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

Forums - Gaming - In your view, has the 360´s 1 year headstart done more good than harm?

LongLiveTheBeatles on 09 July 2008

My point exactly. I like the way you think!



http://www.bungie.net/stats/halo3/CareerStats.aspx?player=Jezusandfriends&social=true&map=0

Around the Network
NJ5 on 09 July 2008
LongLiveTheBeatles said:
Jordahn said:

Overall more harm because things could have actually been better in the gaming industry as a whole.  If the 360 were launched a year later, third party developers would have been more concentrated on developing for last gen.  The advantage here is that it would have allowed for those developers to be more financially ready for this gen by raking in more profits from last gen software sales.  Also Microsoft would have still produced the original Xbox which would have also help 3rd party developers profit from a could have been growing original Xbox userbase.  Development costs have always risen from one gen to the next so the more financially ready they are the better.  Also, numerous developers have voiced that it's easier to develop for the PS3 as the lead platform and then port over to the 360 instead of the other way around.  This probably could have helped developers spend less time and money when developing multi-platform games for both the PS3 and 360.  Eventhough the PS3 is harder to develop for than the 360, it would have served them better in the long run than having a harder time porting to the PS3 with sometimes lesser results.  At the very least, developing for both platforms simutaneouly would have still been better.  And not knowing the outcome of the 360 a year prior to the release of the Wii and PS3, might have forced more 3rd party on board with the Wii with similar games if not the same titles.  And maybe if Microsoft had another year to solidify their hardware, the RROD probably would not have been an issue.

In essence:

1) 3rd parties would have been more financially stable from last gen investments.

2) Better resulting games from PS3 development to 360 ports.

3) More variety in Wii titles.

4) Near non-existant 360 hardware issues like the Wii and 360.

Good post. So now we have two people looking at the situation from the consumer's perspective.

 

From the consumer's perspective, the answer is pretty obvious, so I guess most people focused on the question which is actually interesting.

 

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

LongLiveTheBeatles on 09 July 2008
NJ5 said:
LongLiveTheBeatles said:
Jordahn said:

Overall more harm because things could have actually been better in the gaming industry as a whole.  If the 360 were launched a year later, third party developers would have been more concentrated on developing for last gen.  The advantage here is that it would have allowed for those developers to be more financially ready for this gen by raking in more profits from last gen software sales.  Also Microsoft would have still produced the original Xbox which would have also help 3rd party developers profit from a could have been growing original Xbox userbase.  Development costs have always risen from one gen to the next so the more financially ready they are the better.  Also, numerous developers have voiced that it's easier to develop for the PS3 as the lead platform and then port over to the 360 instead of the other way around.  This probably could have helped developers spend less time and money when developing multi-platform games for both the PS3 and 360.  Eventhough the PS3 is harder to develop for than the 360, it would have served them better in the long run than having a harder time porting to the PS3 with sometimes lesser results.  At the very least, developing for both platforms simutaneouly would have still been better.  And not knowing the outcome of the 360 a year prior to the release of the Wii and PS3, might have forced more 3rd party on board with the Wii with similar games if not the same titles.  And maybe if Microsoft had another year to solidify their hardware, the RROD probably would not have been an issue.

In essence:

1) 3rd parties would have been more financially stable from last gen investments.

2) Better resulting games from PS3 development to 360 ports.

3) More variety in Wii titles.

4) Near non-existant 360 hardware issues like the Wii and 360.

Good post. So now we have two people looking at the situation from the consumer's perspective.

 

From the consumer's perspective, the answer is pretty obvious, so I guess most people focused on the question which is actually interesting.

 

 

Yea but part of what's actually interesting is the fact that some people; better yet, consumers would have preferred having the 360 come at the time it did for the sake of bragging rights as a result of extra sales. Those people would of coarse be fanboys and I raise this point for the sake of finding out who is. Now I'm glad you and I are on the same page but just wait, someone will think differently.

 



http://www.bungie.net/stats/halo3/CareerStats.aspx?player=Jezusandfriends&social=true&map=0

quimicomortal on 09 July 2008

I think id did a lot of harm for PS3 (cause it forced it to start befor it was ready)
It did harm to the PS2 owners because the sistem was at it's peak and it forced the change to a new system.
It did harm to the owners of the xbox cause since Microsoft focused on the 360 it instantly killed the xbox (unlike SONY with ps1 and ps2).
It did harm to the 360 because the RROD is aproblem they coul have prevented with more time, and YES, the 360 is now the first system thas going to be replaced.

It did granted the 360 a very good advantage over the PS3 because Sony wasn't ready to launch.

It did a lot of good to Nintendo because with the problems of Sony and the RROD and being both consoles more expensive, a lot of people went buying the Wii ignoring the lame graphics, and the very low quality of the games.

In my humble opinion, I think that if Microsoft had waited 8 or 10 months we would have been benefited as gamers.



End of Year prediction:

wii: 37 m

360: 24 m

PS3: 20 m

konnichiwa on 09 July 2008

Well it got a lot of exclusives that way (Saints row, condemned etc)






Around the Network
scat398 on 09 July 2008

Being first into the market has been a clear advantage for Microsoft in NA, despite hardware problems. In Europe it allowed them to compete with the PS3 when they likely would have little market share if they released at the same time as the PS3. And in Japan it obviously didn't help at all.

From the consumers point of view, the consumer would have benefited from a later release date.



ToastyJaguar on 09 July 2008

it has lots of games. that's good for me.




JaggedSac on 09 July 2008

Yeah, it definitely helped them out. They have done well for themselves since M$ is a pretty hated company worldwide.  And it has enabled them to create quite a bad ass library of games.