By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

fatslob-:O said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

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.

It still ties in to your point about how gaining market share is supposed about sacrifice but guess what ? The PS1 was Sony's first attempt and they didn't lose money! It makes no difference whether the the xbox or xbox 360 lost more money. All that matters is that there still in the red after all those YEARS. 

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.

@Bold This is nothing but worthless hack and drivel of an analysis on your part. What's the point in catering to a declining market such as the PS360 when it limits the potential of gaming ? You can't say that the WII was a fad when nintendo's output of quality software has diminished signifcantly. 

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.

You have yet to prove shit. Being backwards compatible has nothing to do with the consoles philosphical representation. 

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. 

Once again it doesn't matter if the PS2 slim didn't support it or not. The fact is YOU CAN'T CLAIM that it was the original xbox who set these standards when it's failure that wasn't adopted by the main stream. 

@Bold You just proved that you can't read. Did the WII  and the WII U have an HDD ? 



Where is the Wii's marketshare? You know the one that is driving the potential of gaming because the PS/360 marketshare is declining? Both the Wii and the Wii U have analogs of HDD, semantically flash memory != disk memory, but you're just grasping here. You keep trying to prove absolutes when you are conflicting with the very defnitions of the terms you are using. Backwards Compatibility is an influence, indisputable. What does a the difference in philosophy b/w Wii and GC have to do with the specs of the system? The mere fact that the GC exists and the Wii is backwards compatible with it is an influence.

Clearly, you fail to understand the difference between an option and a mandate. It doesn't matter if the consumer mainstream didn't buy a Xbox. The 360 didn't have WW 2nd place. The manufacturers all adopted the industry standard. That is why its standard.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Around the Network

There you go the difference is a lot bigger not bad for the new kid on the block with no established franchises and only slightly better 3rd party support.



fatslob-:O said:
Chris Hu said:

No it wasn't its best selling game came out less then a year before it went out of production the best selling Gamecube game was a launch title that never went out of print.

Even if it had an extra year it still wouldn't get 30 million and it would still end up as a failure. 


It would have had more then a year more if they would have gotten someone else besides NVIDIA to make the GPU.  Also despite being a failure in your book it had the best selling exclusive game in the US despite being the new kid on the block without a track record.



Also its a bit unfair to compare the sales of two well established franchises to a new IP and the second Halo 2 could have done a bit better if it wasn't also available on the PC and the first one could have sold a bit better also even though it didn't get a PC release until two years after it launched on the X-Box.



Its rather surprising that Sega lasted as long as console manufacturer as they did since Nintendo completly dominated them during the 3rd generation the only regions where the SMS did somewhat decent is in territories where Nintendo didn't bother to launch or only partially launched the NES.



Around the Network
Chris Hu said:

There you go the difference is a lot bigger not bad for the new kid on the block with no established franchises and only slightly better 3rd party support.

Alot bigger? 

Thru the end of 2005 the gap between Xbox/GC was 3.78 in America

Lifetime the gap between Xbox/GC was 3.22 in America

That extra 2 years is an irrelevant argument.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:
Chris Hu said:

There you go the difference is a lot bigger not bad for the new kid on the block with no established franchises and only slightly better 3rd party support.

Alot bigger? 

Thru the end of 2005 the gap between Xbox/GC was 3.78 in America

Lifetime the gap between Xbox/GC was 3.22 in America

That extra 2 years is an irrelevant argument.

It would have sold a lot more consoles its best selling game Halo 2 launched less then a year before it ended its production run in August of 2005.



Chris Hu said:

Also its a bit unfair to compare the sales of two well established franchises to a new IP and the second Halo 2 could have done a bit better if it wasn't also available on the PC and the first one could have sold a bit better also even though it didn't get a PC release until two years after it launched on the X-Box.


Stop making excuses, it would have done better if.......

Speculating on how things would have been in different scenarios is fun but it doesnt change the fact that Gamecube and Xbox were almost equal in pretty much every aspect, hardware/software/tie ratio/best sellers. They were both fighting for an extremely distant 2nd place. Now u could say it was a moral victory for Microsoft to be able to beat Nintendo in its first attempt but thats irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that there was no duopoly in the 6th gen, PS2 dominated each and every region with an iron first while Xbox/Gamecube fought hard to stay relevant.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:
Chris Hu said:

Also its a bit unfair to compare the sales of two well established franchises to a new IP and the second Halo 2 could have done a bit better if it wasn't also available on the PC and the first one could have sold a bit better also even though it didn't get a PC release until two years after it launched on the X-Box.


Stop making excuses, it would have done better if.......

Speculating on how things would have been in different scenarios is fun but it doesnt change the fact that Gamecube and Xbox were almost equal in pretty much every aspect, hardware/software/tie ratio/best sellers. They were both fighting for an extremely distant 2nd place. Now u could say it was a moral victory for Microsoft to be able to beat Nintendo in its first attempt but thats irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that there was no duopoly in the 6th gen, PS2 dominated each and every region with an iron first while Xbox/Gamecube fought hard to stay relevant.

The original X-box was more then relevant in the US/North America just have a look at the sales numbers of Halo 2 it still the best selling first party exclusive in that region and one of the biggest games of the decade in both sales, popularity, critical acclaim and historical significance.  Also historically speaking the only console that truely domintated North America was the NES with over 90% of the home console market share and total control of all third party publishers not only could they dictate what games to make for that console, they also controlled how many copies could be made since they where in total control of all the cartrige manufacturing. 



Chris Hu said:

Also its a bit unfair to compare the sales of two well established franchises to a new IP and the second Halo 2 could have done a bit better if it wasn't also available on the PC and the first one could have sold a bit better also even though it didn't get a PC release until two years after it launched on the X-Box.


Stop making excuses, it would have done better if.......

Speculating on how things would have been in different scenarios is fun but it doesnt change the fact that Gamecube and Xbox were almost equal in pretty much every aspect, hardware/software/tie ratio/best sellers. They were both fighting for an extremely distant 2nd place. Now u could say it was a moral victory for Microsoft to be able to beat Nintendo in its first attempt but thats irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that there was no duopoly in the 6th gen, PS2 dominated each and every region with an iron first while Xbox/Gamecube fought hard to stay relevant.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.