Ok so right now the 360 has a pretty good install base and it seems like it's not going anywhere for a while, but what if it came out 10 years ago? If you think about it 10 years ago it would be absolutely unacceptable to have 33% fail rate (I know the ps2 had a problem but it was 17% and 7 years ago :/) And 10 years ago online console gaming wasn't the bee's knees, and lets face it, the 360 is mainly a online community gaming machine in today's market. This is in no way bashing the 360, its a great machine, but 10 years ago I think it would've failed. What do you think?
The Xbox 360 wouldn't of Survived 10 years ago...
- Thread starter Russia208
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hahaha, oh man, a LOT of things wouldn't have survived ten years ago.Even the prices would stop them from getting anywhere.
Your thread title should read: "The Xbox 360 wouldn't HAVE Survived 10 years ago..."
Aside from that, I don't see any major problems with what you wrote, except for one: the hardware 10 years ago was like a calculator compared to the contents of the Xbox 360. The complexity of the machine makes it more susceptible to failure generally. More specifically, the machine's design is fundamentally problematic as regards the heat sink. Hence the RROD issues.
I still love the Xbox 360 to bits. But I also have a PS3.
Aside from that, I don't see any major problems with what you wrote, except for one: the hardware 10 years ago was like a calculator compared to the contents of the Xbox 360. The complexity of the machine makes it more susceptible to failure generally. More specifically, the machine's design is fundamentally problematic as regards the heat sink. Hence the RROD issues.
I still love the Xbox 360 to bits. But I also have a PS3.
I was just thinking about this... now, if the PS3 came out 10 years ago, you'd scale things down a bit... it'd be the first console with a DVD player, the first with online play, and the first with wireless controllers, not to mention really good graphics.Erana said:
I think it'd sell better proportionally than it is now. But the 360? It doesn't bring too much to the table other than tweaking of what's already been done. I'd actually say it might wind up being the Gamecube... but this is all speculation.
But the PS3 has a high price tag comparably and the 360 has a DVD player too. 10 years ago the 360 would have still had a larger install base.darthzew said:
EDIT: Back then, BluRay would have been unheard of. Mind you, the 3DO and AES failed, and they didn't even play movies. The Saturn played VCDs (w/ an upgrade) and it failed too.
Exactly.Moonmover said:
Just tell me... What is your basis for the 360 not doing as well? Your post made no sense.darthzew said:
To me, that sounded like some really biased trolling, and this doesn't need to deteriorate into a console war....
*reads the OP agian*
Biased agianst/for a console, No really adequate reasons for why....
OK, this is a console war. Great.
I think a console with the graphic quality of the 360, complete with online play and DVD player would have easily survived 10 years ago even with a 50% fail rate.
The whole reason online console gaming wasn't that important yet back then was because there weren't any consoles that brought it to the current level yet. The whole reason online play failed at the first few attempts was because you had to purchase additional hardware such as network adapters, keyboards and god knows what else, yes I'm looking at you, Dreamcast.
The whole reason online console gaming wasn't that important yet back then was because there weren't any consoles that brought it to the current level yet. The whole reason online play failed at the first few attempts was because you had to purchase additional hardware such as network adapters, keyboards and god knows what else, yes I'm looking at you, Dreamcast.
I was reading through all the posts, hoping that no one had said that, just so I could be the one. Meh. I'll just have to say I agree. Compare the XBox 360's launch titles to the games that were available 10 years ago. Everyone's eyes would have fallen out of their heads.Moonmover said:
Yeah, it is. I posted here just to point out that every one of the consoles out today would've failed. Well, actually, I'm not sure. I think of the 3 current gens, the 360 would've done the best. Not trying to be a troll either. Just based on cost and control-scheme, 360 would have a monopoly. I'm plenty fine w/ a debate on the matter, though.Erana said:
I think the fail rate would be handwaved by the fact that the leap in graphics and gamedesign would collectively make gamers eyes fall out and brains explode.
No, I think you'd find the prices quite comparable, seeing as the PS2 launched at $299 [http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/october00/ps2launch/] in October 2000, and games were $49 each then. Adjusted for inflation [http://www.westegg.com/inflation/], that'd be ~$360 for the console and ~$60 for the games today.ElArabDeMagnifico said:
Even more shockingly, if you go back to the Intellivision in 1979, it also launched at $299 [http://www.gameconsoles.com/intellivisionhome.htm]... again adjusted for inflation, that'd be ~$840 today.
The idea that the 7th-generation consoles are overpriced compared to earlier generations really doesn't hold water if you take into account how wages and prices rose over the years.
-- Steve
darthzew said:
uhmmmm... the PS3 would have been the PS2.. then. Is that what you are saying? These things wouldnt have existed 10 years ago because the technology wasn't even there. If the XBOX360 was available 10 years ago it would have been called a mini-computer.
