Legend11 said: Grey Acumen said: the point still is correct that Legend really has used the wrong word. If I was the one who had put this thing forth, I would have to pick this point to say "Okay, success was the wrong term to use"as it's pretty much established that it doesn't apply to the scenario Legend is proposing. Best thing to do is scrap the issue and start from a new angle if there's still any interest in continuing the issue.   suc�cess �� (sk-ss) KEY � NOUN: The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work. Now shouldn't the desire of gamers be for their console to have a great library of games? How exactly did I use the word wrong when I'm talking about success of a console from a gamer's viewpoint?

Because from the gamer's viewpoint, success is still based on the goal of whatever IT IS that is ACHIEVING said success. The gamer's viewpoint can determine if the GAMER was successful. Did you choose the right console for you? Did you buy any crappy games? do you feel like you're missing a key aspect of gaming? Did you get all the games you want and beat the games you wanted to beat? Have you gotten your money's worth? None of this has anything to do with whether or not the console was successful.

You cannot determine my success. If my goal is to shoot 3 targets, you telling me that I didn't load the gun right doesn't determine whether I was successful or not. The only way my success can be determined is if I shoot those 3 targes or not. If you challenged me to load the gun properly, and I agreed to that, that would then become my goal, and THEN my success would be determined on whether or not I loaded the gun properly, but if I did not make that my goal, then it plays no part in determining my success no matter what viewpoint you use.

Shouldn't success be measured by cheese?

The quality of your cow is what really matters in the end.

That's a load of udder bull. you bessie be mooo-vin on outta this here thread and steer clear of analogies like that, cause next time you might not have my bovine intervention.

hmm... yep, I think I milked that for all it was worth.  

Success has to be defined by the company producing the product. In the end if they are not fully satisfied and are not willing to call their product a success, then it is not a success. The 360 is starting to show a profit, but is losing ground to the other consoles. Whether or not it can be defined as a success is still years away from being determined and it won't be determined by something as silly as "game quality." If that were the case then just about every console ever released is a success, and yet Sega still had to drop out of the hardware buisiness.

If we accept legend's definition of successful console, the Dreamcast was a very successful console indeed.

Seriously, lots of gamers loved their Dreamcast to death. They loved the library. But it died commercially, and because it died commercially, its library stagnated. Where commercial success goes, the kind of success legend is looking for will follow.

Legend11 said: suc�cess �� (sk-ss) KEY � NOUN: The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work. Now shouldn't the desire of gamers be for their console to have a great library of games?  How exactly did I use the word wrong when I'm talking about success of a console from a gamer's viewpoint?

That isn't the success of the console. As you said, its the gamer's viewpoint, the gamer's desire, and so the success of the gamer. While you could say that the console maker was successful in making a console that the gamer likes, that is not their desire. Their desire is to make a console which the most people possible like, which brings us back to sales. Data/anecdote argument if you try to go that way next.

If it sounds strange to say "the success of the gamer," that's because it IS strange to say; the more common way to say it would be "OMG 360 is awsome it has so many awsome games Bioshock + Mass Effect FTW!!1"

Thats just it raising the point is itself pointless.  Bringing up all of this up really doesn't get us anywhere.  It would be like trying to calculate how quickly you are moving so you would know how long until you reached your destination and having someone point out that technically the earth is moving through space and thus you're actually moving much faster than the odometer indicates.  Its true, but it really doesn't have any impact on the outcome because the final destination is equally effected since you're both on Earth.

Where the line is drawn is the issue here, and the fact that our options are bound by opinions is a needless point because there is nothing we can do to change that.  So while yes we agree that you must draw the line some where, I wasn't setting out to show that we disagreed on that point but rather to show that making the point was itself pointless.

Actually I'm somewhat confused that you were arguing with Naz about the issue if that was the point you were driving at.  It would seem like you actually agreed with him as well and again I don't see why.

Perhaps I missed something....but it seems a needless complication to me. 

 Dare I (dairy) say, that was an awsome response. 

Of course; however this is not yet true for the PS3, for example. The Dreamcast and Gamecube each had a great library of games but poor sales; they were 'good consoles'.

"As for those bashing it because they "hate" Microsoft because of their practices..."

Yes, Nintendo did indeed act irresponsibly, however the wider effects of Microsoft's behaviour are much greater so a proportional reaction is necessary.