The Xbox 360 wouldn't of Survived 10 years ago...

[darthzew]

Well, the Xbox and Halo did a lot for online console gaming...
Anyway, why single out the 360? the PS3 would've failed, then too.

*looks at the Wii*
I'm not gonna get started on you, heir apparent of the purple lunchbox crew.

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.

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.

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.

No. I think it's stupid to say that anything is "the PS2".

My point was, if you scaled everything down, it would have been in an era where features like that matter a whole lot more than they do now.

 

[darthzew]

Well, the Xbox and Halo did a lot for online console gaming...
Anyway, why single out the 360? the PS3 would've failed, then too.

*looks at the Wii*
I'm not gonna get started on you, heir apparent of the purple lunchbox crew.

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.

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.

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.

10 years ago, everyone would have seen the graphics, processing power, online capabilities, and memory storage of the 360 and shouted: OMGWTF Mewant! And it can play movies!

Exactly.

Obviously the 360 has a DVD player. What I AM saying is that if we scaled down the technology and made things RELATIVE. So, RELATIVELY speaking... we could say the PS3, being the first with blu-ray, could be seen LIKE the first with a DVD player...

 

[D_987]

This is pretty poorly hidden flame-bait - none of the current-gen consoles could be released 10 years ago because the technology wasn't available - the 360 would sell incredibly for it cheap price, excellent graphics and online play, as would the PS3 or the Wii for their various attributes - but we arn't 10 years in the past; all your trying to do is subtly insult the 360...

EDIT: I don't understand what you mean by scaling down the technology, either its a 360 i=or it isn't...the technology you would be thinking off would be an original Xbox.

 

[joystickjunki3]

Well, the Xbox and Halo did a lot for online console gaming...
Anyway, why single out the 360? the PS3 would've failed, then too.

*looks at the Wii*
I'm not gonna get started on you, heir apparent of the purple lunchbox crew.

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.

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.

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.

10 years ago, everyone would have seen the graphics, processing power, online capabilities, and memory storage of the 360 and shouted: OMGWTF Mewant! And it can play movies!

Exactly.

Obviously the 360 has a DVD player. What I AM saying is that if we scaled down the technology and made things RELATIVE. So, RELATIVELY speaking... we could say the PS3, being the first with blu-ray, could be seen LIKE the first with a DVD player...

So it's exactly like the PS2? Your argument is moot, because if we scaled down the technology, then wireless controllers wouldn't exist as they do now. They would either not exist or they would be IR (which we all know sucked ass). And I believe the Saturn was the first to have online (w/ the Netlink, or it you prefer the Dreamcast w/ the first built-in modem); w/ the Intellivision having the first DLC.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

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.

SO it would be a PS2 with wireless controllers then. That would be if you ignore the Dreamcast, which had a fully fledged MMO ten years ago.

@OP: As for online console market. Dreamcast had the possibility but it failed as we all know, PS2 had the possibility but SONY took too long to get it out of Japan. Microsoft came along and with Halo and Live basically set the standard.

 

[darthzew]

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.

SO it would be a PS2 with wireless controllers then. That would be if you ignore the Dreamcast, which had a fully fledged MMO ten years ago.

@OP: As for online console market. Dreamcast had the possibility but it failed as we all know, PS2 had the possibility but SONY took too long to get it out of Japan. Microsoft came along and with Halo and Live basically set the standard.

If anything, the PS3 would be more like the Xbox. But either way, I'm kind of assuming that we'd be put the 360 and Wii (with scaled technology) alongside it rather than the consoles of old.

 

[joystickjunki3]

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.

SO it would be a PS2 with wireless controllers then. That would be if you ignore the Dreamcast, which had a fully fledged MMO ten years ago.

@OP: As for online console market. Dreamcast had the possibility but it failed as we all know, PS2 had the possibility but SONY took too long to get it out of Japan. Microsoft came along and with Halo and Live basically set the standard.

If anything, the PS3 would be more like the Xbox. But either way, I'm kind of assuming that we'd be put the 360 and Wii (with scaled technology) alongside it rather than the consoles of old.

Wait, so the 360 is the PlayStation, the PS3 is the Saturn and the Wii is the N64?

Do you see the corner you're arguing yourself into?

 

[bjj hero]

What a stupid thread, what ifs? If my aunt had balls shed be my uncle.

 

[darthzew]

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.

SO it would be a PS2 with wireless controllers then. That would be if you ignore the Dreamcast, which had a fully fledged MMO ten years ago.

@OP: As for online console market. Dreamcast had the possibility but it failed as we all know, PS2 had the possibility but SONY took too long to get it out of Japan. Microsoft came along and with Halo and Live basically set the standard.

If anything, the PS3 would be more like the Xbox. But either way, I'm kind of assuming that we'd be put the 360 and Wii (with scaled technology) alongside it rather than the consoles of old.

Wait, so the 360 is the PlayStation, the PS3 is the Saturn and the Wii is the N64?

Do you see the corner you're arguing yourself into?

No. The Wii is the Wii, the PS3 is the PS3, and so on.

All I'm asking is for you to see this differently. Stop comparing consoles to other consoles and let them be. Now, let's assume the current generation was happening ten years go with yesterday's technology but they'd have the same strategy (i.e, Nintendo is cheap fun, PS3 is raw power...).

I am of the belief that the PS3's current strategy would have dominated ten years ago.

 

[joystickjunki3]

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.

SO it would be a PS2 with wireless controllers then. That would be if you ignore the Dreamcast, which had a fully fledged MMO ten years ago.

@OP: As for online console market. Dreamcast had the possibility but it failed as we all know, PS2 had the possibility but SONY took too long to get it out of Japan. Microsoft came along and with Halo and Live basically set the standard.

If anything, the PS3 would be more like the Xbox. But either way, I'm kind of assuming that we'd be put the 360 and Wii (with scaled technology) alongside it rather than the consoles of old.

Wait, so the 360 is the PlayStation, the PS3 is the Saturn and the Wii is the N64?

Do you see the corner you're arguing yourself into?

No. The Wii is the Wii, the PS3 is the PS3, and so on.

All I'm asking is for you to see this differently. Stop comparing consoles to other consoles and let them be. Now, let's assume the current generation was happening ten years go with yesterday's technology but they'd have the same strategy (i.e, Nintendo is cheap fun, PS3 is raw power...).

I am of the belief that the PS3's current strategy would have dominated ten years ago.

And I am of the proof that that strategy didn't work because both the NeoGeo AES and SEGA Saturn had the same strategy. Not that any of them weren't good consoles in their rights. It's just that your argument doesn't make sense. 10 years ago, mainstream gaming was literally just making it onto the scene and the PlayStation took over while the Saturn (power over price) tried to cater to the hardcore crowd [and failed].

EDIT: And 10 years ago Nintendo did what they've always done: marched to their own drumbeat.

 

[darthzew]

And I am of the proof that that strategy didn't work because both the NeoGeo AES and SEGA Saturn had the same strategy. Not that any of them weren't good consoles in their rights. It's just that your argument doesn't make sense. 10 years ago, mainstream gaming was literally just making it onto the scene and the PlayStation took over while the Saturn (power over price) tried to cater to the hardcore crowd [and failed].

Yeah, it was powerful but the PS3 is also all about features. Which is why I mentioned DVD players before. Imagine if you will that that the Saturn had a way to play video. I believe that would have changed the playing field significantly and this is evidenced in the PS3 as the primary reason it survived for too long in the first few years was because of its blu-ray player.

 

[joystickjunki3]

And I am of the proof that that strategy didn't work because both the NeoGeo AES and SEGA Saturn had the same strategy. Not that any of them weren't good consoles in their rights. It's just that your argument doesn't make sense. 10 years ago, mainstream gaming was literally just making it onto the scene and the PlayStation took over while the Saturn (power over price) tried to cater to the hardcore crowd [and failed].

Yeah, it was powerful but the PS3 is also all about features. Which is why I mentioned DVD players before. Imagine if you will that that the Saturn had a way to play video. I believe that would have changed the playing field significantly and this is evidenced in the PS3 as the primary reason it survived for too long in the first few years was because of its blu-ray player.

But the Saturn did have a way to play video and it was all about features too. Video, online gameplay, graphics, etc.

 

[darthzew]

And I am of the proof that that strategy didn't work because both the NeoGeo AES and SEGA Saturn had the same strategy. Not that any of them weren't good consoles in their rights. It's just that your argument doesn't make sense. 10 years ago, mainstream gaming was literally just making it onto the scene and the PlayStation took over while the Saturn (power over price) tried to cater to the hardcore crowd [and failed].

Yeah, it was powerful but the PS3 is also all about features. Which is why I mentioned DVD players before. Imagine if you will that that the Saturn had a way to play video. I believe that would have changed the playing field significantly and this is evidenced in the PS3 as the primary reason it survived for too long in the first few years was because of its blu-ray player.

But the Saturn did have a way to play video and it was all about features too. Video, online gameplay, graphics, etc.

But not a successful means of playing video like DVD.

Either way, ten years ago is 1999... AFTER the Saturn was discontinued. Which is why I tend to lean on it meeting more Xbox-like sales than Saturn-like. Either way, we all know it's the games that make a console, not its features. For instance, Halo pretty much made the Xbox anything at all.

So, in the end, who's to say what would have happened?

 

[joystickjunki3]

And I am of the proof that that strategy didn't work because both the NeoGeo AES and SEGA Saturn had the same strategy. Not that any of them weren't good consoles in their rights. It's just that your argument doesn't make sense. 10 years ago, mainstream gaming was literally just making it onto the scene and the PlayStation took over while the Saturn (power over price) tried to cater to the hardcore crowd [and failed].

Yeah, it was powerful but the PS3 is also all about features. Which is why I mentioned DVD players before. Imagine if you will that that the Saturn had a way to play video. I believe that would have changed the playing field significantly and this is evidenced in the PS3 as the primary reason it survived for too long in the first few years was because of its blu-ray player.

But the Saturn did have a way to play video and it was all about features too. Video, online gameplay, graphics, etc.

But not a successful means of playing video like DVD.

Either way, ten years ago is 1999... AFTER the Saturn was discontinued. Which is why I tend to lean on it meeting more Xbox-like sales than Saturn-like. Either way, we all know it's the games that make a console, not its features. For instance, Halo pretty much made the Xbox anything at all.

So, in the end, who's to say what would have happened?

You're right, except to say that the best-selling title on the PS2 for the first year or so was The Matrix (the DVD, not any game). Look, the point I was making is that everything would've turned out exactly as it is now so your point is moot.

The PS3 caters to a specific audience, just as every hardcore console has before it. And that's fine, but the more mainstream system always prevails commercially speaking.

 

[darthzew]

You're right, except to say that the best-selling title on the PS2 for the first year or so was The Matrix (the DVD, not any game). Look, the point I was making is that everything would've turned out exactly as it is now so your point is moot.

The PS3 caters to a specific audience, just as every hardcore console has before it. And that's fine, but the more mainstream system always prevails commercially speaking.

Yep. Moot point and lame thread.

But this all bounces back the PS3 and it's worth talking about. I believe that Sony's gameplan is outdated and it didn't work that well back then, even though I'm of the belief that it worked better. If it's not going to get them maximum success, why do it at all?

That said, I don't think history is on Sony's side, which I guess is the point.

 

[joystickjunki3]

You're right, except to say that the best-selling title on the PS2 for the first year or so was The Matrix (the DVD, not any game). Look, the point I was making is that everything would've turned out exactly as it is now so your point is moot.

The PS3 caters to a specific audience, just as every hardcore console has before it. And that's fine, but the more mainstream system always prevails commercially speaking.

Yep. Moot point and lame thread.

But this all bounces back the PS3 and it's worth talking about. I believe that Sony's gameplan is outdated and it didn't work that well back then, even though I'm of the belief that it worked better. If it's not going to get them maximum success, why do it at all?

That said, I don't think history is on Sony's side, which I guess is the point.

So why post this thread?

 

[darthzew]

You're right, except to say that the best-selling title on the PS2 for the first year or so was The Matrix (the DVD, not any game). Look, the point I was making is that everything would've turned out exactly as it is now so your point is moot.

The PS3 caters to a specific audience, just as every hardcore console has before it. And that's fine, but the more mainstream system always prevails commercially speaking.

Yep. Moot point and lame thread.

But this all bounces back the PS3 and it's worth talking about. I believe that Sony's gameplan is outdated and it didn't work that well back then, even though I'm of the belief that it worked better. If it's not going to get them maximum success, why do it at all?

That said, I don't think history is on Sony's side, which I guess is the point.

So why post this thread?

Do you mean why post in it? I'd ask you the same question. I just wanted to put my opinion in because I had a thought and decided to run with it.

Or do you mean why did I make it? I did not.

 

[joystickjunki3]

You're right, except to say that the best-selling title on the PS2 for the first year or so was The Matrix (the DVD, not any game). Look, the point I was making is that everything would've turned out exactly as it is now so your point is moot.

The PS3 caters to a specific audience, just as every hardcore console has before it. And that's fine, but the more mainstream system always prevails commercially speaking.

Yep. Moot point and lame thread.

But this all bounces back the PS3 and it's worth talking about. I believe that Sony's gameplan is outdated and it didn't work that well back then, even though I'm of the belief that it worked better. If it's not going to get them maximum success, why do it at all?

That said, I don't think history is on Sony's side, which I guess is the point.

So why post this thread?

Do you mean why post in it? I'd ask you the same question. I just wanted to put my opinion in because I had a thought and decided to run with it.

Or do you mean why did I make it? I did not.

I am so sorry, dude. I'm a bit drunk and thought maybe you were the same dude who posted the OP.

EDIT: Sony's strategy is outdated and, if that was the point, then my bad.

 

[darthzew]

You're right, except to say that the best-selling title on the PS2 for the first year or so was The Matrix (the DVD, not any game). Look, the point I was making is that everything would've turned out exactly as it is now so your point is moot.

The PS3 caters to a specific audience, just as every hardcore console has before it. And that's fine, but the more mainstream system always prevails commercially speaking.

Yep. Moot point and lame thread.

But this all bounces back the PS3 and it's worth talking about. I believe that Sony's gameplan is outdated and it didn't work that well back then, even though I'm of the belief that it worked better. If it's not going to get them maximum success, why do it at all?

That said, I don't think history is on Sony's side, which I guess is the point.

So why post this thread?

Do you mean why post in it? I'd ask you the same question. I just wanted to put my opinion in because I had a thought and decided to run with it.

Or do you mean why did I make it? I did not.

I am so sorry, dude. I'm a bit drunk and thought maybe you were the same dude who posted the OP.

It's OK, happens to the best of us.

 

[RAWKSTAR]

Well, just look at bananas. They are yellow huh?

And I really think it wouldn't have survived, it would have been far to expensive.