Gaming Console War!!!

[BigCajones]

Which console will die first and which is the best out of X-Box, Gamecube or PS2????? I don't know myself i have a Gamecube and PS2 at the moment out of those consoles and i like them both the same. They both give me a variety of options of games to play from, but i hear the X-box is also a great console too and its just as cheap now!

[COLOR=red]What do you think about the war and what consoles do you have?[/COLOR] :babble: [COLOR=green]You can recommend some games as well and i will check your replies thanks!!![/COLOR] :demon:

[Bing]

Definatley the XBOX! I am getting one for Christmas, look at the machinery behind it! It's pure quality. Gamecube is good, but for different reasons. Sony always manage to shoot themselves in the foot, by releasing a new console, when the previous design is still earning for them. I only have a PSX (playing right now) and a N64, but when I get my XBOX, i will be glued to it!

[RicoTranzrig]

[color=darkblue]I'm going to let this as long as intelligent and good points can be made. But once flaming and harsh words are being thrown, this thread'll close. Each system has their strengths and weaknesses. At this point it's difficult to really say which system is going to come on top.

My friend and I were talking the other day about how we both bought PS2's and we don't play with them much anymore. There are very good titles out for the console, but there's a lot of sequels, prequels, varations of an old game, etc. Tech-wise, the PS2 is at the bottom of the charts. But as long as the game is fast, fun, and addicting, I don't really care how not-complicated the gfx are.

Up to this point, the Gamecube is a fun system with a nice selection of titles avalible. But Nintendo's quality rules are very strict, preventing some good games from coming out on that system so it's hard to develop for the system in the sense that makers have to make it really good for it to pass, or at least be well known.

The X-Box is an improving system...better titles are coming out as the months progress and capabilities of the hardware are very good. The presentations are great when I boot up a game, but after a while, a lot of games aren't worth more than a rental. I say it has a promising future.[/color]

[Kent]

I would put my money on the ps2 to win the "war" in terms of sucess on the buisness charts.

In the gamers eyes the war is more difficult to call.

The winner in my opinion... after the reasons for each.

third place: xbox

The xbox has great power, but as seen with the dreamcast, thats not enough to carry a system all the way. Most important in the xbox's problems is a lack of in house platform designing. It takes years to develop good titles and once you have one, thats all you need. However, xbox has nothing, they have to resort to thrid party designers and hope that those guys are putting out a varied list of games and making those games well enough to take advantage of the xbox's power. Fact is that with out the games to take advantage of that power, the xbox isnt any better off than the other two, and with that in mind, its even worse off because they dont have the creativity of in house design or the flexibility with other designers that have already been working with sony and nintendo for years.

second place: not awarded.

first place: tie: gamecube and ps2

Gamecube has amazing power but most of all, they have the in house design to take advantage of that. They have the best platformers in the buisness and thats what keeps them alive. The game play on the cube is the best advantage it has on the others, with the processing power and the games, in house and third party, to take advantage of that power, there is no doubt that the game cube will be a power to contend with.

The only disadvantage for the gc is the limited amount of third party game developers they can work with due to sony's overwhelming control on that sector of game development.

Sony: It has almost every advantage, the game play is excellent because althought the theoretical capabilities of the system are not as high as the other two systems, it has been shown that the games and developers sony has in its pocket can fully exploit the ps2's power. With that power being fully used, the games are on par with the other systems simply because the other system havent gotten to go to their extremes yet.

Most important in the sony's advantage is its games. In house as development is great and its connection with third party developers is far greater than the other two. The ps2 has the greatest diversity of game titles and it is also reverse compatible which makes for a gaming nastalgia the others have a hard time matching.

Plus, with the diversity of games and designers at sony's finger tips, it makes for a perfect senerio where only sony can put forth an honestly descent rpg.

Even with these advantages, the sony will have a hard time beating the nintendo, nintendo has the game play and in house design down. Where as the sony has diversity in game titles as well as excellent game play.

Sony will win in the overall, but for the serious gamer, nintendo will be possibly the true winner.

Just like a contest between the ps1 and the n64, the 64 won on gameplay and graphics (most often), while the ps1 had the titles and diversity to grab ahold of the general gaming crowd.

[NeoCactuar]

It is not the question of who will, but who has.

I think all we need to do is look at sonys sale figures for the PS2, compared to the Gamecube and X-Box.

Even at the length of time the X-Box and Gamecube have been out, during PS2s time there, it's sales were way higher.

[BigCajones]

Some good points there, but the Gamecube and X-box came out around the same time and PS2 was well awaited and came out just before Christmas! I do think PS2 has a good chance in winning the war of the consoles or maybe they already have but i think Gamecube will take over that spot as PS3 is already being made and that will be the next big thing as it looks likes another great hit for sony!

I must say i prefer my N64 to my PS1 as the titles were classics including Perfect Dark and Super Smash Bros. Any games coming out for consoles you would like to recommend go ahead.

[Semjaza]

I don't think this Nintendo quality rules thing is much of a point anymore. They tried to stress it with the N64 at first, but we all know how that turned out. A good deal of the games released 3rd party wise were awful. Quality was just an excuse to make up for the lack of quantity in the end.

Nintendo itself doesn't try to stop many companies from making games anymore. They don't even worry about censoring games now that the rating system is standard. In fact, more companies complain about Sony censoring than Nintendo now, but that's kind of a small part of it.

The fact of the matter is that many 3rd parties see GC as a kids system, and design with that in mind. Which will lead to some companies making no games at all. I'm sure there is stuff Nintendo has blocked from being sealed with their stamp, but there is a LOT of crap on GC as well.

That being said, it still is my favorite system. I'm happy with the Nintendo published games alone. I also think GC has the potential to have the best overall 2003 lineup, assuming things come out on time and promises are lived up to.

PS2 probably has [i]more[/i] games I like, but at the same time I don't like any of them as much as I like a select few GC titles. I keep going back to them.

I have an Xbox, but I'm not a big fan. Halo just doesn't impress me, and the game I bought the syst0em for (JSRF) was really disappointing for me comoared to JGR. I prefer my GBA to it personally, if that can be included in this.

[James]

[color=#507AAC]There are so many points to make about the concept of the "console war". It's late here and I'm tired, but I'll try my best.

I'll go over each major company involved one by one. It's a little dry, but I hope some of you read my post and think differently about the subject.

First and foremost, we have to ask ourselves what the so-called "console war" really means. Are the PlayStation 2, Xbox and GameCube [i]really[/i] competing against one another? And if so, to what extent?

I'll go over each major company involved one by one. It's a little dry, but I hope some of you read my post and think differently about the subject.

What makes the GameCube different from both the PlayStation 2 and the Xbox is also perhaps what limits it. In general terms, Nintendo is creating games for its fans. And when I say fans, I'm talking about people who have either grown up with Nintenndo (such as myself) or younger children/teenagers who are experiencing Nintendo for the very first time.

Nintendo has often been criticized for its failure to appeal to new audiences (the so-called "mainstream" audience of consumers who are buying games such as GTAIII and Tomb Raider). To some extent Nintendo has attempted to remedy this situation by charging its first and second party studios with the task of creating more "mature" games. Metroid Prime and Eternal Darkness would be prime examples (and both have performed pretty well so far).

More telling of Nintendo's determination this time around (as opposed to the more lackluster N64 era) is the various third party partnerships that Nintendo has been pursuing over the last year. Nintendo understands one important factor, which Sony and Microsoft are starting to understand themselves; exclusivity sells consoles.

This is why, rather than have games such as Final Fantasy X ported to GameCube months later, Nintendo has pursued a different path; Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, which is designed exclusively for the GameCube. The same strategy has been used with the Resident Evil series and most recently, with several new Capcom franchises (including Killer 7, Product Number 5, Viewtiful Joe and Dead Pheonix).

The quality over quantity values of the past are still present at Nintendo. But this time around, Nintendo is aiming to incorporate that message with the addition of more aggressive development strategies, thus resulting in higher quantity [i]and[/i] quality.

Perhaps this strategy is most evident based on recent sales in Japan. Weekly GameCube sales were up to the point where they were only around 1,000 units behind PlayStation 2. This is a milestone that Nintendo has never achieved (except with GBA, which has experienced the fastest acceleration of sales in video game history). It is also a milestone that Microsoft has not even come close to.

In addition, we must factor in the handheld market. Remember; GameCube is one of [i]two[/i] consoles that Nintendo currently sells. Nintendo's dominance in the handheld market was proven recently when the company released the two new GBA Pokemon titles in Japan; the company sold just over 1 million GBA units in 10 days. To the best of my knowledge, this even breaks the sales records that GBA posted when it was first launched in Japan and North America.

Is Nintendo's strategy working? It's too hard to say right now. 2003 will be the GameCube's biggest year yet; it will finally have ample "mature" titles as well as ample high quality titles to compete with PS2/Xbox. Once again, quality and content are both key.

In addition to the strategy, we must also consider what the GameCube/GBA technology offers. In essence, Nintendo is pushing this idea of "connectivity" between the two machines (which is very savvy, when you consider the massive GBA user base worldwide). Additionally, both GBA and GCN are designed to provide maximum benefit to Nintendo.

Consider it; both GBA and GCN are essentially piracy-proof. Whereas in 1999, SCE lost over $260 million in worldwide piracy, Nintendo has lost perhaps less than $10 million since GCN/GBA launched. I don't have specific numbers on Nintendo's losses in this area (if there were any at all), but consider [i]why[/i] Nintendo is unaffected by piracy. Media format. GameCube's proprietary disc system (which can only be produced by Matsushita [Panasonic] under patent) ensures that the machine's discs can't be copied. And GBA uses its own proprietary cartridges which, once again, are highly resistant to piracy.

In addition, GameCube Optical Discs are extremely cheap to manufacture; cheaper than DVDs. When combined with Nintendo's high software profit margins, Nintendo is clearly [i]the most[/i] profitable company in the video game business today.

Once again, this leads me to the question of how you can tell who is "winning the war". Let's say you base your argument on number of hardware units sold.

In this case, we'd have PS2 in the lead (around 40 million now sold), GameCube/GBA in second (over 20 million combined) and Xbox (around 8 million) in third place. This context provides a deceptively simple answer. Remember; Microsoft is losing massive amounts of money on each Xbox sold. Sony is also running at a loss per PS2, as is Nintendo. However, Nintendo loses the [i]least[/i] money per unit sold (and contrary to the rumors, Nintendo does [i]not[/i] profit from hardware unit sales).

Additionally, both Sony and Microsoft utilize much lower licensing costs for publishers (presumably in order to attract more third party software). What is the end result? Third party software sales generate significantly [i]less[/i] profitability for both Microsoft and Sony. And particularly in the case of Sony, one could argue that game development itself is more expensive due to the more complex hardware (by comparison, GameCube and Xbox are much easier to work with and therefore require less labor time; and consequently less financial investment).

Furthermore, Nintendo's reluctance to enter the online gaming market early is going to work in Nintendo's favor, financially speaking. The argument could be made that Sony and Microsoft will reap the rewards of their early investments further down the line (due to an installed/existing user base and existing online franchises and business models). But in addition, the point must also be made that both Sony and Microsoft stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in the first two to five years of their online ventures. In Micrsoft's case, the number could grow to well over $1 Billion.

What if Sony and Microsoft do develop strong and profitable online business models and markets? Simple. If the business is there, Nintendo will enter. If not, it won't. If Nintendo sees a profitable situation emerging, then the company will definitely enter the arena. The thing is, both Sony and Microsoft will have laid the groundwork on the business end (though this is debatable; Nintendo has been working with online gaming for over a decade in one form or another).

What about Sony's strategy? Sony works with things from much more of a business standpoint than a creative one. Sony's principle policy has been two fold; focus on PS2-exclusive partnerships and build the PlayStation brand. The word "PlayStation" has almost become a company unto itself. And that's a good thing; when PS2 first arrived in Japan and North America, it sold incredibly well despite having a relatively below average launch lineup.

Ultimately, Sony's strategy is not as complex as either Nintendo or Microsoft's. Sony, in a sense, can rest on its laurels during this generation. Even if it stopped marketing PS2 altogether, it would [i]still[/i] take a while for Nintendo and Microsoft to play catch up.

Sony's massive user base is beneficial upon first glance, but is held back by numerous issues (high development costs, low profitability and extremely low software penetration). However, once again, the massive size of the user base tends to counter any financial hurdles that Sony may face.

I remember that when the PS2 first came out in Japan, the number one selling software for the machine was The Matrix movie. It was humerousr at the time, because Sony were initially having a lot of trouble when it came to encouraging the sale of [i]games[/i] and not [i]movies[/i]. Has Sony overcome that hurdle? In short, no. But to some extent, Sony has succeeded where others (most noteably Nintendo) have failed; the company has been able to draw in [i]new[/i] gamers via the movie/game tie-up scenario. Sony's combination of clever marketing and extremely strong third party portfolio have definitely been behind the PS2's "mainstream" success. So, even though the movie/game functionality of the machine has worked against Sony in terms of its profits, the concept has also theoretically broadened the video game industry as a whole (thus providing more opportunity even for Nintendo and Microsoft). It has also meant that for first-time gamers (who may very well be in their twenties or thirties at the current time) are going to remember that PS2 is the first game machine they owned. Thus, if Sony provides pleasing franchises to these audiences, they are likely to build a kind of "brand loyalty" to PlayStation. And of course, during the introduction of PlayStation 3, this situation will be extremely important for Sony (especially due to the highly advanced Xbox 2 and GCN 2 [or whatever it gets called]).

Thirdly, we have Xbox. What is Microsoft's strategy?

Microsoft's strategy is much like Sony's, but with a key difference. Microsoft has built the Xbox as an online gaming machine from the ground up. Even during the early stages of the machine's development, Microsoft reiterated over and over that this would be the primary function of the console.

Given that Xbox Live is in its extreme infancy, it's going to be very hard to make any kind of judgement or assumption right now. But there are some things that can be said.

Firstly, Microsoft knows what it's doing in terms of online technology and marketing. The company easily has the most sophisticated and user friendly system for players to go online. In a nutshell, if you want to play online games primarily, Xbox is your only option. The machine's breadth of features combined with its ease of use (and centralized network structure) make it the absolute ideal choice for gamers.

Quality is also becoming less of a concern. A year ago, you would have been forgiven for thinking that Xbox was devoid of any quality software at all (games such as DoA3 are generally considered to have been blown out of proportion upon release, though this is understandable). But during the last year, Microsoft has pulled a Nitnendo-esque move; it has recognized the importance of longterm franchises and software quality. Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft has chosen a more indirect approach to quality. Rather than developing and engineering its own core franchises, Microsoft has had a tendancy to purchase development firms which it believes are providing the kind of content that Xbox players are going to want. So far this strategy has worked; Bungee has been invaluable to Xbox and Rare is sure to be the jewel in the Xbox's crown (in terms of both diversity and range of software, as well as general above average quality). Microsoft understands the importance of brands and implied quality and its actions over recent months have proven this point.

And as mentioned, the single largest part of the Xbox strategy is the online question. Even though there is currently no profitable business model for online console games (nor is there a very high demand -- less than 50% of gamers actually [i]want[/i] to go online and even less want to [i]pay[/i] for online gaming via their console), nor a lack of suitable infrastructure/availability of services worldwide, Microsoft is still clearly the front runner in this area. And clearly, Microsoft's plan is a longterm one (think 10 years rather than 5).

Though Microsoft will lose billions on Xbox (around $5 Billion, estimated by Microsoft itself), the company has a clear opportunity to build a longterm franchise in both Xbox and its exclusive software. Microsoft may not make any profit from its gaming ventures until well after 2006, but at that time the company will have the required user base installed (hopefully, at least) and will have the suitable technology and experience in place.

Ultimately, as I said earlier, you have to ask yourself how you judge who "wins" the war and what criteria you establish.

So, let me lay out a few scenarios for you.

If you judge the "winner" based upon sheer number of hardware units sold (despite financial losses and inefficiencies), PS2 is the clear winner. GameCube second, Xbox third.

If you judge the "winner" based upon the amount of net profit generated by gaming, the clear winner is Nintendo with Sony in second place and Microsoft in third.

And finally, if you judge the winner based upon longterm online strategy (assuming that online gaming does become prevalent...and I think it probably will, even though I believe that MS and Sony are moving too quickly right now), then the clear winner would have to be Microsoft. Only Microsoft has the sheer financial and technical resources to actually defeat both Sony and Nintendo in this field. Sony would probably come second, but it's hard to judge given the fact that Nintendo has said very little about any online gaming (though it has confirmed some details, we really won't know how things work out until about 2005).

Phew, so that is my general summary of the industry as it stands. I don't want to get into my personal preferences, because quite honestly, I like each of the current generation game systems for their own merits.

What I've tried to do is analyze the industry (or the "war" as some of you call it) as a game journalist and not as your average game player. In the end, the factors I described above (the strategies and their end results) are what will dictate the longterm players from the short term "flash in the pan" successes.

My post might be long, but you need to bear a few things in mind. Primarily, I haven't even begun to scratch the surface. As I said, the game industry is [i]far[/i] more complex than simply "I've sold the most hardware, I win". There are so many issues that I really haven't discussed in detail (demographics and how they have changed over the last decade, specific online gaming business models and the research behind their success/failure, company structure and how it affects both development and finances, future technological advancements [including the convergence of Xbox 2 as essentially a set-top box] and many other issues). In truth, much of this argument is going to fall down to people's personal preferences. But unfortunately, that won't really be a productive discussion. Let's try, as people who are interested in the gaming industry as a whole, to discuss this topic in a factual and non-biased way. Particularly, let's try to provide our theories on where the industry may be going and what trends might be emerging. What do [i]you[/i] think is most important to the industry? And where do you think the game industry is going in general? Let's try to expand this discussion a little more so that whilst we discuss the differences between the three hardware providers, we also discuss different aspects of the industry itself and where we feel it may go in the future. This is a great opportunity to encourage such discussion and I sincerely hope that "fanboy-like" responses are not issued here; let us try to go beyond that kind of simplicity and realize that we are [i]all[/i] gamers fundamentally, regardless of what our personal preferences are.[/color]

[BigCajones]

[COLOR=red]Some extremely good points there! What do we the gamers mean by the console ?war?? Is it the company who?s doing the best profit wise, or their actual product and it selling because I think the PS2 have had a massive head start and the other two need time to catch up! [/COLOR]

[COLOR=red]What happened to the trusty old Sega Company? The Sega Mega Drive was a console I grew up to love including the original Nintendo, which was created in 1987 before the SNES. The Dreamcast (DC) and the Sega Saturn maybe wasn't such a great success but still had some hits. A bit of a third party like the X-box right now but that still has time to improve! But James (he knows everything!!!) and I?m sure the rest of you know a lot on this so if you would like to help out a troubled kid in telling me what Sega are planning to do, because I know they are making several different games for different consoles. The Sonic classics and many more but is the rumour true that Nintendo now have bought Sega, because are sources here in England aren't great at all and we seem to be one of the last to know which is disappointing. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=red]I think as Nintendo have missed out on the DVD system in their console they need to have gaming online at roughly the same time as the others to have a challenging battle. Games like Tony Hawks and Resident Evil online look out of this world and mega fun, but I'm not saying its going to be a huge success as I'm not sure if I would buy all the software as my room is congested enough as it is! So how will online gaming effect this ?war? or won?t it have an effect, will it just be money down the drain for the companies? [/COLOR]

[COLOR=darkblue]Reply please because I?m interested in what you have to say and what would you rather get for Christmas right now if I include the GBA to this little conflict of the consoles?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=purple]Grant[/COLOR]:demon:

[RicoTranzrig]

[COLOR=darkblue]I would think the X-Box has the advantage in online gaming so far. Microsoft has tons of experience in building stable and secure servers. The X-box live program shows that. Even if you have to pay a fee, you're getting good quality.

Online gaming for PS2 is very solid as well...but the networks vary per game...you might be paying a fee for one online game, and then paying a fee to play another online. Thankfully a lot of the popular games have no fees to play online.

Gamecube is still behind on online gaming, but they have included ports for devices. Even though....the 1-4 player experience is still very fun.

It's personal preference if you really want a challenge that isn't avalible locally or those MMORPG's that are coming out soon.

As for the GBA/GB, I think it's a companion system to the Gamecube. It's very affordable and a lot of the SNES games are being remade/ported to the GBA. It's the only handheld system out and selling at stores anyway.[/COLOR]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BigCajones [/i]
[B][COLOR=red]

[COLOR=red]What happened to the trusty old Sega Company? The Sega Mega Drive was a console I grew up to love including the original Nintendo, which was created in 1987 before the SNES. The Dreamcast (DC) and the Sega Saturn maybe wasn't such a great success but still had some hits.[/color][/b][/quote]

[color=#507AAC]There are [i]still[/i] rumors that SEGA is interested in developing another console. But I can tell you now, it's not going to happen.

SEGA may develop hardware -- for the arcade market. But not for the home console business. As a software company, SEGA can focus on what it does best; making great games. It can rely on Nintendo/MS/Sony to market the actual home consoles.

And of course, with this strategy, SEGA makes more money (loses nothing on console hardware) and is capable of developing for multiple game systems at once.[/color][color=red] [b][quote]


A bit of a third party like the X-box right now but that still has time to improve! But James (he knows everything!!!) and I?m sure the rest of you know a lot on this so if you would like to help out a troubled kid in telling me what Sega are planning to do, because I know they are making several different games for different consoles. The Sonic classics and many more but is the rumour true that Nintendo now have bought Sega, because are sources here in England aren't great at all and we seem to be one of the last to know which is disappointing. [/COLOR] [/b][/quote]

[color=#507AAC]Nope, Nintendo has not bought SEGA. There are rumors of a "Megaton" announcement coming soon (apparently next week's Famitsu will provide details), but most sources are suggesting that the deal includes Capcom (and possibly someone purchasing/merging with the company).[/color][quote][b]

[COLOR=red]I think as Nintendo have missed out on the DVD system in their console they need to have gaming online at roughly the same time as the others to have a challenging battle. Games like Tony Hawks and Resident Evil online look out of this world and mega fun, but I'm not saying its going to be a huge success as I'm not sure if I would buy all the software as my room is congested enough as it is! So how will online gaming effect this ?war? or won?t it have an effect, will it just be money down the drain for the companies? [/COLOR] [/quote][/b]

[color=#507AAC]I am not convinced that Nintendo [i]needs[/i] to enter the online gaming market within a certain time period to compete with Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo will enter when it is ready. Clearly, Nintendo is conservative about this area; they aren't going to jump in until they feel that there is profit to be made. And that's reasonable -- it's why Nintendo has $7 Billion in cash sitting in the bank gaining interest every day.

Regarding the DVD thing, you should take a look at my reference to that in my above post. The DVD aspect is a double edged sword in my opinion. Even though you could argue that it is bringing new gamers to the world of video games, the data suggests that people are primarily purchasing a PS2 for movies (at least that's what the situation was in the first year of release) and as such, few games were being sold during that time. Of course, with a significantly sized user base, the chance of selling more software goes up. And I think it's fair to say that more and more people are getting into games (who weren't interested previously). But having said that, it could still be argued that the PlayStation 2 game software penetration rates are still pretty low (extremely low when compared to GameCube).[/color][quote][b]

[COLOR=darkblue]Reply please because I?m interested in what you have to say and what would you rather get for Christmas right now if I include the GBA to this little conflict of the consoles?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=purple]Grant[/COLOR]:demon: [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#507AAC]I believe that the GBA [i]must[/i] be included. It is a game console afterall. It's similarly priced to other consoles on the market and it has a sizeable library. It's also a "current generation" game machine and acts as a companion to the GameCube.

Considering that I already have a GBA/GCN/PS2, I'd be getting an Xbox this Christmas if I could afford it. As it stands, I'll probably just pick up one game or some anime. So I won't be getting Xbox just yet -- probably next year.[/color]

[ZeroBlade]

My standard are a bit similar to James. He's right in terms of performace in the different fields but as far as I see it, its whoever has the most games that I wanna keep coming back to. Right now the PS2 has done that for me since the Gran Turismo 3 racing package was released. I got a GBA next after that (at first I didn't use it much but after I installed the Afterburner internal lighting kit in it, its been a blast). I only got a GCN just recently due to Metroid Prime. GCN was a great system since I saw it in action... but there weren't that many titles that I would keep playing so I waited until now. The system finally look promising to me so I went ahead and burned the cash. As for Xbox, I'm still against it. Only game I enjoyed playing was Halo and even though it now was games like Splinter Cell, I'm still not getting it because there's a PS2 version being developed as we speak. Like James, I may get one next year but its more likely when Halo 2 gets released. Online wise, Xbox does have the upper hand in this department. Servers should do well but like many other multiplayer support games there's always gonna be those hic-cups in the beginning. Sony is suffering alot due to this but I think once they get the hang of it once they get enough experience. As for what Nintendo is doing... god knows what they up to. I think they planning something big and as James said, if they see online is the way to go then they will most likely use what they have under their sleeve. Anyway, here's like a quick view how I see things: PS2 has the games, GCN has the gameplay, and Xbox has the power. In the end I think which ever system appeals to the most gamer's tastes, is the 'winner'.

[Flash]

Sure, X-Box is the most powerful system, but hey, I don't have the extra cash to build another room to house the thing, ya know?

The way I see it... PS2 and the 'cube are pretty evenly matched. The Gamecube may have superior graphics, and cost less, but the PS2 has the third party support, and the ability to play DVDs...

And we all know what I think of the X-Box.

[Charles]

I doubt that I know enough about the industry to give a really tremendous response to this, but as I see it, the console industry is at a branching point. What Nintendo wishes to accomplish seems drastically different from what Microsoft and Sony are setting out to do. Thus, it's hard to actually acknowledge the existence of a console war. Everyone is going in different directions. To be sure, Nintendo isn't targeting the same audiences that Sony and Microsoft are.

Anyone who has talked games with me knows how dissatisfied I am with Sony's tentative planning. As I last understand it, the company is becoming less focused on the actual Playstation 3 hardware, and more interested in the possibilities of the Cell microprocessor chip.

Fukanaga has even stated that Sony would like to have an operating system installed in various home appliances that could run game programs. Hence, they plan to make the Playstation 3 a multifaceted entertainment hub rather than a stand-alone console.

Microsoft's Homestation will also serve as a multifaceted entertainment hub, as it combines the capabilities of a Microsoft Ultimate TV, an Xbox, Windows Media player and a Microsoft WebTV.

From my perspective, it appears as if Sony is concentrating too hard on what Microsoft is doing, similarly to how SEGA became too fixated on what Sony was doing when they entered the console war. Like SEGA, they are the king of the hill, the big game in town, but they see another huge company come along and try to directly compete with what they're doing.

It's not quite fair to say that Sony's "following their lead" since they intended to explore the possibilities of home appliances with the PS2, but I just think it's ridiculous either way. It's just not console gaming.

Nintendo seems to be the only company catering to pure gamers. I remember when Mr. Iwata claimed that Nintendo wouldn't be focusing entirely on developing new hardware, because games were beginning to reach their limits, and instead would focus on pushing the GameCube to its limits and focus on delivering quality software.

I'm not very fond of this era of online gaming and entertainment hubs. It's just not console gaming in my eyes. By expanding into these areas, companies are alienating console gamers. We're different from PC gamers, lol. If you want to go online, get a personal computer.

[SSJ_WILLIE]

I'm guessing that like other game consoles of the past, they will eventually all die out. The only bad part is that they die out right when I get one. When I first got the Nintendo, they came out with SNES and Sega Genesis So then I got the Sega and they came out with the play station and N64. So I got both of them just befor they came out with all the new ones. But I have a question. With as good as all the consoles have become, the next thing they would hve to come out with to surpass them would have to be like affordable VR machines would it?

[James]

[color=#507AAC]I agree with CWB in the sense that this generation is perhaps the last of the "traditional" game console generations.

If Sony and Microsoft truly branch out into the areas that they are talking about now, the video game industry might be very different in 2010.

It seems that the PlayStation 3 will either be one of two things; a mere chip embedded into many different electronics devices (DVD players, televisions, set-top boxes) with the ability to download games over broadband Internet services (no physical disc or packaging -- just a downloadable file). Or, that the PS3 will be a physical game console that will simply have more Internet-based features.

I'm betting on the latter. The former has many positive business aspects (without producing hardware or even physical software, Sony stands to make a much higher profit with far less financial outlay), but it's essentially an alien concept to consumers. Will gamers want to have "pay to play" services? Will they want to have a PS3 embedded in their DVD player and download games rather than having a physical product? Who knows. In some ways, technology is always moving in that direction anyway.

Microsoft's strategy is a little less extreme. Xbox 2 will be somewhere between Xbox and HomeStation. Microsoft won't go [i]all the way[/i], but they'll go part of the way. You can expect to see Xbox 2 being based [i]very[/i] heavily on Xbox Live (you'll probably be able to move your account to Xbox 2 services), but Microsoft will stop short of compulsory downloadable games (though they may offer the service for those who want it as an option).

As for Nintendo...they have confirmed that they are indeed working on a successor to GameCube. And once again, Nintendo are going to be working with NEC to manufacture the various chips (NEC recently completed producion of an all-new manufacturing plant in Japan, which could be used by the company to create the GCN successor chips).

It's also expected that Nintendo will once again work with ATi to engineer a new graphics chip, though nobody knows what the next-gen system's CPU will be. I'm guessing that Nintendo may work with IBM again, though.[/color]

[Zidargh]

Hmm *Gets used to broadband* =). Well the console war eh? Funny how Nintendo planned to buy out Squaresoft which had connections with SONY which his a good example of a tribute to perhaps an industry 'war. To be honest, I've been dissapointed with every 'modern' console. i.e: Playstation 2, Gamecube, X Box (Querie on that point).
Even though the X Box is the only console I do not own apart from the Drean Cast, it is the only one I have been impressed with in Gameplay. Games lately have seemed to fail me in my expectations. I only have 5 games for the Game Cube, 24 for the PS2 etc etc. dont know why, but I loved the Dreamcast, for example, SEGA actually put the effort to spend 2 billion yen on a game 'Shenmue', which apart from Final Fantasies and Breath of Fire, was the greatest series so far.
From the beginning I was dreading the day until all these consoles came out, as I knew it would kill the PSX in a few blows, which I wrote an email to every company and complained why. Though trust me, I bought the consoles -_-;;;
Well I do adore the PS2 but it is not the greatest of all times, for games, PSX rocked.

[Red]

[quote]As for Nintendo...they have confirmed that they are indeed working on a successor to GameCube.[/quote]

[b]According to what I've seen it's called the Magma. A red console that actually looks rather similar to a PS2, although it has a holographic "N" in the center. It's 256-bit and will still use discs, but this time they will be the same size as DvDs/CDs and so forth.

However, Nintendo have also said that the Magma (if it will be called that, Nintendo have changed the names of their future consoles many times in the past) will [i]not[/i] be DvD playback compatible.

So in a way Nintendo are sticking to their games only policy, but they seem to have realised that an outdated piece of hardware would not be able to compete well in a market with machines that perform three times as well.

As for the console "war", I think that the GameCube is finally starting to pick up speed, with sales increasing to over twice their original amount since the release of Mario Sunshine.

I really think Sony are trailing behind, especially in the UK. Many new games released on the PS2 have failed to make a significant impact, with GameCube out-performing the PS2 in terms of current sales.

On the other hand, Microsoft have pulled their socks up and started to release some good, original games like Blinx. Live! has finally got a confirmed release date over here in the UK, which will no doubt boost XBox sales, which for the past year have been at a low rate.

I think we'll just have to wait and see ;)[/b]

[BigCajones]

I Still think the PS2 is great I mean I've asked for loads of PS2's games for both Christmas and birthday. The X-Box on the other hand I feel has been more of a failure. My reasons for this being they had to drop down so much in price compared to the other consoles and do loads of Christmas deals so close to when it was released just to get a chance with both the PS2's and the Gamecube's competition. Bill Gates just wants to show off his Microsoft company and show that they can do so much which is true, but it's not up to scratch as of yet in my eyes.
I love the Gamecube though i think it's going to be a great success!

Ah I'm sooooo bored! It's my last day of school today, so I'm being a rebel and going on OB lol :devil:

Anyone else ... What games/consoles do you want for Christmas then?

[Digital]

I have a PS2 and a Gamecube, both which I equally enjoy using. However, in the long run, I have a feeling that either Gamecube or X-Box will be the first to fall. My reasons for this is quite simpe.

Gamecube: Since most gamers these days are teens and young adults, it's highly unlikely they'll be playing childish games that are release to Gamecube. I mean Super Mario was the thing back at the NES era but now people want action shoot 'em up, Bang-bang-bang games. As far as I know, Gamecube doesn't have a lot of those types of games to offer.

X-Box: X-Box was a great hit in what? The first few months of its release? It's still pretty good but it's multiplayer system is only good for those broadband users out there. The game console was quite expensive when it first came out but now, with the Christmas coming, it dropped down to a very cheap price. However, most people would chose PS2 (note I said [I]most[/I]) and not X-Box since they know there are more games out of PS2 and it also can play previous Playstation games.

Conclusion: In my opinion, X-Box won't be the first to fall, most likely Gamecube. I don't know why but that's how I see it. Gamecube just can't compete with these two game consoles.

[BigCajones]

I think that it will be X-Box in early 2004 and then PS2 soon after (waiting for the PS3) and then finally Gamecube. The Gamecube may have some childish games as you put it, but it has games like Resident Evil (can't wait until Res Evil 0 comes out), Eternal Darkness, Turok Evolution, James Bond Nightfire (playing it now), and Metroid Prime looks good as well! It's not just shooting games though there is a variety of sports game which arent 'childish'.

Hey I could be wrong but unless the Gamecube shoot themselves in the foot somehow it ought to do good.

[James]

[color=#507AAC]The key issue now is that GameCube has the variety in quality franchises that it needs. And that number of franchises is going up all the time.

Has anyone seen the latest shots of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, for example? It's looking amazing.

I think that right now we should be well and truly over the whole "childish" thing with GameCube. That argument just doesn't work anymore. With games such as Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, Killer 7, Product Number 5, Resident Evil Zero, RE4, TimeSplitters 2 etc etc etc...I could go on forever.

The great thing about GameCube is that I can get the best of both worlds. I can play something "serious" like RE but I can also chill out with Mario. And for me as a gamer, that's what I like. I don't like to be limited in software variety.[/color]

[Syk3]

Bah, this topic has been done over.

I think that the best systems out now are the PS2 and GCN. This isn't because I'm trying defend my PS2, but because the reason I got it in the first place was because it seemed like the best choice.

XBox, on the other hand, doesn't mean anything to me. Although it may be the most powerfull system on the market, Microsoft has little idea what they are doing, since this is their first gaming console. What they need to understand is that a gaming system is more than just hardware -- it's software as well. I believe that if they don't get their act together soon and come out with some amazing titles (other than Halo and Jet Grind Radio Future, folks) they will loose the race to the other two systems.

That being said, I really admire how well the PS2 and GCN systems are going. PS2 has a very large library of games, allowing it to appeal to most every age group. They even have the highest sales and are doing better than the other two next-generation consoles. GCN is doing good as well, with a large batch of exculsives that would make anyone drool over. With games such as Super Smash Bros. Melee, Animal Crossing, and Metroid Prime, it's no wonder that people without a GCN are beginning to feel guilty. I know I'm a victom.

Out of these three, however, I own a PS2. Why? At the time I got it, it seemed like the best choice. It had been around for a year and really had a lot of features backing it up. Plus, it was compatiable with DVDs, which I needed more than anything.

In short...

Good systems: PlayStation 2 and GameCube
Bad systems: XBox

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Syk3 [/i]
[B]
XBox, on the other hand, doesn't mean anything to me. Although it may be the most powerfull system on the market, Microsoft has little idea what they are doing, since this is their first gaming console. What they need to understand is that a gaming system is more than just hardware -- it's software as well. I believe that if they don't get their act together soon and come out with some amazing titles (other than Halo and Jet Grind Radio Future, folks) they will loose the race to the other two systems.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Blech, just this section alone demonstrates that there is more to discuss Greg, lol.

It is completely incorrect to assume that Microsoft has little idea as to where they're going or what they are doing with the Xbox. I remember us discussing before, how Microsoft's plans are strictly long-term. The Xbox is a launch pad that will serve to establish the Xbox Live network in terms of technology and user base, and pave the way for the Homestation. With its centralized network, the Xbox is [I]the[/I] online system at this time.

Your comments about a lack of quality software reinforce my suspicions that you have not read James' earlier post. Either that, or your eyes just skipped over the section addressing Microsoft's strategies. Instead of completely reiterating what was said, I'll put the quote up.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#507AAC]Firstly, Microsoft knows what it's doing in terms of online technology and marketing. The company easily has the most sophisticated and user friendly system for players to go online. In a nutshell, if you want to play online games primarily, Xbox is your only option. The machine's breadth of features combined with its ease of use (and centralized network structure) make it the absolute ideal choice for gamers.

Quality is also becoming less of a concern. A year ago, you would have been forgiven for thinking that Xbox was devoid of any quality software at all (games such as DoA3 are generally considered to have been blown out of proportion upon release, though this is understandable). But during the last year, Microsoft has pulled a Nitnendo-esque move; it has recognized the importance of longterm franchises and software quality. Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft has chosen a more indirect approach to quality. Rather than developing and engineering its own core franchises, Microsoft has had a tendancy to purchase development firms which it believes are providing the kind of content that Xbox players are going to want. So far this strategy has worked; Bungee has been invaluable to Xbox and Rare is sure to be the jewel in the Xbox's crown (in terms of both diversity and range of software, as well as general above average quality). Microsoft understands the importance of brands and implied quality and its actions over recent months have proven this point.

And as mentioned, the single largest part of the Xbox strategy is the online question. Even though there is currently no profitable business model for online console games (nor is there a very high demand -- less than 50% of gamers actually want to go online and even less want to pay for online gaming via their console), nor a lack of suitable infrastructure/availability of services worldwide, Microsoft is still clearly the front runner in this area. And clearly, Microsoft's plan is a longterm one (think 10 years rather than 5).

Though Microsoft will lose billions on Xbox (around $5 Billion, estimated by Microsoft itself), the company has a clear opportunity to build a longterm franchise in both Xbox and its exclusive software. Microsoft may not make any profit from its gaming ventures until well after 2006, but at that time the company will have the required user base installed (hopefully, at least) and will have the suitable technology and experience in place.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[BigCajones]

Hey I now have every console battling it out in this 'war'. I've got the X-Box even though so many people including me at first are doubting this consoles abillity, but if you get it as a pressy your not exactly going to turn it down.

Halo is supposely one of the top 5 games out at the moment and also the release of Halo 2 should be a big hit! Other things that could effect the way the X-Box does is - Bioware signing with the box, Microsoft buying Rare (who made classic games for N64 like Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, etc.) and maybe not going to start out a great success as it's all coming around a bit too quick, but X-Box Live could get people interested.

I can't set up in my room yet though, nowhere for it to go :mad:. Anyway what consoles or games have you all got for Christmas then?