bugmenot said:
Either way, the industry media routinely acknowledges N64 a failure and Xbox (1) a moderate success, despite the fact N64 reached 35 million or so units (going from memory) while Xbox reached 24. They also neatly ignore the facts that N64 made money while Xbox lost it, N64 successfully pushed the consumer to adopt workable 3D play mechanics while Xbox failed to get consumers to adopt online gaming (which is just about happening now), that Goldeneye outsold Halo and that N64 had what many a publication agree were 3 of the greatest games of all time while Xbox had 1 (2 if you count the direct sequel). It just tells you something about the effect of marketing dollars on industry (and editor) perception. |
I really have to agree with you here.
It really does surprise me when people claim the original Xbox was a success. It was a monumental failure. It lost MS Billions, it barely outsold the Gamecube, it didn't even outsell the N64 (which sold more consoles, to a smaller market, and was profitable)
It failed to make any impact at all in Japan, which is one of the most important gaming markets in the world (I think more important than Europe, not because of userbase but because of developers)
It only kicked off one franchise which has seen good success.
It was supposed to "gain a foothold in the console market" but even at that is was a failure. With the largest budget and billions spent, MS managed to create a brand that is feared in Japan, moderate in Europe and semi-strong in US. The only reason they are doing well now is because the PS3 was an even bigger flop. Compare this to Sony, Nintendo, Atari, who all blew away the competition upon their entry.
The Xbox was a disaster, the best thing they managed to do was convince everyone is was a success.
