Who Really Won the Console War?

[fatslob-:O]

STRYKIE said:

fatslob-:O said:

STRYKIE said:

fatslob-:O said:

RolStoppable said:
I don't think anybody really won.

1) Nintendo rediscovered their formula for success, but then abandoned their machine and did a complete turnaround to pursue the failed strategies from before the Wii.

2) Microsoft's goal was to have the #1 selling console of the generation (hence the "first system to 10m wins" mantra). Not only did they fail at that, but their gains also came mostly down to Sony messing up big time. Xbox cemented its position as a very US and UK centric brand, so as long as they'll stick with their brand, they'll never have a realistic chance to become global sales leader. Their position of fake dominance late in the generation also got to their heads and thus they moved towards what they really care about: non-gaming.

3) Sony lost on all fronts in their pursuit of non-gaming. Money, market share, goodwill. Should the PS3 miraculously end up in first place once all systems have stopped selling, then it would be a devastating sign for the video games market. Over 100m consoles sold and #1, but zero profits to show for it.

4) Gamers lost, especially those who liked the Wii and/or PC gaming. The Wii got hardly any worthwhile third party support despite selling better than any other system before it while a lot of big name PC developers began to make consoles their lead platform which led to watered down PC gaming. Not just on consoles, but on the PC itself as well. And those who liked what the 360 and PS3 had to offer saw their rights reduced or removed step by step in the industry's pursuit of the blockbuster model.

Nowadays the big publishers either nickle and dime their consumers or they are selling out to mobile platforms in hopes to save their flailing businesses. All because it's unthinkable to put a stop to the blockbuster model and get costs under control. As a result, the eighth generation will see fewer game releases that will also happen to be even more similar to each other. That's not healthy for gaming and if gaming isn't healthy, it isn't good for gamers. Some will not acknowledge that something is going wrong on a broader scale before it hits their personal gaming habits though.

I still say the Wii won. The PS3 was a total screw up by sony initially and your right about microsoft only leaching off from sony. Remember what malstrom said ? Winning a console war is always about having the least bullshit and it was the WII that had the least bullshit. Sure nintendo dropped the ball half way in the WIIs lifespan but it was still alot better than the sub hd twins until near end of it's life. Since when did third party support ever matter to a nintendo console ever since the n64 days ? (Except for portables ofcourse.) The WII was able to thrive without alot of third party support so why are you so down about nintendo consoles not getting any ? You're right about the AAA game model being unhealthy but at the same time those AAA games are the ones sustaining the gaming industry! Whether you hate COD or BF or some other massive AAA game like GTA V they are the ones who are ironically saving the gaming industry too. 

Bolded 1: You're acting as if the thing was in the same boat as the Atari Jaguar lol. Going from the PS2 to the internet's #1 angry pitchfork mob haven was far from ideal publicity and certainly not what Sony was going for, but it still did better in it's first year than the 360 did in it's first year. I'll even say that the "XBone = new Sega Saturn" consensus is rather overkill.

Bolded 2: Explain. This could literally adhere to anything.

Bolded 3: The fuck? What are you gonna come up with next? The PS2 and Xbox were Hard Drive twins? The PS1 and Sega Saturn were CD twins? Just because Nintendo choose to be out of the loop concerning industry standards doesn't make the next most relevant systems in question identical.

Bolded 4: Because this further motivated Nintendo not to improve their 3rd party relations, since the average Wii consumers were buying the same 6-7 1st/2nd party titles, yet left others alienated.

 

It's stuff like this that I don't think we're gonna have a unanimously agreed winner for at least 5 years, and even then, it might still be unclear.

@Bold 1 Sorry dude but the PS3 was incompetence on sony's part!

@Bold 2 By least bullshit I mean expensive ass hardware and non gaming crap! The PS3 wanted to be a bluray player instead of a gaming machine and the xbox one wants to be some some TV box or some other crap for all I could care! 

@Bold 3 Those sub hd twins were losers so I don't know what's so special you see in two losers of the generation!

@Bold 4 The others were alienated because those games are not meant for the new audiences! 

A unanimously agreed winner is the one who's gonna sell most or I should probably say shine! 

1) It seems you're confusing the word "incompetence" with arrogance. I think a decade of unprecented market share would send the most modest CEO's head up their own ass. Everything else wasn't much different (if any) from the PS2, and nobody was crying foul about "booooo, PS2 is just a movie player, wheres da gaemz?!". Were Nintendo "incompetent" circa SNES launch?

2) That's strange considering the Wii was retailed far above it's manufacturing cost more so than any other system this gen, and the UI was littered with non-gaming channels, seriously, there hasn't been a PURE gaming system since the Gamecube, and nobody who had the PS2, Xbox and GC considered the GC the best of the three under any criteria thinkable. Whatever point you're trying to make about Xbox having non-gaming features literally made no sense. The 360's non-gaming features are on all three 7th gen systems, and the Xbone supposedly only catering towards being a cable box arguably has the strongest launch-line up between the next gen systems.

3) Again, what's with this ADHD-eqsue obsession you have about throwing the PS3 and 360 into the same lump? And what is this "sub-HD" term you've coined into some monkier that should be frowned upon? Because the Wii certainly wasn't doing any better, even with the aid of component cables for the most part. It's essentially just a label that's been masqueraded since the 80s, remember the launch model Sega Genesis and it's cutting edge 240p "High Definition Graphics"? And if being responsible for one of the industry's top 5 best selling home consoles ever created amongst 2 co-existing fierce competitors in it's 40 year history is the accolade of a loser, then fuck me sideways and get me right on board.

4) Right, except several of the Wii's top 10 highest selling games' successors haven't garnered much interest for the Wii or Wii U, and with no 3rd party support to fall back on, on top of staff who are reltaively inexperienced in the field of the industry standards that were established by the PS3 and 360 (and even the PS2 and original Xbox to some extent), has left Nintendo in a lose/lose situation.

 

Just for clarity's sake, I think the 360 has been a vastly overrated system since 2008 onwards, and no, "non gaming channels" haven't deterred my experience on the Wii, I still think the system was worth it just for SMG1 and 2 alone, and overall still has a very strong case for being the winner of the 7th gen. But your personal reasoning behind the Wii having the edge is mindblowingly childish with no grasp of the metagame behind each of the three systems. Childish isn't particularly the word I'd like to use, but your argument, in a nutshell basically is: "Nintendo makes real gaming systems without non-gaming bullshit, Sony and MS are losers and just make sub-HD cable box and Blu-ray player."

1) No I am not! Sony was incompetent. If you can't deal with that fact then so be it. The PS3 is the exact definition of incompetence. Arrogance is one thing but messing up your product is another. The rest of your bantering is useless.

2) Despite the fact that consoles have non gaming features I would prefer it if they didn't use it as some selling point. The GC had low quality games compared to the PS2 and xbox and thus it went out to flop. The xbox one is catering to the crowds with cable boxes plus that's what microsoft is touting as the selling point! Launch line-ups mean little in the long run. The only console that I can think of that had a good launch was the WII. 

3) The WII certainly didn't have better hardware but it sure as hell had the better games. Plus the reason I call them "sub hd twins" has to do with the fact that their watered down PCs. 

4) Again your missing my point! The WII proved that it didn't need third party to thrive! Nintendo went on a lose-lose situation because nintendo was dumb enough to decide to directly compete with the sub hd twins. 

It was for that generation because nintendo didn't sell their consoles on non gaming features! There are other reasons as to why the WII won but this is one of them included.