PS3 vs XBox 360 - Page 2

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 10-12-2006, 02:55 PM

Merv, I'm just curious as to what makes you say that "they brought the world forward with their superb office applications and operating systems". In all honesty I cannot think of a single feature that MS brought to the table that wasn't copied, acquired or stolen from another app or OS. In fact some of their "new stuff" in the past was pure garbage that was eventually dropped.

**mervaka** · 10-12-2006, 03:06 PM

okay, to clarify, they made their apps more user friendly than anything else at the time, and in doing that, they had the dominant market share.
they are partly responsible for the growth in the market itself, too. we would probably be somewhere in the 90s by now if it weren't for them.

also, bashing MS just isn't cool anymore.

o_robg · 10-12-2006, 03:37 PM

Not many people will argue that Apple's apps were less user-friendly that Microsoft's; MS simply had a highly cut-throat business strategy combined with superficial good looks to their products, and perhaps if we hadn't had them then virus writers would be far worse off, but this really isn't about MS.

The XBox 360 has been done well, and any talk of Microsoft's many moral and technical failings doesn't really belong in a discussion about the 360.

Also...

UPDATE: Here's some more Sony bashing and Russian-style lack of thought in commenting!

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 10-12-2006, 05:15 PM

You believe XB/XB360 has been a success? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the entire Xbox Program still showing massive red ink? No profit since day one?

o_uber · 10-12-2006, 05:26 PM

The Xbox 360 is to the new generation of consoles as the Dreamcast was to the previous.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 10-12-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uBeR

The Xbox 360 is to the new generation of consoles as the Dreamcast was to the previous.

ouch

**mervaka** · 10-12-2006, 05:38 PM

it's done far better than the dreamcast already i think.

o_skull · 10-12-2006, 05:44 PM

4 words for you guys:

Wii For The Win.

o_ghost · 10-12-2006, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

You believe XB/XB360 has been a success? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the entire Xbox Program still showing massive red ink? No profit since day one?

And yet they are still around. I would call that a success after jumping into the market competing against the likes of Nintendo and Sony.

I just read someplace where some Microsoft execuative said that it took windows 9 years to turn a profit. If Micosoft is committed to the Xbox it will stick with it until it makes a profit.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 10-12-2006, 06:00 PM

I understand that a start up can take time to make a profit. I've been in the business world 20 years now. They also have pretty deep pockets backing that venture. However, MS grossly overestimated their penetration into the market and the time frame needed to attain profitability. They've revised those estimates numerous times due to failures in the market.

My point is that if people are calling it a success clearly financial profit is being ignored. On what basis would they be considered a success? Did they take marketshare from Sony or Nintendo? Or did the market expand in size and MS took a portion of that expansion? Has Nintendo and Sony been hurt as a result of MS's entry to that market? Is the Xbox a better platform? How so?

Jiggles · 10-12-2006, 06:07 PM

Xbox 360 is a success because Sony has a competitor with a substantially similar product. I don't care whether or not MS actually makes money

o_psycnet · 10-12-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhOsT

And yet they are still around. I would call that a success after jumping into the market competing against the likes of Nintendo and Sony.

I just read someplace where some Microsoft execuative said that it took windows 9 years to turn a profit. If Micosoft is committed to the Xbox it will stick with it until it makes a profit.

And SEGA took the same stance against Nintendo, and pretty much got wiped off the map (besides of course third-party games and arcade units) as far as hardware is concerned. Why? Because the hardware they built wasn't quite up to snuff, lack of developers, and finally, PSX.

o_robg · 10-12-2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skull

4 words for you guys:

Wii For The Win.

Wii doesn't compete directly with...well, anything. 360 and PS3 are direct competitors. In fact, you could buy a Wii and a 360 for the same price as the PS3.

o_puppychow · 10-12-2006, 07:22 PM

sega master system ftw.

i still play it once in awhile.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 10-12-2006, 07:51 PM

Assuming the numbers on this chart, through July 2006, are even remotely accurate I find it interesting that handhelds have INSANE sales numbers. In any case look at total sales PS2 vs the XB and XB360. Eyeballing them it appears to me that Sony has near triple the number of sales as MS is showing. I suspect, however, that Sony's release strategy for the PS3 will put MS at the top for numbers of units sold in the console market.

As far as whether MS made a dent in Sony's sales...I can't tell.

o_robg · 10-12-2006, 08:08 PM

I don't think there has ever really been a comparable situation in terms of sales:
Firstly there was only the PS2, with no major competition.
Then the XBox came along, more expensive and unestablished.
Now we have the 360, and the PS2 is miles cheaper.

However, in the 360 vs PS3 stakes, it's the PS3 that is both late and more expensive. That will be the first real test of whether Sony can do anything. So far they've had an easy ride.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 10-12-2006, 08:17 PM

Isn't full backwards compatibility one of the things that the PS continues to have over all competitors? IIRC the PS3 has this as well. Nintendo's never done this and I seem to recall something in the XBox GPU prevents broad or guaranteed compatibility. For me that's a big selling point but the price of the PS3 makes it something not even worth talking about.

Yes, Xbox was late to market but how many years do you want to give it before you say "I see a trend"? What I see is sales consistently lower than Sony with a few exceptions. For how many people is there actual thoughtful deliberation between the two platforms? In the past I believe there wasn't much. I think that's going to change with the high price.

o_ghost · 10-12-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Assuming the numbers on this chart, through July 2006, are even remotely accurate I find it interesting that handhelds have INSANE sales numbers. In any case look at total sales PS2 vs the XB and XB360. Eyeballing them it appears to me that Sony has near triple the number of sales as MS is showing. I suspect, however, that Sony's release strategy for the PS3 will put MS at the top for numbers of units sold in the console market.

As far as whether MS made a dent in Sony's sales...I can't tell.

If those numbers are correct, that shows that Microsoft and the Xbox managed to take second place out of the 3 in total units sold beating out Nintendo, a name that helped define the console market. Also, this was right out of the gate for Microsoft. I know these are just US numbers but still that seems like a pretty good undertaking to me.

I'm not trying to say the Xbox and the 360 are major successes. Howerver, I think to say they are failures is wrong.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 10-12-2006, 08:29 PM

What keeps me stuck on failure or a lack of success is the lingering problem of lack of profitability. With the Xbox continuing to revise their breakeven point later and later how long do you think that MS will continue giving that program additional operating monies?

As far as coming in second I agree with RobG. Nintendo doesn't really compete directly as it's games are focused in a little different direction.

Jiggles · 10-13-2006, 12:27 AM

Yeah, switching from a NVIDIA to an ATI GPU caused serious backwards-compatibility problems for 360. To be honest though, backwards compat. has never been a serious selling point for me. The DS-to-GBA back. compat. is nice, but otherwise, I've never taken advantage of a system with it.

It sounds great on paper, but every statistic I've seen mentioned has put the people that seriously use such a feature at a low percentage.

Lack of profitability is a serious issue for MS now with the 360. The original Xbox can be mostly written off as a PR & goodwill building venture: no one would have taken MS seriously in the console market before the Xbox.

But, if MS can't turn a profit in the 360's life-cycle?

10-12-2006, 03:06 PM	#22
mervaka A Very Sound Guy! Fortress Forever Staff Join Date: May 2005 Location: UK Posts Rated Helpful 15 Times	okay, to clarify, they made their apps more user friendly than anything else at the time, and in doing that, they had the dominant market share. they are partly responsible for the growth in the market itself, too. we would probably be somewhere in the 90s by now if it weren't for them. also, bashing MS just isn't cool anymore. __________________ Support FF:

10-12-2006, 05:38 PM	#27
mervaka A Very Sound Guy! Fortress Forever Staff Join Date: May 2005 Location: UK Posts Rated Helpful 15 Times	it's done far better than the dreamcast already i think. __________________ Support FF:

10-12-2006, 02:55 PM	#21
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Midtown Express Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Merv, I'm just curious as to what makes you say that "they brought the world forward with their superb office applications and operating systems". In all honesty I cannot think of a single feature that MS brought to the table that wasn't copied, acquired or stolen from another app or OS. In fact some of their "new stuff" in the past was pure garbage that was eventually dropped.

10-12-2006, 03:37 PM	#23
o_robg Join Date: May 2005 Location: Nottingham Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Not many people will argue that Apple's apps were less user-friendly that Microsoft's; MS simply had a highly cut-throat business strategy combined with superficial good looks to their products, and perhaps if we hadn't had them then virus writers would be far worse off, but this really isn't about MS. The XBox 360 has been done well, and any talk of Microsoft's many moral and technical failings doesn't really belong in a discussion about the 360. Also... UPDATE: Here's some more Sony bashing and Russian-style lack of thought in commenting!

10-12-2006, 05:15 PM	#24
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Midtown Express Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	You believe XB/XB360 has been a success? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the entire Xbox Program still showing massive red ink? No profit since day one?

10-12-2006, 05:26 PM	#25
o_uber Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	The Xbox 360 is to the new generation of consoles as the Dreamcast was to the previous.

10-12-2006, 05:44 PM	#28
o_skull Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	4 words for you guys: Wii For The Win.

10-12-2006, 06:00 PM	#30
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Midtown Express Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I understand that a start up can take time to make a profit. I've been in the business world 20 years now. They also have pretty deep pockets backing that venture. However, MS grossly overestimated their penetration into the market and the time frame needed to attain profitability. They've revised those estimates numerous times due to failures in the market. My point is that if people are calling it a success clearly financial profit is being ignored. On what basis would they be considered a success? Did they take marketshare from Sony or Nintendo? Or did the market expand in size and MS took a portion of that expansion? Has Nintendo and Sony been hurt as a result of MS's entry to that market? Is the Xbox a better platform? How so?

10-12-2006, 06:07 PM	#31
Jiggles Retired FF Staff Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: CowTown Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Xbox 360 is a success because Sony has a competitor with a substantially similar product. I don't care whether or not MS actually makes money

10-12-2006, 07:22 PM	#34
o_puppychow Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Washington DC Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	sega master system ftw. i still play it once in awhile.

10-12-2006, 07:51 PM	#35
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Midtown Express Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Assuming the numbers on this chart, through July 2006, are even remotely accurate I find it interesting that handhelds have INSANE sales numbers. In any case look at total sales PS2 vs the XB and XB360. Eyeballing them it appears to me that Sony has near triple the number of sales as MS is showing. I suspect, however, that Sony's release strategy for the PS3 will put MS at the top for numbers of units sold in the console market. As far as whether MS made a dent in Sony's sales...I can't tell.

10-12-2006, 08:08 PM	#36
o_robg Join Date: May 2005 Location: Nottingham Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I don't think there has ever really been a comparable situation in terms of sales: Firstly there was only the PS2, with no major competition. Then the XBox came along, more expensive and unestablished. Now we have the 360, and the PS2 is miles cheaper. However, in the 360 vs PS3 stakes, it's the PS3 that is both late and more expensive. That will be the first real test of whether Sony can do anything. So far they've had an easy ride.

10-12-2006, 08:17 PM	#37
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Midtown Express Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Isn't full backwards compatibility one of the things that the PS continues to have over all competitors? IIRC the PS3 has this as well. Nintendo's never done this and I seem to recall something in the XBox GPU prevents broad or guaranteed compatibility. For me that's a big selling point but the price of the PS3 makes it something not even worth talking about. Yes, Xbox was late to market but how many years do you want to give it before you say "I see a trend"? What I see is sales consistently lower than Sony with a few exceptions. For how many people is there actual thoughtful deliberation between the two platforms? In the past I believe there wasn't much. I think that's going to change with the high price.

10-12-2006, 08:29 PM	#39
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Midtown Express Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	What keeps me stuck on failure or a lack of success is the lingering problem of lack of profitability. With the Xbox continuing to revise their breakeven point later and later how long do you think that MS will continue giving that program additional operating monies? As far as coming in second I agree with RobG. Nintendo doesn't really compete directly as it's games are focused in a little different direction.

10-13-2006, 12:27 AM	#40
Jiggles Retired FF Staff Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: CowTown Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Yeah, switching from a NVIDIA to an ATI GPU caused serious backwards-compatibility problems for 360. To be honest though, backwards compat. has never been a serious selling point for me. The DS-to-GBA back. compat. is nice, but otherwise, I've never taken advantage of a system with it. It sounds great on paper, but every statistic I've seen mentioned has put the people that seriously use such a feature at a low percentage. Lack of profitability is a serious issue for MS now with the 360. The original Xbox can be mostly written off as a PR & goodwill building venture: no one would have taken MS seriously in the console market before the Xbox. But, if MS can't turn a profit in the 360's life-cycle?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)