Do people realize it's almost impossible to kill a douopoly console? (SONY/MS/XBox One)

[Dr.Henry_Killinger]

fatslob-:O said:

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

4 years is paltry when the competitors are have already doubled that in lifetime.

Still doesn't give you the right to claim that the WII was a fad ...

In the red because of what exactly? Mind showing me some links to back up your claims. Cause I could easily attribute a lot of Xbox's losses to the RROD fiasco.

http://www.neowin.net/news/report-microsofts-xbox-division-has-lost-nearly-3-billion-in-10-years

http://www.1up.com/news/epic-games-cost-microsoft-billion

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-07-huge-xbox-losses-hidden-by-patent-royalties-says-analyst

Alot of the losses are due to microsoft selling consoles at a LOSS. Microsoft also hides a part of the losses by claiming android patent fees.

The N64 was also a clear decline from the SNES. Please elaborate how making profit is a failure. Clearly it isn't a failure if the goal was to make money. The Wii is for all intents and purposes a repurposed gamecube. It actually has the OS on the and the hardware of the system hence its easy yet cheap backwards compatability. But you know what, despite that fact, it doesn't resemble the GameCube in the slightest, especially not its controller ports.

Making profit in itself isn't a failure but a DECLINE is also a failure in many ways itself. Making money is ONE THING but making customers are revenues are another. Hence, why the GC and xbox HAD NO INFLUENCE on the FUTURE and therefore are failures. 

Gamecube came after PS2, so my point still stands, online and hdd were made standard by Xbox. They where just peripherals that the mainstream wouldn't understand with regards to the PS2. If anything, the Xbox Arcade edition resembles the PS2, barring the marketplace, but since its just a strip down stock model its clear as day to see the simalarities between the 360 and the OG. 

It goes either WAY. It doesn't matter if it were peripherals on the PS2. You can't say that the original xbox was the one who set the standards when it is in fact supported by consoles before it. Much like how you can't claim that it was eyetoy who set standards for motion gaming when it clearly flopped in comparison to the competitors solution. Standards are set when it is ADOPTED by mainstream and the original xbox didn't get support from the mainstream so it was very much likely that the xbox 360 set that standard. 

Just because the PS2 Dominated, doesn't mean the competiton was irrelevant. Sega was made irrelevant by the PS1, and they don't make consoles anymore, that right there is total failure.

It pretty much did mean that the competition was irrelevant. 

Here we go again:

Out of the three links you posted, only one of them was relevant to the OG, and it showed that 360 lost more money than the OG did, it just made more profits as well, but that doesn;t help your argument when your trying to put the blame of the xbox divsion being in the red on the OG Xbox.

NIntendo's consoles have been declining since the NES, with the exception of the Wii which is a verifiyable fad, every single Nitendo console has sold less than its predecessors. To claim that the decline started with the GC is completely ignoring the previous generations.

Backwards compatiblity isn't an influence? It should be obvious how this is a blantant fallacy. You can't prove your point, while I have been providing real evidence that cleary contradicts your claims.

If it doesn't matter that they where peripherals on the PS2, then the Dreamcast would be responsible for the features. The fact is the PS2 slim did not have these options avaliable. It doesn't matter that the PS2 and Dreamcast supported it, the Xbox mandated it. Every single model of the xbox has hdd and online capability. That is indisputable. Furthermore, every console afterwards has released with online and hdd. Everything else you mentioned is not standard.