More importantly, does everyone just assume that the next Xbox will just be two 360s duct-taped together with motion controllers, and that it will be succeeding a dying console with NO notable games scheduled for release for the entire next year???

@padib

..... yes, certainly there's some gaps in there and examples where lesser consoles kept their momentum against a technically superior rival but, generally speaking, which is exactly what I was doing, the game industry and the technology that supports it keep moving forward and we as gamers follow right along. We move with it... I stated that earlier in an overall sense, just sort of a wide-ranging comment devoid of specifics. Play4fun, for some reason, felt the need to try and correct me and do so in a rather condescending way, which I 'aint having. There's roughly 40 years of home console history that more than support my statement. Is there a significant number of people still rocking the Fairchild F, the Magnavox Odyssesy II or the Bally Astrocade?

Early adopters and reluctant bystanders notwithstanding, the most powerful console of any generation, which normally serves as the most innovative, moves the entire industry forward. Eventually everybody comes around. Everybody gravitates towards that. Whether it's that console individually, or a competitor's release that was influenced by it. The 3DO for example, the first dedicated cd console to release, failed miserably, but paved the way for all the optical-based machines that followed. The original Xbox.... and 24 million is a huge number by the way, especially considering MS was a first time player and had to overcome an immense amount of negativity ascribed to it by resentful tech-heads and bandwagon haters, pushed the industry into harddrive equipped, connected, HD gaming....

Are there examples where the most powerful console didnt' succeed against it's rivals?.... sure. Are there examples where the most powerful console didn't have an impact/influence on the industry as a whole and move it forward? ...None.

Which is why the NES, SNES, Gameboy, Playstation, PS2, Nintendo DS, and Wii all struggled to sell systems and games in the face of their more powerful competition?

There has only been 2 switches in who produced the market leading console from one generation to another, and there has only been two particularly close generations. The first switch was people moving from Nintendo with the SNES to Sony with the Playstation, and a large portion of that success was that Sony was able to release their console earlier than the N64; and even though the N64 was dramatically more powerful the lead Sony built helped them dominate in that generation. The second time the market leader has switched was people moving from the PS2 to the Wii, and this was driven by the higher price-tag of the PS3 driving away gamers while the more unique Wii attracted a larger userbase. The two close generations were the SNES/Genesis and this current generation, and in both cases strong competition entered the market (Genesis and XBox 360) prior to the successor of the market leading console being released.

As anyone can see, the factors which have been demonstrated to be the most important to becoming the dominant console are releasing ahead of the competition, being the successor to a dominant console, and having an attractive price. The strategy that many seem to be claiming that Sony and Microsoft should/will follow, releasing a system 12 to 18 months later probably at a higher price to be more technically advanced, has an awful track-record of producing the most one-sided generations due to the poor sales performance of these systems.

The claim that "most gamers aren't ready" is always true, as most gamers will not buy into a system until it is (at least) a couple years old. You convert these gamers to a new generation by showing them what is possible and they will buy in when the library becomes substantial enough and the system falls to a reasonable price. Giving Nintendo a long lead-time only translates to them hitting this price/library point earlier, and potentially before you've even released your system.

are you and play4fun related or something... cousin's maybe.... why is that you're both trying to argue with me over general statements. You can't do that man, it doesn't work. It's like me saying that people are generally good-natured. Or adversely, that people are generally self-centered. You can't argue with either because they're generalizations.
For some reason, and I'm not trying to be a smart@#@ here, you highlighted a line of text in my reply and then went on to write, what I'm assuming are counter-points, that neither contradict nor agree with what's highlighted.
Guess I'm a little lost here.
Nowhere in my text that you specifically bolded do I say that the most powerful console is also the best selling. Sooooo... what's with all the consoles you listed in your first sentence? I mean, I don't get it. Are you trying to argue with me? What?
I said the most powerful console within each generation moves the industry forward... and developers/gamers at some point, follow along. That's obviously true. There's nothing to argue here. Nothing.
What was the very first video game console you played on?
Do you still play that console more than anything else?
If not, which I'm 100% you don't, that would mean you moved on to a more powerful console.
Were done here.

(thought I was done)

Padib.... you're not taking the time to actually read what I'm saying




I said: "Early adopters and reluctant bystanders notwithstanding, the most powerful console of any generation, which normally serves as the most innovative, moves the entire industry forward."

You said: No, the most powerful console of a generation is not always the most innovative. The Wii was clearly the innovator up until late 2010, yet was even half a gen lacking. The N64 was at once the most powerful and the most innovative console at launch, yet it lagged far behind the half a gen weaker PS.

...... read the sentence I wrote Padib, please. I said 'normally', which is another way of saying, 'not always' So, you see, we actually agree on this and you would have understood that, had you actually read the sentence.

I said: Eventually everybody comes around. Everybody gravitates towards that. "

You said: Not true. Sorry I want to agree and all but it isn't how things work.

..... that's exactly true. Everybody comes around. Like I asked you in my follow up post, are you still predominantly playing the very first console that introduced you to home video games? No. You're not. And neither is anybody else who considers themselves a gamer.


I said: The 3DO for example, the first dedicated cd console to release, failed miserably, but paved the way for all the optical-based machines that followed.

You said: Not even... I hate doing this but, Sony had within its strategy to launch a CD-enabled console even before that, and the Sega CD even prior, at the mid-to-end of the Genesis' lifecycle. The 3DO had nothing to do with any of the subsequent optical-enabled consoles.

..... again, you're not reading. I said 'dedicated' cd-based console. The sega cd was an add-on that needed a ROM/Cartridge based machine to work. So, you shouldn't have even brought it up. And as far as Sony's plans with the Playstation, who cares, the 3DO, a 32-bit, CD-based console, released 2 YEARS before the Playstation made it to market. 2 years. And compared to what was out there, namely the SNES and the Genesis, the thing was a technical beast well ahead of it's time. If you don't think the the 3DO had some influence on later machines, than you're just being naive.

I said: The original Xbox.... and 24 million is a huge number by the way, especially considering MS was a first time player and had to overcome an immense amount of negativity ascribed to it by resentful tech-heads and bandwagon haters, pushed the industry into harddrive equipped, connected, HD gaming....



You said: But the point is that it was lightyears behind the king of Kings in that generation, the PS2, which is still selling today, as we speak history! And the bolded kind of proves my point.


..... again, not reading. I don't care that it didn't sell as much, or that the PS2 is still available at retail. That was never my point. But I brought up the 24 million console sales for a reason; although a completely insignificant number compared to the PS2's totals, 24 million people.. and droves of developers... adopted the xbox because it was the next big thing. Sony, feeling the assualt that MS was directing right at them, responded by creating the rediculously powerful PS3. So you can plainly see the direct influence that the 6th gen's most advanced console had on the industry. It's right there in front of you. Millions of people bought it, their main competitor feared it and the other guys, realizing they didn't have the muscle or resources of MS or Sony went for innovation.

I said: Are there examples where the most powerful console didn't have an impact/influence on the industry as a whole and move it forward? ...None.

You said: Many.

Successful: Game boy (1989), NES (1983), Super NES (1990)

Not successful yet more powerful: Turbographix 16 (1987), Jaguar (1993 compare to 3DO), Lynx (1989), Gamegear (1990), Virtual Boy (1995, consider it a portable), 3DO (1993, compare to sega CD, Super NES, et al.)

....... ??????? wrong. just plain ole' wrong. Again, you're not reading, plus you got some facts screwed up. the TurboGrafx did great over in Japan. The Jaguar was not more powerful than the 3DO, if not for the Atari Lynx, Sega's woudn't have been as technically aggressive as they were with Gamegear, Virtual Boy doesn't even belong in this conversation as it wasn't the most powerful anything (other than a headache producer) and generally speaking, every console you listed, except for Virtual Boy, had an impact on the industry and helped move it forward. Which.... has been my point the entire time.
Oh, by the way, you still play any of those?... you know, more than you do the 360, PS3 or PC.
Didn't think so.

here's where the argument ends..... because I'm going to prove you wrong this time and not make another useless attempt at discussing things with someone who doesn't actually read what I type and simply wants to argue their side, right or wrong, common sense or no sense at all. There are so many of you guys on this website, I barely post anything at all anymore. Everybody knows better.... well, you don't.

you stated above that the 3DO can't do 3D graphics. You're wrong... and if you're wrong about that, something as simple as checking on You-tube, I won't even bother with the rest of what you've said.
As you stated to me, Google is your friend, well, I'll let You-tube be yours. Next time you feel like arguing with someone, make sure you know what you're talking about first. Later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR-CwrdroIQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kONQsh_-HaM

Well, I was going to ignore your condescending little post, but after your latest posts I guess I'll grace you with an answer:

- " .... you know there's really no need to be an arrogant schmuck allright, I was making an example and simply threw out an arbitrary multiple to exaggerate my point. Obviously neither console will be 20 times more powerful. The point that I was making was directly related to cost and how that is the main factor limiting what those new consoles will be capable of. If Sony and MS can both make cosoles that blow the doors off the Wii U...and do so in a cost effecient way, I'll repeat that..and do so in a cost effecient way... then believe me, that's what they'll do. "

Yeah, and the whole point is in order for them to 'blow the Wii U out of the water' it won't be cost effective. The tech required for it is expensive. I can see Sony at least doing if they launch in 2014 but MS will no doubt launch in 2012/2013 and while their console will undeniably more powerful than Wii U, it won't be so by orders of magnitude. The power gap between all 3 upcoming consoles will be more similar to the 6th gen that this gen. Plus,  MS and Sony are not going to sink as much money as they did this generation.

-".....thanks for the info, but, developers, just like gamers, want things bigger and better. I didn't say anything about cost, or what's cheaper to develop on, I said developers always want more power and ability to create what they envision. If that weren't true, than we wouldn't have Idtech5, or Frostbite 2.0, PC graphic cards wouldn't keep evolving etc. etc.... increased tech capabilities are what drive the game industry forward, without them, we'd still be playing Atari. You gotta learn to read between the lines a little bit and stop being so literal."

Obviously, you didn't have to say anything about costs  because more power equals more cost. You think it doesn't cost anything to make those detail-packed games? If it didn't then we wouldn't have IDTech5, frostbite and other engines to make game development easier for devs.

I love how you didin't quote this little part of my post -"Most devs, outside of the big companies like EA and Ubisoft, don't want development costs to do what  it did to so many smaller companies this gen." Obviously you want to shut your eyes to how rising game development budgets affected companies, especially the smaller ones, this generation. Keep trying to ignore how many went bankrupt and out of business  but I'm sure MS and Sony noticed.

Keep trying to ignore how  so many devs are relying on tried and proven franchises because they know they will sell since they are afraid to try new creative IPs for  fear they might flop after all the money they spent developing them.

- " .......once again, you're misreading, or simply misunderstanding my point. I didn't say anything about the most powerful console being the market leader for it's respective generation. I said developers and gamers will gravitate towards the most powerful cosole, and they do so because that's the natural order and evolution of the industry. I didn't say it had to be everybody all at once. For arguments sake; ColecoVision and Intellivision stole quite a few gamers away from Atari, the original NES re-established the home console market. The Super Nintendo brought back allot of gamers that the company had lost to the Genesis. Playstation knocked the Saturn around, the Dreamcast blew people away until... check it out.... the more powerful Playstation 2 was released. The Xbox sold 24 million consoles and the PS3 will at some point take over 2nd place here in the seventh generation. What do all these consoles have in common with each other... yep, you guessed it, they were more powerful than the console before it and developers/gamers gravitated towards them. "

If gamers and developers gravitated towards the most powerful console because it's the natural order and evolution of the industry, then why didin't gamers , for example, gravitate to XBox/GC after they released since they were more powerful than PS2? Or from PS1 to N64 since N64 was more powerful? Why did devs choose to mostly develop multi-plats on Xbox 360 despite PS3 being more powerful?

Development costs were rising and Xbox 360 was easier and cheaper to develop for than PS3, that's why.

PS2's main reason for beating DC wasn't even power. Sega had already gotten themselves into deep shit because of making too many mistakes and PS2 was probably the cheapest way to get a DVD player when it launched. Sony  just delivered the last blow to Sega, that's all.

Fact is, the largest demographic of the console market, which provides most of the console sales, don't care about power as much as the hardcore minority.  So when you keep talking about 'gamers' gravitating to the most powerful console, all you are doing is referring to the smallest portion of the console gaming market. The ones that talk about pixels and tesselation and lighting and etc. Things which the larger market don't really give a shit about.

Unless you point is that once a new generation of consoles comes out, gamers and dev will move on to that the new generation of consoles in which case, DUH. 

But anyways, you were right. We are done here.

Classic case of someone who doesn't know how to refute a certain argument so he nitpicks one small part of the other's argument, says "I'm not going to argue against you because of this, I'm done."

" here's where the argument ends..... because I'm going to prove you wrong this time and not make another useless attempt at discussing things with someone who doesn't actually read what I type and simply wants to argue their side, right or wrong, common sense or no sense at all. There are so many of you guys on this website, I barely post anything at all anymore. Everybody knows better.... well, you don't."

And obviously people disagreeing with you makes you rage since this how how you have replied to posts in this thread that go against yours.

Maybe it would be best if you stop posting on this site after all. Too many people disagreeing with your posts even though it's obvious you are right and they are wrong. A forum where people debate and argue might not be the best place for one such as yourself.

@play4fun.....

"Unless you point is that once a new generation of consoles comes out, gamers and dev will move on to that the new generation of consoles in which case, DUH."

... way to go. I'm proud of ya'. See how that works when you actually read what someone wrote instead of confusing yourself by imagining how brilliant your reply's going to be before you even finish. Like I said in my very fist post.."if both those machines are SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than the Wii U, than developers and gamers will gravitate towards them" It only took you four pages, but, nice to see you figured it out.

And about nitpicking... yeah I did, I get tired of people disagreeing with me just to hear themselves speak, and since opinions, conjecture, and a subjective sense of how things happened in the past are all extermely hard to argue against... when someone makes a mistake that I can prove with video, you better believe I'm gonna pounce on it... then bolt. Game's over. I win.

... and what's more, I would't even be sitting typing this if you hadn't come swooping down from your self-appointed perch of heightened intellectualism and nitpicked my original post in the first place there chief. All of which was unnecessary as 4 pages later you return to tell me, and I'm paraphrasing, "oh I get it now. duh."
See, sometimes arrogance can bite you in the ass, make you look a little foolish, but I see you won't be figuring that out any time soon as you've, arrogantly, given yourself the authority to suggest where I should and shouldn't be posting.

Nice... but heh, here's a trick question for you. If I should stop posting because two people in this thread have been disagreeing with me and I keep arguing back because I think I'm right....then why exactly are you still posting? Maybe a forum where people debate and argue might not be the best place for one such as yourself.

(see what I mean about arrogance biting you on the ass there play... hope you got some band-aids, either that or an extraordinarily wide mouth to accommodate your foot)

I never thought that would be your point because it seemed like such a dumb point. Obviously after a generation has been going on for years and a new generation comes along devs and gamers will gravitate towards it because the everything that could be done with the old ones has been done.That's why gamers will move on to Wii U, 720 and PS4.

We were talking about the most powerful console within a generation and you knew it. That's why when you talked about 'the most powerful console' you never directly and specifically said you meant more powerful as in a new generation of consoles and not most powerful in its' respective generation. You knew what a dumb point that was because the reasons for moving on to a new generation is obvious to anyone. All I can tell you is 'DUH'.

But don't worry, I won't argue with you anymore. You can't seem to handle people going against your points of view. It pisses you off that they won't just agree with you. You are obviously a grown man but you behave like a kid whining because people won't agree with him.I can see by just looking at other threads in your post history.

You have taught me a valuable lesson, don't waste time with people like you on forums. Only debate and argue with people that don't catch fits whenever someone disagrees with them. Good day, sir.