

I always wondered why there was antenna's on the computers

It's just that the video game industry has never been a good place to pre-empt the market leader. It has never worked.

But if anyone is up to the task of pre-empting any market leader, Microsoft is.

I, personally, think the current generation is coming out too early, so I am not hyped enough. I'm not ready for the hype just yet, I don't think many others are either.

We're still being impressed by games coming out on the current consoles. They are untapped still. It isn't like the SNES or the Gameboy where we all were waiting for something, waiting for a new leap. Nobody was waiting for a next generation, nobody seems to care as much as when, say, the N64 was announced.

And, it all seems so boring. Sequels and franchises. YAWN. It's just a case of "more". I haven't seen anything "new" yet.

The next gen consoles do look fanatstic though. The Nintendo Revolution looks like the best looking console ever made.

Some really good points raised here! It's good to see heathy discussion without the fanboyism.
As one of the seemingly few in my area that actually bought a Dreamcast on launch I have a sense of dejavu with Microsoft trying to pre-empt Sony. With the DC, Sega release a superior, forward thinking console to the PS2 but as the Playstation userbase was so firmly entrenched most people would rather wait for the PS2 that spend the same amount on another console. With the rising price of hardware, only the hardcore gamers bother shilling for all the consoles and for the vast majority it comes down to the point of which one they think is more worth parting cash for. The PS2 was riding on the back of the highly successful and widely available PS, whereas the DC was encumbered with the baggage of the premature demise of the Saturn. Add to that the mass marketing done by Sony and the influence of "ill-informed" salesmen and the fight was over before it begun.
Now the Xbox 360 will fare a lot better because the Xbox itself is a solid console and has sold better than expected, but Sony has had two generations worth of success and their fans are hard to shift. Add to that the "technological superiority" of the PS3 and it doesn't look good.
The best Microsoft can do is solidify second place, in my opinion. Unless the PS3 is a stinking load the Sony dynasty will continue from strength to strength.

Oh, definitely. I don't think the XBox 360 will be a failure at all, due to the fact the XBox did brilliantly. I'm just a little dubious as to whether its a smart to move to be launching the next generation before Sony, or a stupid move.

I'm sure they've done their homework a helluva lot more than I have. This is Microsoft we're talking about here, they are the kings of peddling, after all.

I do think, from an educated point of view, the PS3 will still come out on top, and Mircosoft may increase their market share.

Mircrosofts plan is realistic, which is what I think makes them dangerous. They know what they are doing.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Maybe.

I have a feeling that Sony might not be the market leader after all this is done. They're doing some crazy stuff with it and it might be way to much.
As I said before in someother thread, Sony is playing with fire, telling media that its not a gaming machine, but a entertainment centre, which could distract hardcore gamers, while the price of the console (which might be high or not) could distract casual gamers, who made the PS1 and PS2 very popular.

And I agree with Superfly, MS is releastic with thier plans. They know its a gaming machine, while Sony is trying to cram every single feature in it and basically trying to change how consoles are made. It could be diseastrous.

one thing i am very dubious about is the hype...who remembers the gibberish that came from sony last time around in that the ps2 was going to be capable of linking into everything in your house...you were supposedly going to be able to order a game using your mobile/cell phone and it would be downloaded and ready to play when you got home... the best we got from any of the current generation of consoles was sub PC standard online gaming and some downloadable updates for games

Because Microsoft sucks royally like that.

Revolution looks the most promising right now. Xbox 360 right behind it. PS3.....i just watched the kill zone 2 video on the net and to me it looks CG and that means it looks like shrek (the movie). No consol on the market and the ones coming out can run CG it looks too realistic. kill zone 2 looked to realistic. every HAIR on EVERY guys face and head casted a shadow. and i really don't think sony could pull that much off. It was said to be in game, but i say right now sony is bluffing their games.

Yeah, Revolution looks like it may actually deliver a new gaming experience.

PS3 and XBox 360 have so far promised more of the same. It's just the PS2 and XBox, only more. More polygons, fancier lighting, bigger textures, more tricks.

Revolution actually seems to try and enhance the gaming experienece to the next level, rather than bombarding us with uber graphics and tech specs.

Revolution will be the one kicked aside yet again I am sure, but so far it seems the most interesting from a gamer's point of view.

It might be kicked aside, but I dont think Nintendo really cares anymore in trying to be the leading console anymore. MS and Sony can pile the money on thier consoles while Nintendo cant.
They're targeting thier fans and people who love playing games. They dont care if the processor is 3.2 GHz instead of 3.1 GHz.

Nintendo will still be around for quite awhile because they will still make money from their fans. Unlike Sega, thier franchises are alot more concrete and they dont make alot of mistakes that Sega did.

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Well, any console that has so far gone ahead of the Market Leader, has failed in any attempt to beat it.

It is the market leader that determines when the next generation starts. Sony did it with the Playstation and the PS2. Sega tried with the Saturn and Dreamcast and failed.

Logic tells us that nothing will happen until PS3 arrives.

However, Microsoft own the world anyway, so if push comes to shove they can always enslave the planet.

One point to note: Sony wasn't the market leader with the release of the original PlayStation... Sega and Nintendo were still the heavy hitters at that time, and Sony was new on the scene. So I don't necessarily agree with that stance.

Originally posted by Primitive Screwhead
One point to note: Sony wasn't the market leader with the release of the original PlayStation... Sega and Nintendo were still the heavy hitters at that time, and Sony was new on the scene. So I don't necessarily agree with that stance.

it depends whether you class the change to the playstation as a seperate generation of consoles which include the dreamcast and n64...or whether you view them as a challenge to the previous consoles like the snes etc

Originally posted by Primitive Screwhead
One point to note: Sony wasn't the market leader with the release of the original PlayStation... Sega and Nintendo were still the heavy hitters at that time, and Sony was new on the scene. So I don't necessarily agree with that stance.

True, and I already considerred that fact.

But Sony could pre-empt the market leaders in that case because they took the games industry in a completely new direction - a direction that it has been going in since the Playstaion started it, and that was making video games cool.

It was kinda a case of doing the right thing at the right time. It did something that the market leader was never planning to do - reinvent the market.

Now, unless Microsoft want to turn the market on its head like the Playstation did years ago, pre-empting the market leader isn't going to lead to the same success as the Playstation, or even guarantee any success at all in this case. The stakes are higher, and as far as marketing avenues are concerned, the lowest common denominator has alreday been targetted for many years now.

The Playstation boom was circumstantial to the leap from 2D to 3D, and the marketing stance. It had all the right ingredients to tackle Nintendo and Sega at the time.

The XBox 360 is up against Sony's PS3. Marketing is what they do best. I don't think Microsoft are going catch Sony sleeping on the job like Sony did to Nintendo years ago.

And, it's all about the games. If XBox 360 has Halo 3 and Perfect Dark, that could be enough to ensure it's success. I mean, the first XBox only ever sold on Halo for many months after it's release. XBox 360'll be OK.

That would seem to make sense, Fly. I really think Microsoft has a lot more to lose in terms of being second to market.... Sony is so well-established in the market now, that it will do more damage being perceived as the follower for a second time around than it would be to try and take first crack at the next generation and steal some of Sony's thunder.

Microsoft is in a tough position either way you cut it... their lack of concern for styling and design from an overseas standpoint really hurt them as they alienated a huge group. Most unfortunate, since I feel that the Xbox really was the technologically superior machine. If Microsoft's first batch of titles look good at release, I still feel that they've got an uphill battle to fight in terms of stealing market share in the long run, but I anticipate both Sony and Microsoft doing well this next go around.

Nintendo, on the other hand, really is just one giant question mark. Can't figure them out. I look at them, and I see the slow downward spiral that Sega followed after churning out multiple platforms in a small amount of time. The bad thing is that Nintendo is now doing what Sega did, but they're now doing it with their portable consoles. GBA, GBA-SP, DS and now this GBA micro (or whatever they're going to call it)... it's like they can't settle on a format. As a consumer, I find this like the frustrating exepreince of buying a computer, only to have it obsolete within a week of purchase. Since I have hardly anything in terms of specs for the Revolution, this is all I have to attribute to the big N's corporate mindset... it's very strange. Somehow, they always seem to pull something out that keeps them in the equation... but man, I don't know what they're up to this time.

you have to wonder if microsofts bad press that comes with the awfulness of their operating systems and their evil giant world conquering jean baptiste emanuel zorg reputation will affect the x box

did it the last time around?

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Yeah, Revolution looks like it may actually deliver a new gaming experience.

PS3 and XBox 360 have so far promised more of the same. It's just the PS2 and XBox, only more. More polygons, fancier lighting, bigger textures, more tricks.

Revolution actually seems to try and enhance the gaming experienece to the next level, rather than bombarding us with uber graphics and tech specs.

Revolution will be the one kicked aside yet again I am sure, but so far it seems the most interesting from a gamer's point of view.

Oh look, an educated reply, how UNUSUAL on an internet message board. I have a feeling what Nintendo has planned for Revolution will mark it as a classic in the future, with downloadable games from the Golden Age of gaming, that's just smart right there. Sony saying Ps3 will be more than a gaming console is interesting, but I like Nintendo's plan more. Oh look a hard drive and shit in the 360, I'm REALLY f***in impressed, oh wait I already own a computer, so why buy another one? A WHITE one? Yeah, I'll be called a Sony/Nintendo fanboy, but XBox 360 hasn't impressed me so far, Full Auto looks like a game on Halo 2 par for graphics, & that controller is still obnoxious to me anyway.

they are releasing it early becuz they know their console sucks a$$ and they know that gaming companies like Nintendo and Sony have better consoles, games and "gaming fanbase" to blow them out of the water for the next millienia so they are hoping very silly people will go and buy their console so that they can cash in on the anticapation and expectancy of the gaming public.

The Xbox does not "suck ass", nor do I expect the next gen to be any different. In fact, not a single one of the consoles in this generation could even be considered a bad console. Underutilized or a victim of insufficient application, yes. Falt out bad, no.

The Xbox was the technically superior console of the three, as evidenced by games like Halo, Ninja Gaiden and the incorporation of online play. As I said before, their failure was in the alienation of the European and Japanese gaming community.

Sony did excatly what it was supposed to in order to maintain its stronghold over Microsoft and Nintendo... excellent marketing and a very good first-party development. While Microsoft put some high-quality titles out that just could not be run on the PS2, they were too few and far between. For every Halo-type release, Sony was putting out another GTA, Metal Gear, Ratchet and Clank or God of War type of game. Yes, the games like Vice City and Sons of Liberty made it over to Xbox eventually (and looked better), but it took a hell of a long time given Sony's repuation in the halls of the Konami, Rockstar and Capcom.

Nintendo's Gamecube probably had the most potential for it that never was implemented. They moved from cartidge to disc format... smart move. The development of the Game Boy Player was just a terrific idea, and the incorporation of GBA/GC crossover interaction could have been so much more. The game selection is so much more limited than the other two, but I feel that Nintendo first-party titles have tried to maintain the feel of games that made earlier entries so successful. Zelda and Mario titles felt the way they were meant to be played, but still instilled a feel about them that made them feel like the next generation of games. This was the little engine that could, and despite being the least of the three consoles in terms of performance and game selection, it was a very good console.

To say that any system "sucks" shows your fanatical nature... and I highly doubt that a large portion of this group really took the time to play all three systems.

Primitive, GC was under XBOX but above PS2 in terms of performance. Or do you mean something different?

It sure looks like Nintendo is going down like Sega but I dont think they will. Sega didnt have the same amount of main characters like Nintendo does. Also, it didnt have the same amount of diehard fans. Lastly, Nintendo has the talent to pull off some of the best game of the year while Sega didnt. Thats why I think Nintendo wont do what Sega did.

The churning of console for Nintendo is actually working for them. People bought the original GBA, then bought the SP version. DS is completly different system and the Micro is basically an alternative option to the SP. It hasnt hurt them at all, it actually got them more money. Also, they have been doing that for years with original Gameboy (Pocket, the face colour version, then Gameboy Colour). Unlike console systems, the new versions of GBA are not obselete because you dont need to buy it. Its there if you want too. You can still play new GBA games on the original one.

No, that's what I meant... I think you're right though, looking back in retrospect. I guess GC was supposed to be more powerful than PS2, though the lact of application and the smaller amount of titles probably was what led me to think the other way. I stand corrected on that point.

I agree with Smasandian. The reason Sega weren't able to hang on like Nintendo have is their lack of franchise characters. Instead of building on existing titles they went the innovative approach of trying new directions (some of which did not work) and probably hoped that the diversity of their games would hold sway. It didn't and you will notice that since Sega have ditched consoles they have started turning out more sequels (Altered Beast 2, Outrun 2, Shinobi whatever and rumour has it a new Afterburner).
If you look at the past decade or so of gaming you'd be hard pressed to find a company with a more diverse portfolio than Sega and a lot of companies owe a lot of their success to ideas Sega pioneered.

Anyhoo, I pretty much think when the next generation of consoles roll around not much will change except we will be playing better looking (but not necessarily better) games. Sony will remain unmoved, Microsoft will cement their place with another solid effort and Nintendo will continue to cater for those left in the cold by the other two fighting it out.

The churning of console for Nintendo is actually working for them. People bought the original GBA, then bought the SP version. DS is completly different system and the Micro is basically an alternative option to the SP. It hasnt hurt them at all, it actually got them more money. Also, they have been doing that for years with original Gameboy (Pocket, the face colour version, then Gameboy Colour). Unlike console systems, the new versions of GBA are not obselete because you dont need to buy it. Its there if you want too. You can still play new GBA games on the original one.

Exactly, all along Nintendo has had backwards compatibility under their belt, but through handhelds, not the consoles. Now the time for backwards compatibility on their new console is done, and CORRECTLY.

Well backward compatibilty sometimes doesnt work.
The DS software didnt sell at all because the games were weak, so people just played GBA games.
It could happen with the Revoultion. The graphics are said to be 3 times as powerful, which isnt the biggest leap. If the new games arent good, the Revolution software sales will dwindle due to the fact that they can play all thier GC games and if the older titles are free, play all the old school games too, for free. That means no software sales.

Consoles companies make thier money on software and not the actual console. Look at the rumored pricing for the XBOX. Obviously, theyre not going to make any profit with it but actually make a ton of profit from sales. Consdering for each game sold, MS will be getting a cut of that, that will turn out to be alot of money.

All I care is the hyp about the stuff after the PS3 / X-Box there WILL all ways be something better after this.

Originally posted by n00bslayer
i think microsoft should hold off on xbox 360 for a lil bit longer so they can make it as good as it can be. i already think PS3 and Revolution are gunna beat xbox 360 because they r takin time to design the systems. Nintendo hasn't really even said what they are gunna do to their newest consol and PS3 has this crazy idea for "cell technology". so y doesn't xbox 360 try stuff like that?? if u dissagree then post sumthin.

It's quite simple really...

microsoft wants to sell their product early bfore the nintendo releases revolution and Sony releases the PS3 so people will be hooked on the xbox 360 and will not want to buy the PS3 or Revolution. Heh..it's kind of funny that Microsoft plans to release halo 3 on the date that the PS3 is released.

I read an article on it, and they are releasing it so early so that when the new Sony system is released, Sony will walk right into the release of Halo 3. Nice marketing plan... heh heh...

halo 3 in my opinion is gunna blow ps3 out of the water if it released the same day as ps3

Originally posted by n00bslayer
halo 3 in my opinion is gunna blow ps3 out of the water if it released the same day as ps3

Oh yeah...one game is going to dent the sales of an ENTIRE console.

Originally posted by n00bslayer
halo 3 in my opinion is gunna blow ps3 out of the water if it released the same day as ps3

Did Halo ever reduce the PS2 to flames? It tried, twice, didn't even come close.

I swear fanboys aren't born with logic.

Originally posted by n00bslayer
halo 3 in my opinion is gunna blow ps3 out of the water if it released the same day as ps3

your fanboyism nullifies any effect of intimidating n00bs, cuz halo is overrated & you need to realize one game would NEVER destroy an entire company/console.

yea ur right sorry bout that

Originally posted by Phoenix Aska
It's quite simple really...

microsoft wants to sell their product early bfore the nintendo releases revolution and Sony releases the PS3 so people will be hooked on the xbox 360 and will not want to buy the PS3 or Revolution. Heh..it's kind of funny that Microsoft plans to release halo 3 on the date that the PS3 is released.

Good point!

Okay Boys and Girls lets open your history books. You should all remember this it wasn't that long ago.



Remember when the dreamcast came out? great System, but When the PS2 came out it blue it out of the water it terms of Hype. Nevermind the fact that the dreamcast had better games at PS2 launch....anyway this is unrelated...

My main point is, Look at how much of a market lead Sony gained by launching PS2 early with relatively no competition. Coming from an already formidably established postion only helped.

Microsoft went from industry rookie, to heavy weight second place. If microsoft had gotten a better launch(with the type S controllers and better follow up games after that 4 month period where you get bored of your launch titles) microsoft could be in a completly different position. They want to establish the same lead that Sony did with the PS2. However, there is a lack of hype over the 36o since they showed us everyone thing about it, and the fact that nowdays everything is next gen.

Nintendo won't go the way of Sega no matter how many times you analyze it.

1.While the Gamecube did not perform nearly as well as Nintendo had hoped, it was no where near a absolute failure.

2. Nintendo learned many important lessons during this console cycle. They learned how badly the kiddy image had hurt them, as well as the lack of online play, and the small media disc format they had used.

3. Nintendo has such a large fanbase, that even if they buy a 360, or PS3, odds are they will get a revolution.

4. Gameboys are much cheaper and are an already established format. Almost everyone has one. I don't know what Nintendo is doing with the Micro, but if it's priced cheap I may pick one up. Sometimes the DS is to big to carry around.


The key difference between Nintendo and Sega is that When the Saturn flopped, it flopped BIG. The company lost millions. They had no fallback, and weak franchises, it wasn't competitively priced, and lacked any strong must have titles. Many of it's best games never were translated for us release in it's final months. They lacked a sutiable marketing campaign to breakpast the PS2 hype and Console complacency that had developed. PSX owners wanted to wait for the Ps2. N64 users had a bunch of new games on the way, as well as the hope the "dolphin" would come out soon. they also lacked any truly stand out launch titles.. The gamecube however, as much as it did flop, it was no where even comparable to the saturn. Nintendo did not lose nearly as much money as Sega, and they were able to complete a partial recover thanks to the fantastic first party games such as Zelda, metroid, Mario kart, and some great games from capcom(traitorus bastards). The cube hasn't faded into oblivion, like the saturn and dream cast.

now my main message.


get this through your ****ing heads. When Nintendo pulls out of the console industry, they will PULL OUT OF THE GAMING INDUSTRY!

if you want to keep playing Zelda, Mario, Metroid, and all the other awsome Nintendo games, you need to support the company. You have got to stop being short sighted.