albionus on 28 March 2007
Christopher_G2 said:
euclid said:
The same could be said about Sony.
To some extent, but where Sony really won was being the most developer friendly over the last two gens. Now they've gone from having the systems that's the easiest to make games for two gens in a row, to going to the system that's the hardest to make games for. When it comes to Microsoft the only reason they're even concidered a credible competitor in the gaming business it because they have so much money to shell around, and is willing to lose lots of money on deals that may never pay off (Rare for a half billion, how's that gone Microsoft?). I make no buts that I'm personally not a huge fan of Microsoft consoles, but even it's hardcore fanbase has to contend I'm right. Up to this point they more have become a video game success because of how much they spend, not really because of amazing business decisions.
To add to Kwaad's comment, the Gamecube was by every account I read the easiest system to develop for last generation. As I understand it the original Playstation was easier than the Saturn to develop for by far but the N64 was easier so long as the graphics were limited (though still better than the competition) due to its pathetic 4kB texture buffer and you could easily fit the game onto an 8 MB cartidge. As for Microsoft pushing sales even they have a limit. They can't go on losing a billion dollars a year on video games forever. If the Xbox 360 doesn't eventually make a profit shareholders will seriously question allowing the company to continue selling video games. They aren't a charity after all.
