halil23, you are the biggest biased fanboy I've ever seen. Grow up.

Poor guy.  No idea what he's up against.......

First off, Sega introduced pay to play on consoles.  Ever hear of Sega Net?  It was for the Dreamcast and it was more expensive than XBL.  M$ used its own expensive HDD but it also came packed with the system for those that wanted one.  It also supports memory cards, external HDDs via USB (Only 16 GB or something, though) and other peripherals.  If memory serves, Sony sold a $99 HDD last gen when all Xbox systems had them for free....and then they released the Slimline PS2 that didn't even support the device.  You speak of hardware reliability but I personally owned two Playstations because the black thingy that held my discs just fell the fuck off for no apparent reason. I owned three Playstation 2's because the first one quit reading discs period.  The second one had disc reading problems and when I opened it to perform a quick fix that I saw on youtube, I broke it.  I owned three Xbox 360's because the first one quit reading discs and then it got the RRoD.  I sold it.  My second one still works.  It's "Kinect-ed" to my TV in the living room.  My second one still works.  It's a 360s in my gaming room and it shares a shelf with my Wii, PC, and PS3.  Sony has hurt me more with their reliability than Microsoft. 

Is Nintendo better for the gaming world?  Remember (you probably don't) when they used to bully third parties?  They used to make them purchase expensive cartridges only from Nintendo and they had to buy a certain number.  If their game was shit, they spent too much on carts.  If their game was awesome, they didn't buy enough carts so they lost out on sales.  Remember how Nintendo wouldn't let companies release more than a certain number of games in a year?  That's why Konami had to create a second company called Ultra Games in the 80's so that they could actually release Metal Gear in the US.  Remember how, if Nintendo was going to releas a game of a certain genre, nobody was allowed to release a game in a competing genre for a certain amount of time?  And yet, Nintendo is good for gaming.  In fact, they're actually gaming's savior after the gaming crash in the early 80's.

Is Sony good for gaming?  Remember how they said consumers would "Get a second job" to pay for the $600 PS3?  Remember how they took features like backwards compatibility from the PS3?  How they refused to allow several 2D games to ever be released on the PS1?  How they made sure that several games were exclusive to their platform and wouldn't allow them to go to Saturn/Xbox during the PS1/PS2 days until MUCH later (GTA)?  The previously mentioned horrifically defective PS1/PS2 consoles ( I remember somewhere (consumer affair or some business association, can't remember) said if a hardware company makes product that has a higher failure rate than 10%, then said company has to cease production!! --sound familiar?)?  And yet, Sony is good for gaming.  In fact, they're actually responsible for gaming going "mainstream" and becoming a more mature form of entertainment.

So Microsoft brings DLC to consoles.  Downloadable games like XBLA, Netflix (almost a year before it came to Wii and PS3--without a disc*), Indie games, Achievements, an amazing web infrastructure that its competitors feed off of, video chat, movies/TV shows that can be purchased, and more.  Features that have become almost standard since Microsoft brought them to market first.  Features that you probably enjoy on your PS3 without a second thought where they originated.....and you question whether Microsoft and its "rivalry" with Sony is good for gaming?  Your PS3 wouldn't exist in its current form if it wasn't for the Xbox 360.  And vice versa.  Microsoft is good for gaming.

Let that soak into your pores.  It's good for the complexion.

*I know Microsoft had a deal with Netflix.  That's why Nintendo/Sony had to use discs (I still have the discs!).  It was their way of getting around Microsoft's exclusivity deal.  Still, Microsoft tested the waters and made Netflix a huge success until Netflix screwed it all up by almost doubling their prices.

lol, yeah they lost billions and all, but all 3 consoles brought something to the table, all sold well, and companies brought us lots of great games, i didn't mean it in a bussines perspective i just answered the question as a gamer that has enjoyed more this gen than any other. All are profitable products? i don't know, but as  videogame machines they're all a succes.

Brilliant post though man!

They have recouped all their losses and are now making money so yes they are a success. It's quite simple really.

To add to that... Microsoft also had a hand in developing the PS3's graphics chip.
The GPU inside the PS3 is of an nVidia design which actually adheres to the Direct X standard.
AMD, nVidia and other companies actually communicate with Microsoft on various levels about new standards and features that go into Direct X.
In-turn nVidia and AMD get to share each others (And Microsoft's) technologies and make it a standard in their hardware as it's supported in Direct X, the API that 99% of PC games use.

So thank Microsoft for assisting the PS3 in some way for it's graphical capabilities.

As for competition... Hell yes is it good.
The worst thing about these Billion dollar companies is if they have a market cornered... They sit on their lorrels and stagnate with less features, higher prices. Ultimately consumers end up worst off.
No, Sony or Microsoft will not send you flowers and cake if they were the only company in the console market and you bought their products. They would *milk* you for all it's worth.
Why people favor one company over the other... I'll never know, they don't actually care about you as an individual, but they do care about your money.

The Xbox has been a success for Microsoft, it's made them money, they will release a successor, nothing but success for a company where their main goal is to make money and please shareholders. - Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are exactly the same in that respect.

Very nice pun. I like it.

@D21, that was an impressive post. All players in the industry brought good and brought bad with them. It seems microsoft brought the least evil, but to be honest I'm not a fan of Microsoft's PC-ization of console software due to xyz. Then again more variety is good, as long as it doesn't reduce effort or offerings on traditional console-type experiences.

And even though Halil got blasted, I'm glad he brought it up because I kind of had that construct too in my mind, so I'm glad you guys deconstructed it.

Not to derail the thread, but in my eyes, the successes this gen in my eyes, in terms of achievement were:

360

Wii

PS3

In that order. Wii was a smashing success, but didn't reach its full potential due to one or two failings in foresight (the impact of HD games and the importance of cross-platform 3rd party games this gen). The PS3 had such a rough start and, despite an impressive catchup, they fell so short of expectations. The 360 is the most fulfilling success for the 3 manufacturers in my view, and with the integration of Kinect, a better image (great games, slim console model) they are ready for gen 8 and in a very strong position. I'm mostly worried about Sony for gen8.

It's fortunate for the competition that the RROD took the shine off the 360. As for pricing, MS would likely be wary of being accused of dumping to force out competitor products; don't forget MS is a convicted monopolist. By keeping the price as it is, MS stabilizes sales late in the gen, slim 360s would be pretty cheap to manufacture by now, and avoids saturating the market prematurely as the Wii has done.

I don't doubt that there's a Xbox price cut in store, but last I heard Sony had gone back to making a loss on PS3 hardware after the pre-holidays price cut. So any victory on sales would be phyrric for Sony, as evidenced by their bottom line. But on your second point, it's clear that MS' real product and earner is Xbox live, software and services, so it would make sense for them to get more out there.

So I'm not really sure what their aim is; MS has always been savvy at controlling markets, but conversely they're a little headless at the moment. Regardless, the 360 has vindicated earlier gaming investment by MS and shareholders must be pleased with the steady income that xbox live generates, and the current slim console is an excellent quality product. Overall the 360 has defeated the naysayers and can only be considered a success.

I would put the Wii ahead of the 360. The only area where I would say Nintendo failed was with 3rd parties, but even then they still have a great relationship with all of the main Japanese 3rd party devs, especially when it comes to handhelds.

Most of the shortcomings you listed like the lack of HD are all down to customer satisfaction, if this list was about how successful the companies have been in terms of customer satisfaction it would be upside down for me.

In terms of business, the Wii has been a phenomenal success. It has sold the most units, it has the highest profit margins, sales have made the biggest improvement over last gen and it has made the most money from both hardware and software.

Well, to be honest, I think Nintendo really fell short of its potential success with the Wii. As awesome as it did, it could have done so much better, as much as a market leader should. I really believe the main reason for that shortcoming is due to its inability to render at least a baseline level of advanced graphics, that simple extra feature making it the goto platform of the generation (above and beyond the casual strategy). Then people would have multiple Wiis in their homes, sales would have exploded imho. But, we weren't there to see it, so noone can know for sure

Again, from a business perspective.