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

[Erana]

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?

*points to HDDVD. Sure, it failed, but if we're talkin' technicalities....

 

[Judas-]

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?

Very true. That's why the Xbox 360 wasn't released 10 years ago.

I'm not being funny, it's a fact. Microsoft wanted in on the console market, they knew what they wanted, but they weren't 100% sure what to expect. The original plan was to release what the Xbox 360 is, but they thought it would be a safer bet to release a more basic 'prototype' into the market, this prototype was the Original Xbox.

The Original Xbox served to test and build a strong online service for their new console brand, as well as build relationships with game developers- many people aren't aware that Epic were creating IPs for Microsoft before Gears of War, check out the Unreal Championship franchise.

What you're saying is true, the 360 wouldn't have survived back then, but Microsoft were suspicious of that, which is why they pussy-footed in the last generation.

 

[kir4]

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.

That's what im saying. The PS2 did just that. If you were to scale down the PS3, for a 10yr ago market. It would have been the first with a DVD player, I doubt wireless controllers because that technology wasn't totally secure yet. HD was really just budding so it would have possibly been Component or S-Video Full. But that's the thing. That's what the PS2 did and why it was so successful. It was a cheap DVD player with an awesome library of games, backed by almost every single publisher for the price of 300$ (Launch). So the console was about the same price as a DVD player maybe a little more but you got so much with it. It's the exact idea that was put into the PS3. Only we're upping it another 200-300$ and we're putting it into a format that, yeah won a physical disk war. But still has to war with DLC and data such as movies through PSN, iTunes etc. You can get a Bluray player for about 350-400$, or you can get a ps3, and have games etc. Which would you choose? This is Sony's hardware marketing talent. Unfortunately in our economy and its secretiveness with bluray code, it wasn't immediately accepted.

So what you're saying is, yes it would do well because it would have a DVD player, possible wireless controllers, and a HDD. Well then that would make it the PS2... literally, not a comparison. Do you understand?