can the 360 sell 70+ million consoles?

[Mr Puggsly]

EdStation3 said:

Mr Puggsly said:

 

But the competition is the least successful console this generation. Developers can't depend on the PS3 solely therefore they'll always depend on the 360 as well. That means they'll be obliged to fit games on DVDs whether they want to or not.

Developers ditched the N64 because cartrides were expensive and 3rd party sales were weak. Are you aware cartridges are much more expensive than DVDs? So that argument just makes no sense.

MS has a history of only one other console and it wasn't very successful. Supporting the original Xbox any further was pointless. Considering the Xbox 360 is much more successful and has a huge lead over the PS3, it was clearly the right decision.

MS already said they plan to support the 360 for 5 more years and its still doing a great job moving software (both 1st and 3rd party). So its definitely going to around for more than 2 years.

-The competition is unsuccessful?  Yeah that's why I said that PS3 is poised to over take the 360 in about a year and a half.  By then the 360 will be the least successful console and will also strain developers with it's PS2 storage limitations, the DVD.  Like I said, it's like buying that two seat sports car when your planning children...There is no room for growth that happens every year as time goes on.

-Yes it was more expensive but the cartridge also would not let devs do what they envisioned.  Final Fantasy started on the N64 and a little into the development, Square moved to the PS1 mainly because of this.  Not a bribe by Sony, like most 360fanboys keep saying.

-Exactly, it was pointless.  Supporting a console that uses PS2 storage medium which is 12 years old, two years from now would be pointless.  Develops will flock to the 'limitless' resources of the PS3.  Wii's focus isn't HD but motion so they won't need to consume all that space anytime soon.  A 6 year life cycle is much better than it's predecessor's 4.

-They also planned to support the Xbox longer than they said...My cousin and I bought PS2 and XBox respectively and after 18 months his console was dropped...I still play mine.  $250 plus $60 Live fees for a console that lasted him a year and a half roughly.  My $200 PS2 is still supported.  If multiple discs was a great alternative then the Xbox and PS2 should of used CD technology...with insane compression on multiple discs.

- Like I said, developers will figure out how to fit their games in the DVD no matter what. I doubt the PS3 will outsell the 360. But even if it did, it'll never make a profit. And for that reason the PS3 is unsuccessful.

- Cartridges were a different story. Not only were they an expensive form of media, they were more expensive depending on the amount of data they wanted to use. For example many games used 16MB carts. Larger cartridges like 64MB were more expensive and almost never used. DVD media is cheap and developers can use multiple discs if necessary. Using the N64 as a comparison is illogical.

- Clearly using DVDs wasn't a bad idea considering we've had 5 great years with them. Now storage is becoming an issue, but developers will most likely just start using multiple discs. The PS3 offered the latest technology but it was far too expensive and now its a huge financial failure. The PS3 is the only console this gen being sold at a loss and dropped 50% in price.

- The PS2 was a success, the original Xbox was not. What aren't you getting? The Xbox 360 is a success as well, there is no reason to compare it to the original Xbox.