I know. I was not talking about the Xbox 360. I was talking about the Xbox. And yes, it is perfectly understandable that its first party titles were not as good as its competitors, because it is new. Xbox is an amazing machine, like all consoles, but the Xbox 360 is even better. Amazing how good Microsoft is, despite how new they are.

Dreamcast and Xbox are both very good consoles. I guess the word "embarassing" is not the correct word. Let me rephrase the entire sentence for you, so that you do not think my logic is flawed.

"Dreamcast has almost as many 1 million selling, first part titles as Microsft."

Is that better?

PS: I did not insult any console. All consoles are good. I just wanted people to know that the Dreamcast is a good system.

You could have looked at the sentence (if I did not put the word "embarassing" in it) in two different ways. Either I complemented the Dreamcast, or I insulted the Xbox. However, I complemented both systems. You don't need to look at the sentence in that different way, because I am telling you right now. Anyways, I should not have written the word "embarassing," because you are right, Microsoft is an amazing company. I never meant to insult it. It has amazing games. All systems are amazing. I don't know why you are listing Xbox 360 games, because I wasn't comparing Xbox 360 to the Dreamcast. Please don't assume that I am insulting Xbox games.

Still though, you have to give the Dreamcast some credit for having almost as many first party games (selling over 1 million, despite its ruined reputation of the Sega Saturn, and the fact that it was on the market for about 2 years) as the Xbox (even though the Xbox is new, but hey, it's Microsoft, and Microsoft is not new, and the Xbox was on the market for 6 years).

All in all, Dreamcast and Xbox are both good, but compared the Gamecube and Playstation 2 in terms of first party games selling over a million copies, they fall pretty short.

Where did that come from?

Not from me. I was quoting someone else who said that PS3's GPU is the same as Xbox 360's GPU. That other person said that PS3's GPU is 500, which is Xbox 360's GPU. I thought PS3's GPU was 550.

That's where it came from. Was that so hard to understand?

Wow! I love how nearsighted people are. While NA is responsible for a lot of the game sales worldwide, it is NOT the only source of sales. PS3 outsells 360 in europe and Australia. Look it up. Remember that whole 82% sales drop thing in UK? Funny how the PS3 dropped SO much and still managed to outsell 360 (as does the ps2). In Japan 360's a joke. You really think the Japanese want their next HD gaming console to come from Microsoft? Yeah right!! I'll admit sales are lagging worldwide but that doesn't mean they'll always lag. There's much more in store for all 3 systems than we fully realize. Xbox has Live and IPTV, PS3 has Home and Blu-Ray, and Wii has...Nintendo!

Clearly, in the minds of hopeless fanboys, a x Mhz gpu from manufacturer A is exactly the same as an x Mhz gpu from manufacturer B. Yes, the RSX, aka GeForce 7600 lite edition, runs at 500 Mhz. It is crap for a lot of reasons but the frequency is just playing a tiny part in it. The 360 GPU run at the same frequency and still manages to do some things 3-4 times faster. Wierd huh? There are many little details to consider. How big is the texture cache? How big is the transformed vertex cache? Under which conditions can it setup 1 triangle per clock? How many shader pipelines? How many shader pipelines, really, with a complex shader? How many shader threads can it run, with a complex shader? What's the memory bandwidth, in practice? What's the texture cache hit rate? How does vertex attribute interpolation affecting triangle rate and rasterization rate? How many anisotropic texture look-ups can be done per second? I'm developing for both systems and from what I've gathered the RSX is doing worse in most of those things I mentioned. So the 360 SKU will inevitably look quite a bit better because of it. The worst thing probably is that the PS3 can't do HDR rendering with MSAA. That's a pretty insane mistake for something that is supposed to be future proof for 10 years.

You do know the 360 sold (approx) 3.2m in the first 4 months on sale....right? PS3 has sold more in Japan, and 360 sold more in US.

Sales DO slow down after launch... the only thing that matters now, is that the 360 has a LEAD and the PS3 still has to catch up.

Is the PlayStation3 doomed?

Thats a tough one, if Sony continues to pursue its current goals then yes the PlayStation3 will be doomed but I have no doubt that the worlds largest monopoly isn't the dumbest company on the block. Through restructuring and a new marketing campain I think Sony could turn it around!

What would need to happen to turn PS3 around.

1. Sony needs to take a bullet for the PlayStation cut its price and suck up the losses!

2.Sony needs to assist more smaller third parties financialy!

3.Sony needs to invest millions upon millions into expanding its internal first party operations!

4.Sony needs to abandon its current drive for digital distribution and focus more on BluRay!

5.Sony needs to fire a large amount of its marketing team and R&D unit (Who ever thought people would buy such an expensive machine based on the brand name alone!)

6. Sony needs to divert developement from PSP to PS3 to allow for more in-house developement!

7. Sony needs to launch a massive fall ad campain to promote the new low price PS3!

8.Sony needs to prepare shareholders for a bumpy ride (give a ten year plan)

9.Sony needs to re-invest in the Japanese market where they are loosing grip fast!

10. Sony could really use some help in Europe an aquisition of a prominant European Developer would help.

In the end what are my suggestions, simple with the high developement and publishing costs developers are being driven further and further away. To hit the target demographic Sony needs to cut its hardware prices and recapture what made the PlayStation a success in the first place "A huge catalog of games". Since third parties aren't likely to remain on board to much longer internal developement is the way to go. Sony will have to try to be Nintendo rely heavily on first party software and create numerous origional IP's. Also Sony calling BluRay obsolete isn't the brightest idea and they need to return focus to disk based distribution rather then calling BluRay a thing of the past. Lastly Sony needs to pitch the PS3 as a multigeneration platform that will continue through 2011 to 2016. That way shareholders will look further into the future to see where the PS3 could be headed.

The trick is not to judge PS3 in the short term. In the short term its a disaster a pile of high definition crap. however if you look at it as an investment (this consoles not going to be replaced for ten years) people may be more willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for a console with no games. Also I have no doubt that if Sony restructured its internal studios it could create enough first party titles to make up for the ever growing lack of third party support.

Of course if the PS3 ends in 2011 like Wii and 360 will then yes it will likely be a huge failure. Now of course its already a huge failure, massive profit losses on each unit poor sales figures across the globe and honestly not that many great games. So if Sony restructures and shifts focus to internal developement and fires those morons who suggested a 1080p console with 60-gig internal hard drive a 1,000$ disk format and claimed that consumers would buy it because it was Sony! Then theirs still a chance!

"You do realize there are like 45 million more PS2s than PS3s in the USA?" inflated number. do you also realize how many units each person had to buy?? i know many, MANY ppl who had to buy atleast 2 somtimes 3! ..sony makes cheesey products i also had to buy 2, cause the dvd tray wouldnt pop out anymore..

 What, Nintendo has beaten two Microsoft consoles.

DreamCast was fully endorsed and helped out by Microsoft support. Today DreamCasts creator Peter Moore heads up X-Box doesn't he. DreamCast shifted a little more then 14-million units as far as I know which is way poorer then Nintendo's GameCube!

As for the X-Box I'm not sure what VGChartz has, but I do know that it was announced last year that the GameCube had sold more then 26-million units. Also at E3 Nintendo stated that they were expecting to see over 2-million more GameCube's sell by the end of their 2006 fiscal year (Haven't heard if they reached that mark). Since X-Box was officially discontinued and is no longer carried in any stores I know of and hasn't been since mid last year I would say its pretty safe to assume that Microsoft hasn't shipped to much more then their last known official figures of 24-million!

 Look at it this way, GameCube had over a year longer then the X-Box to live and while many quote sales figures from 2004/05 not many talk about the 2006 sales figures or dare to mention the 2007 predictions made at E3. The last generation console war still rages on GameCube's and PS2's still line the shelves at FutureShop , RealCanadian Superstore and Zellers/Walmart while X-Box is nowhere to be seen. 

 Will Wii beat 360, likely the way their sales figures are headed. Will Microsoft ever be able to beat Nintendo in Asia? , not likely even with MistWalker and Artoon Microsoft has still failed to turn their bad luck around. Now don't get me wrong I like playing Halo on the X-Box and am debating buying a 360 Elite but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft is only here for three consoles to kill off their main threat Sony. I highly doubt that Microsoft will see vast success this generation let alone beat Nintendo!

 Are you sure PS3 outsells 360 in Europe???