y is xbox 360 hitting stores so early???
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 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.
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.
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
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