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)

Chris Hu on 19 March 2014
Troll_Whisperer said:
Chris Hu said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
The OG Xbox was not part of a duopoly. It barely had any market share.


It still had a lot more games in common with the PS2 then the Gamecube since it used the same type of media, despite being on the market two years less then the Gamecube.

Still doesn't make it a duopoly when total SW sales paled in comparison to PS2's and it most major 3rd party releases were exclusive or timed exclusive to PS2.

The fact that it was only four years in the market before being axed is testament to this, not a point in its favor.


Well the main reason it got axed early is because MS went into a bad business deal with NVIDIA if any one else would have made the GPU it would have been on the market a lot longer.  In the US it did pretty good rest of the world not so much overall it still did better then the Gamecube and could have done a lot better then it, if it would have been on the market longer.



Around the Network
leo-j on 19 March 2014

this gen isn't a duopoly.. so far.. as the ps4 is destroying everyone in sales..

xbox and gamecube combined didn't sell a third of what the ps2 did either



 

mM
fatslob-:O on 19 March 2014
Troll_Whisperer said:
Chris Hu said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
The OG Xbox was not part of a duopoly. It barely had any market share.


It still had a lot more games in common with the PS2 then the Gamecube since it used the same type of media, despite being on the market two years less then the Gamecube.

Still doesn't make it a duopoly when total SW sales paled in comparison to PS2's and it most major 3rd party releases were exclusive or timed exclusive to PS2.

The fact that it was only four years in the market before being axed is testament to this, not a point in its favor.

Finally, we have someone here objecting to my crucifixion.



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 19 March 2014
fatslob-:O said:

You still have yet to prove to me that both gamecube and xbox weren't failures. 

A fad doesn't last for 4 YEARS. The fact that you even claimed that the WII was a fad just goes to show how little credibility you have. 

The fact that the original xbox did nothing but lose money just shows that it was a failure. Sales mean jack when you do nothing but lose money and the xbox division is STILL IN THE RED after all these years. 

How exaclty are sales and profits subjective when the GC is a CLEAR DECLINE from the N64 and the original xbox did nothing but create LOSSES. You can make the same argument for the xbox 360 so there goes your fallacious line of thought and the WII and WII U was released after the xbox 360 yet it still had no HDD so you have nothing but a moot point. The GC and Xbox didn't even remotely RESEMBLE TO EITHER OF THE 7th gen consoles. Microsoft was going after a souped up PS2 (Xbox wasn't the ONLY one with online seeing as how the PS2 also had online and supported HDD's too.) and it ended well for them compared to Sony trying something so stupid as to create a non gaming focused console and as for the WII we all know it's totally different.

You need something more than hope such as microsoft's and Sony's desire to take over the living room. 

The fact that the xbox divsion is still in red just goes to show you that companies still make irrational decisions.

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

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.

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 and the hardware of the GC 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.

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. EDIT: This is clearly made evident by the PS2 slim. 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. 

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.



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

JoeTheBro on 19 March 2014
NobleTeam360 said:
JoeTheBro said:
NobleTeam360 said:
Read the first page of comments and I can say with certainty that you guys have no idea what you're talking about.


I'm on the first page :(

Oh except for you Joe, you're perfect. 

No, you're perfect.



Links

Around the Network
Troll_Whisperer on 19 March 2014
Chris Hu said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
Chris Hu said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
The OG Xbox was not part of a duopoly. It barely had any market share.


It still had a lot more games in common with the PS2 then the Gamecube since it used the same type of media, despite being on the market two years less then the Gamecube.

Still doesn't make it a duopoly when total SW sales paled in comparison to PS2's and it most major 3rd party releases were exclusive or timed exclusive to PS2.

The fact that it was only four years in the market before being axed is testament to this, not a point in its favor.


Well the main reason it got axed early is because MS went into a bad business deal with NVIDIA if any one else would have made the GPU it would have been on the market a lot longer.  In the US it did pretty good rest of the world not so much overall it still did better then the Gamecube and could have done a lot better then it, if it would have been on the market longer.

The GC is irrelevant to my argument. Gen 6 was most definitely not a PS and Xbox duopoly.



No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.

Chris Hu on 19 March 2014
fatslob-:O said:
Chris Hu said:


The point is that the original XBox was nowhere near as big a failure as you think it was and it did a lot more for gaming then the Gamecube did which was available for two more years and still sold a good amount of less software and hardware.

@Bold LOL You expect me to believe this rubbish ? Xbox and GC were both big failures. End of story. It makes no difference if one console got dreamcast'd less than the other because they both got dreamcast'd in the end.

Selling 3 million more consoles than a pitiful competitor doesn't warrant a victory over another console. LMAO


The X-Box was always more expensive and even when its end came it never had $99 US fire sale like the Gamecube did torwards the end of its run.  Also it did do a lot more for gaming then the Gamecube it had a HDD, it was the first online console that actually took advantage of higher internet speeds, its the first console that had a online marketplace and its controllers standardized triggers for home consoles and again they might have been both big failures where you lived but in the US the original X-Box was far from being a big failure despite being the most expensive console and launching a year later.



Chris Hu on 19 March 2014
Troll_Whisperer said:
Chris Hu said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
Chris Hu said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
The OG Xbox was not part of a duopoly. It barely had any market share.


It still had a lot more games in common with the PS2 then the Gamecube since it used the same type of media, despite being on the market two years less then the Gamecube.

Still doesn't make it a duopoly when total SW sales paled in comparison to PS2's and it most major 3rd party releases were exclusive or timed exclusive to PS2.

The fact that it was only four years in the market before being axed is testament to this, not a point in its favor.


Well the main reason it got axed early is because MS went into a bad business deal with NVIDIA if any one else would have made the GPU it would have been on the market a lot longer.  In the US it did pretty good rest of the world not so much overall it still did better then the Gamecube and could have done a lot better then it, if it would have been on the market longer.

The GC is irrelevant to my argument. Gen 6 was most definitely not a PS and Xbox duopoly.

Maybe not where you lived but in the US the original X-Box was pretty popular and far from being a failure.



Norris2k on 19 March 2014

Let's reply:

1 - It's not a survival game, just having all game ports is not enough. You have to make profits, significant profits.
Because you are Sony and bleeding money or because you are MS and your shareholders got tired with 10 years without overall profit and you could use your money for more significant and profitable markets like smartphone or OS, or because you are Nintendo and that's your main source of revenue.
Price cut is an an axe cut in your profit.

2 - Console generations are long, 5 to 10 years. Rather quickly, you can tell if you will make a profit or not, and even if you manage, you have to wait for the next generation for profits. For example PS3 required tremendous investments, quick and massive cut price. 5 years or more to wait with no profit... and without any certitude you will make some in the next generation makes think.

3 - If you are losing money, not developing the next generation hardware, toolkit and game is a good way to cut costs. You develop games for the current use base, and not for first adopters (the way Sony made GT and TLOU on PS3 rather than PS4).

4 - The less you sell, the less you sell. There is no way market share just stay the same, they will shrink even more if you don't put a lot of costly effort. Currently PS4 is selling 5 times more in Europe. That means that on average 5 times more friends have a PS4, that means that a commercial cost 5 times less by user, that means that European game website will talk more about PS4 exclusives, that means that 5 more times fanboys will spend times on forums like vgchartz. And the constructor can use money from winning markets to where the other one manage to be 2nd.

5 - A superior global market share make exclusive cheaper. It's easier to buy exclusivity with 75% of market shares, it's cheaper to develop for a bigger user base. I think some company would even make an exclusive for free if they can have the hype of an exclusive, about the same market and no port cost (even very cheap).



fatslob-:O on 19 March 2014
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.