| Jordahn said: Overall more harm because things could have actually been better in the gaming industry as a whole. If the 360 were launched a year later, third party developers would have been more concentrated on developing for last gen. The advantage here is that it would have allowed for those developers to be more financially ready for this gen by raking in more profits from last gen software sales. Also Microsoft would have still produced the original Xbox which would have also help 3rd party developers profit from a could have been growing original Xbox userbase. Development costs have always risen from one gen to the next so the more financially ready they are the better. Also, numerous developers have voiced that it's easier to develop for the PS3 as the lead platform and then port over to the 360 instead of the other way around. This probably could have helped developers spend less time and money when developing multi-platform games for both the PS3 and 360. Eventhough the PS3 is harder to develop for than the 360, it would have served them better in the long run than having a harder time porting to the PS3 with sometimes lesser results. At the very least, developing for both platforms simutaneouly would have still been better. And not knowing the outcome of the 360 a year prior to the release of the Wii and PS3, might have forced more 3rd party on board with the Wii with similar games if not the same titles. And maybe if Microsoft had another year to solidify their hardware, the RROD probably would not have been an issue. In essence: 1) 3rd parties would have been more financially stable from last gen investments. 2) Better resulting games from PS3 development to 360 ports. 3) More variety in Wii titles. 4) Near non-existant 360 hardware issues like the Wii and 360. |
Good post. So now we have two people looking at the situation from the consumer's perspective.
