Prioritizing game exclusivity on console - as a hypothetical Xbox strategy

[Seanspeed]

But you could argue that the success they had with the 360 was entirely down to Sony messing up with the PS3. Had they not arrived a year late and over-priced and instead got it right with that generation then the 360 would not have had anywhere near the same measure of sucess it did. Maybe that was a false flag that MS read way too much into?

Xbox did a lot right with the 360. Trying to say it was 'entirely down to Sony messing up' is incredible historical revisionism.

Their 1st/2nd party stuff was fantastic, and they did a great job at convincing lots of 3rd parties in supporting them. For a time, they were even considered to have the better JRPG lineup, as crazy as that sounds. They were also instrumental in bridging the gap between console and PC gaming, helping get a lot of previously PC-first or even PC-only sort of developers over into supporting consoles more seriously and creating the sort of defacto multiplatform world we now have.

They killed with the online stuff and were basically single handedly responsible for the mass popularization of online gaming on consoles, boosting off their success from the OG Xbox. So much so that they charged for online while Sony didn't, and yet most people at the time felt it was entirely worth it because the experience was basically transformatively better.

They were also basically single handedly responsible for the popularization of indie games on consoles and thus indie games in the mass market in general. They really went out of their way to ensure that indie games were supported and seen.

And on a personal note, I still think that X360 controller was near perfection. Certainly miles better than the DS3, which still felt like it was designed for kid hands. I was genuinely upset when they stopped making/selling the affordable wired 360 controllers for PC.

I mean, if we're playing 'what ifs', I'd argue that if Xbox hadn't gone down the Kinect path and instead had focused their energies on maintaining the momentum they had built up all the way through like 2010, they would have won the generation, and possibly shifted the entire picture leading into the next one. They really were that strong. By no means did they just stumble into any success.

 

[techuse]

XB360 shows they could have succeeded. I think two subsequent flops places MS in a very difficult spot now. Unless gamers have a reason not to get PS, they'll stick with it. We even see that at a notable price penalty, PS5 outsells XBSX. Whereas Nintendo found themselves a competitive angle, MS is just going toe-to-toe and losing. They're attempts to get a USP like Kinect (forced camera in XBO) were contrived and didn't connect. All they can do is offer the same content on the same hardware with a different front-end, basically.

Without some disruptive move on new hardware, I can't see how MS can turn things around.

But you could argue that the success they had with the 360 was entirely down to Sony messing up with the PS3. Had they not arrived a year late and over-priced and instead got it right with that generation then the 360 would not have had anywhere near the same measure of sucess it did. Maybe that was a false flag that MS read way too much into?

Microsoft offered exciting and cutting edge software gamers wanted to play. That is why 360 did well. PS3 started catching up when they started offering better software via their in house studios. Xbox One was doomed from the start by the terrible decisions they made WRT hardware and marketing, but I believe they would be doing much better this generation if they actually released games that offered something you couldn't get on a prior console. Sony backtracked on their promise of a clean start, but still at least offered some tangible experiences you could not get on a PS4. They also have more room to coast by given their position coming into the generation. We are in year 4 and Microsoft has yet to release even a single game that offers a cutting edge or highly impressive experience. Flight Sim X is far too niche to qualify here.

 

[Nesh]

I read the whole post and don't disagree. However, you asked what was better so I told you.

From an execution POV, I think there's sense it having a unified system for disc and download. I mean, the disc system was just a download already downloaded onto polycarbonate. Being able to transfer a license from disc to a download only console or onto a new machine (that doesn't have a disc drive as its in The Future) is quite a nice feature. The negatives of used disc licensing, so easily derided, came with an upside that just wasn't valued at the time; although MS screwed the communication so much it didn't have a fair consideration.

I am trying to understand what's so nice about the feature considering the complications in the usability of the physical media.

 

[Nesh]

Xbox did a lot right with the 360. Trying to say it was 'entirely down to Sony messing up' is incredible historical revisionism.

Their 1st/2nd party stuff was fantastic, and they did a great job at convincing lots of 3rd parties in supporting them. For a time, they were even considered to have the better JRPG lineup, as crazy as that sounds. They were also instrumental in bridging the gap between console and PC gaming, helping get a lot of previously PC-first or even PC-only sort of developers over into supporting consoles more seriously and creating the sort of defacto multiplatform world we now have.

They killed with the online stuff and were basically single handedly responsible for the mass popularization of online gaming on consoles, boosting off their success from the OG Xbox. So much so that they charged for online while Sony didn't, and yet most people at the time felt it was entirely worth it because the experience was basically transformatively better.

They were also basically single handedly responsible for the popularization of indie games on consoles and thus indie games in the mass market in general. They really went out of their way to ensure that indie games were supported and seen.

And on a personal note, I still think that X360 controller was near perfection. Certainly miles better than the DS3, which still felt like it was designed for kid hands. I was genuinely upset when they stopped making/selling the affordable wired 360 controllers for PC.

I mean, if we're playing 'what ifs', I'd argue that if Xbox hadn't gone down the Kinect path and instead had focused their energies on maintaining the momentum they had built up all the way through like 2010, they would have won the generation, and possibly shifted the entire picture leading into the next one. They really were that strong. By no means did they just stumble into any success.

He is not fully wrong there. MS did a lot of things right, but a lot of support came to the 360 and people gave it more chance because Sony a) delayed the release of a product that was b)significantly more expensive c) and lost so much market share that games planned to be organically exclusive, became immediately multiplatform to ensure healthy market performance.

Yet the PS3 went through so much improvements that it reached and eventually surpassed 360 LTD sales

And yes of course if MS maintained their momentum of the 360 with XBOX One it is almost guaranteed that their market share would have been closer to even with Sony's. It had a strong audience. Hugely bigger compared to original XBOX. There was a momentum of doing things right and compromised their next gen product for a camera peripheral that didn't have any real good use for the core gamer that loved the 360 as well as TV features and voice recognition that didn't add any value to the gamer and the majority of gamers worldwide (non english speakers and TV features that didn't work outside of the US). Plus it screwed up an experience that formed local communities with the digital licensing and always online console (sharing your games and playing at a friend's house). It felt intrusive. It had an identity crisis, trying to sell itself as an overpriced box for TV watchers, and an underperforming gaming machine for the core gamer that tried to control tightly how they shared and used their games after they bought them.

Hence it gave the opportunity for Sony to use the slogan For The Player emphasizing the interest in the gaming community, stealing away what the 360 represented with the Jump In campaign

That's the whole point of the discussion. They screwed up with One and lost the momentum.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I am trying to understand what's so nice about the feature considering the complications in the usability of the physical media.

For users of physical, not a lot. However, it paved the way for transferable titles in digital, which is what most people use these days. There were, if IIRC, other benefits like title sharing, but the details were never that clear and it was a long time ago! Principally though, as an owner of a PS5 Digital, I have no access to my disc PS4 games. MS's system if I understood it right would have allowed me to register my ownership of a disc-based title and download it in future. As well as then allowing me to share that title, and sell the digital license afterwards. When announced, it didn't seem great. As an option now in the current landscape, it's better for most people than the basic disc solution.

 

[Nesh]

For users of physical, not a lot. However, it paved the way for transferable titles in digital,

That's why I pointed out they could have retained the solution for the digital then but cancelled it altogether when no one complained about that.

which is what most people use these days. There were, if IIRC, other benefits like title sharing, but the details were never that clear and it was a long time ago! Principally though, as an owner of a PS5 Digital, I have no access to my disc PS4 games. MS's system if I understood it right would have allowed me to register my ownership of a disc-based title and download it in future. As well as then allowing me to share that title, and sell the digital license afterwards. When announced, it didn't seem great. As an option now in the current landscape, it's better for most people than the basic disc solution.

Well, you made your choices back then even though you could have bought them digitally and you decided to buy a digital PS5 making a conscious choice to not revisit them.

If someone wants only digital the option is there.

The reason why MS never shared the details and they fully eliminated the idea even from digitally bought content (even though they can still implement it to this day), it was because the always online, DRM registration, locked to your account physical games, had nothing to do with your ability to transfer or sell your games digitally. It was because they wanted to vanish the second hand market. The follow up about the benefits, digital resales with a small fee and how it would have enabled game sharing was a hasty PR patch up of damage control, just like the PR about how Cloud was supposed to enhance the One's performance above and beyond the PS4.

There is nothing from stopping digital games from being resold if they want too use that mechanism, and there are solutions to voluntarily provide the choice for physical.

Such as being able to transfer your physical license to digital IF you want to by having a unique serial to each game and an online database that shows which serial codes were transfered to digital that will no longer play (physically) once you connect your console online. Of course that would mean that your console would need to be always connected online which risks your library preservation that your games might not always be accessible if you bought the game second hand or you transfered the game to digital.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, you made your choices back then even though you could have bought them digitally and you decided to buy a digital PS5 making a conscious choice to not revisit them.

Even if I had a disc based PS5, I'd still be buying mostly digital copies for convenience of not having to put a disc in to play, and not having to either go to a shop to get a game or wait for it to be delivered. The issue here isn't me choosing a Digital PS5 but games being a bit pants and me wanting to sell them on - something I rarely did previous generations so having that option wasn't a priority and why the £75 saving on a PS5 was the better choice for me.

The reason why MS never shared the details and they fully eliminated the idea even from digitally bought content (even though they can still implement it to this day), it was because the always online, DRM registration, locked to your account physical games, had nothing to do with your ability to transfer or sell your games digitally. It was because they wanted to vanish the second hand market. The follow up about the benefits, digital resales with a small fee and how it would have enabled game sharing was a hasty PR patch up of damage control...

I don't think that's it. They couldn't have cobbled together that resale option that quickly -it must have always been an intention. I think they just screwed up the messaging because MS's entire messaging at that point was a masterclass in how to do it wrong. It's like the entire XBOne project was run by the losing team from The Apprentice.

There is nothing from stopping digital games from being resold if they want too use that mechanism, and there are solutions to voluntarily provide the choice for physical.

Indeed. MS lost their taste for it. No-one else wants to bother. It'll take the EU to mandate it if it ever happens.

Absolutely none of these changes the original point, that MS's offering was better (even if it could have been executed differently) and gamers are worse of now than if MS's system was in place (even if better would also be possible). You said MS offered nothing better but they clearly did. Personally I think credit where credit is due and I tip my hat to MS thinking about the digital library back then, even if they cocked it up and became as easy target for ridicule.

 

[ZebMacahan]

From the perspective of a consumer here´s my take:

I got the XSX (there werent any PS5 to be had at the time), and also I had decided I wanted both and the "most powerful console" sounded good. Having had them both for a couple of years there doesnt seem to be any exclusives worth getting an Xbox for.

From what a can tell many of their flagship titles seem to suffer from decisions that should have been abandoned at the drawing board:
*making halo an open world game, not being able to replay missions, no co-op. Freaking incredible. And terrible melodramatic writing with that awful whiny pilot. I miss sergant Johnson.
*That awful grindy leveling system in forza. From what I understand they are working on fixing that, how they thought it was a good idea to begin with is a mystery. I held off getting gran turismo because it was rather expensive, and I was waiting for forza. It seemed like it would be a better looking game with ray tracing and stuff (yeah, i like graphics). But after being so bored with forza I got GT when there was a sale and for a casual race fan it sooo much more fun. The awful grinding system isnt there, the awful pretentious presentation isnt there, and it looks so much better, the colors arent all desaturated and the cafe mode is quite fun. Its such a relief that it just tries to be a racing video game with gamey menu sound effects and really game music. Sounds like 90s videogame music sometimes, I love it.
*starfield, yikes.

Games like ratchet and clank, spiderman 2, horizon and god of war have a whole other level of polish than what ms have been able to put out. Many of MS top titles look almost two generations old. With MS pockets I find that a little odd.

I wonder if some of these problems are a result of many leading positions being occupied by people who just to want to make a career and have chosen the game industry without having any passion or understanding of games. The bungie vs 343 industries videos illustrate this very well. The "Fable, wow"-lady who headed the xbox showcase a while back is another example of this. Anyone can tell she hasnt played a videgame in her life. I doubt having her as a spokesperson is the right move if you want to build trust in your brand among gamers. From what I´ve from people who work in the industry there are tons of middle management people who lack any sort of skill, but still have alot of say and really slow production down.

And it also seem to me like many decisions are being made based on political activism and not with the goal of making money or strengthening your brand. Having the female lead character of your Fable trailer look like a dude is of course stunning and brave in so many ways, but its also very divisive and probably not the best decision if you want to make money.
One of the 343 executives said something like that they didnt pay much attention to the lore when they made the Halo TV show so the writers "wouldnt feel limited in their artistic expression" or something like that. One would think that if you wanted to make money you should respect the IP so not to alienate the long time fans. There are probably reasons Halo became so popular, so why leave it in the hands of people who dont respect the IP?

The Xbox UI is IMO, just like everything ms puts out now, terrible. For example I cant find a "demo"-section in the store. PS-store has one.

At this point Im leaning towards getting multiplatform titles on the PS5 out of spite unless the Xbox version outperforms the PS version.

I have enjoyed my Xbox because of gamepass. Playing some Xbox-one games i missed (quantum break, gears, etc), playing older games (mass effect collection, halo games) and games I would have played otherwise (Planet of Lana, it takes two, a plague tale). But for current gen stuff MS so far hasnt put out anything worth getting IMO.

 

[Seanspeed]

He is not fully wrong there.

He very literally said that the 360's success was *entirely* because of Sony stumbling with PS3.

He is fully wrong in trying to claim any such thing.

The point that Xbox lost momentum was not one I was arguing at all. I've probably been more critical of them over that than most. Largely cuz I know they can and have done better before, and because I think Xbox taking up a genuine competitive position against Playstation was one of the best things to happen to the gaming industry post-2000 and it would be quite terrible if they dont figure things out and disband the division.

 

[Nesh]

Even if I had a disc based PS5, I'd still be buying mostly digital copies for convenience of not having to put a disc in to play, and not having to either go to a shop to get a game or wait for it to be delivered. The issue here isn't me choosing a Digital PS5 but games being a bit pants and me wanting to sell them on - something I rarely did previous generations so having that option wasn't a priority and why the £75 saving on a PS5 was the better choice for me.

Yeah but still, you raised earlier that you can't play your PS4 games, and now you say that you are now interested in selling your past bought games (which you can in the case of your PS4 games). So which one is it?

If this is a generic issue where gamer's can't sell any of their games (digital) because of Sony, it is not Sony's fault. It's purely MS's who didn't go with the digital resale feature.

I don't think that's it. They couldn't have cobbled together that resale option that quickly -it must have always been an intention. I think they just screwed up the messaging because MS's entire messaging at that point was a masterclass in how to do it wrong. It's like the entire XBOne project was run by the losing team from The Apprentice.

I believe it is. News were going back then that the big publishers such as EA also were in support of MS's solution to physical rental and used game market. They didn't embrace Sony's strategy to stick with the traditional use of physical.
The concern wasn't about making life easier for gamers. There is no sign that was MS's main intention.

Indeed. MS lost their taste for it. No-one else wants to bother. It'll take the EU to mandate it if it ever happens.

And hence it wasn't about losing taste in it. It was an afterthought requirement to make people accept the physical medium becoming locked under DRM. To make that acceptable they had to find a solution to enable digitally what people wanted to be able to do with physical. That opened the PR for digital resale of games as a side effect. Since the main intention (eliminating the second hand market of physical) could not be put into practice they had zero reason to pursue what they never intended to be a priority

Remember that people only complained about the Physical games, not about the potential added flexibility of digital games.

If the intention of the digital was fully honest, it would have never been abandoned. MS can't lose taste for something that people never complained and would have brought money.

But they certainly can lose taste about something that was going to bring more money and people complained about which was about the physical.

Absolutely none of these changes the original point, that MS's offering was better (even if it could have been executed differently) and gamers are worse of now than if MS's system was in place (even if better would also be possible). You said MS offered nothing better but they clearly did. Personally I think credit where credit is due and I tip my hat to MS thinking about the digital library back then, even if they cocked it up and became as easy target for ridicule.

And I still fail to see how gamers would have been clearly better. Is there a gallop for this?
Gamers would have been better if MS kept the physical untouched and activated the plan for the digital. And the weight is all on MS. Because they could have gone with it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah but still, you raised earlier that you can't play your PS4 games, and now you say that you are now interested in selling your past bought games (which you can in the case of your PS4 games). So which one is it?

Both and neither. Both are true. There are games I'd like to play, and games I'd like to sell. None of it has bearing on my opinion of MS wanting to open up digital resales.

If this is a generic issue where gamer's can't sell any of their games (digital) because of Sony, it is not Sony's fault. It's purely MS's who didn't go with the digital resale feature.

I don't understand what you are arguing. Are we still talking about MS's original plans being better for gamers or not? Where does Sony come into this?

The concern wasn't about making life easier for gamers. There is no sign that was MS's main intention.

It's was more than one thing. Obviously pubs wanted a cut of the second hand market (and that might not be wrong given the state of the industry) and MS wanted a cut of the second hand market, but that was also giving consumers a benefit. Like many business ideas, it was about offering a service that people are willing to pay for, one way or another. It wasn't done for consumers but it would have benefited.

Remember that people only complained about the Physical games, not about the potential added flexibility of digital games.

I'm gonna leave it here. That whole period was a mess and no-one knew who was saying what. We had contradicting messages come out of different corners of MS, and a lot was being said by a lot of different folk.

 

[BoardBonobo]

Xbox did a lot right with the 360. Trying to say it was 'entirely down to Sony messing up' is incredible historical revisionism.

Their 1st/2nd party stuff was fantastic, and they did a great job at convincing lots of 3rd parties in supporting them. For a time, they were even considered to have the better JRPG lineup, as crazy as that sounds. They were also instrumental in bridging the gap between console and PC gaming, helping get a lot of previously PC-first or even PC-only sort of developers over into supporting consoles more seriously and creating the sort of defacto multiplatform world we now have.

They killed with the online stuff and were basically single handedly responsible for the mass popularization of online gaming on consoles, boosting off their success from the OG Xbox. So much so that they charged for online while Sony didn't, and yet most people at the time felt it was entirely worth it because the experience was basically transformatively better.

They were also basically single handedly responsible for the popularization of indie games on consoles and thus indie games in the mass market in general. They really went out of their way to ensure that indie games were supported and seen.

And on a personal note, I still think that X360 controller was near perfection. Certainly miles better than the DS3, which still felt like it was designed for kid hands. I was genuinely upset when they stopped making/selling the affordable wired 360 controllers for PC.

I mean, if we're playing 'what ifs', I'd argue that if Xbox hadn't gone down the Kinect path and instead had focused their energies on maintaining the momentum they had built up all the way through like 2010, they would have won the generation, and possibly shifted the entire picture leading into the next one. They really were that strong. By no means did they just stumble into any success.

I didn't say they didn't get a lot of things right with the 360, and yes they expidited the growth of online gaming and developed a better overall environment on the 360. They basically played to their strengths as a software house and that showed. But Sony did hand it to them on a platter by being a year late, and with an over priced and 3rd party unfriendly box. If they had launched on time with a far more developer friendly machine the likelyhood is that the 360, for all its advancements, would never have gained the popularity or traction that it did. A whole years head start is a massive lead to have after all.

And that's what contributed, IMO, to failure of the One. Their hubris in thinking it was the 360 itself that captured the market, entirely by itself. Which it didn't, it had a vast amount of unintended assistance. And when Sony came back. on time and with the right kind if hardware, coupled with the disasterous launch proposal of the One, it just reset the scales to where they had always been. If the 360 had captured the imaginatioon of gamers itself, then the One would have been MSs PS3 moment and the Series X should have been their PS4 moment. But it hasn't happened that way.

So I'm not trying to take away anything from the 360 concept, I still have mine, next to my OG Xbox. Both were cool machies, though I admit I only got my 360 for Halo and whilst I was waiting for the PS3 to arrive. But Sony probably did more to boost the 360 than most would ever be willing to admit.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

I didn't say they didn't get a lot of things right with the 360, and yes they expidited the growth of online gaming and developed a better overall environment on the 360. They basically played to their strengths as a software house and that showed. But Sony did hand it to them on a platter by being a year late, and with an over priced and 3rd party unfriendly box. If they had launched on time with a far more developer friendly machine the likelyhood is that the 360, for all its advancements, would never have gained the popularity or traction that it did. A whole years head start is a massive lead to have after all.

And bear in mind, it's a possibility that their rush to market at least in part led to the RROD fiasco. They did a lot right on the software side, but fragility of the hardware was a major, major engineering fuckup that did a good deal in squandering that early lead and positive mindshare. The 360 was synonymous with RROD as much as XBox Live in later years.

We know they lost a ton on the original Xbox due to that generous Nvidia contract - again, rushing to make the generation. The RROD likely prevented them from turning a profit with their most successful console, the 360 - if they would even be in the black without it. Xbox One was well, that, and now they're even being outsold more with the Series X. It's 23+ years of a money sink. That's a lot of rope.

And it also seem to me like many decisions are being made based on political activism and not with the goal of making money or strengthening your brand. Having the female lead character of your Fable trailer look like a dude is of course stunning and brave in so many ways, but its also very divisive and probably not the best decision if you want to make money.

Xbox has not failed to turn a profit in 22 years because of a trailer with an unattractive female lead for pete's sake. I mean the Spiderman games are full of cloying tweeness and corporate 'inclusiveness' that I find transparent and obnoxious at points too, but they're massive sellers. It's because the games have great production values and are for the most part, fun. Like when the hell has Fable ever been a system seller? As for the Halo TV series, even if it was critically acclaimed, why would it necessarily lead to a huge uplift in Xbox sales? You've still got to make the games, focusing on media spinoffs was the problem of the Xbox One in the first place.

 

[function]

I didn't say they didn't get a lot of things right with the 360, and yes they expidited the growth of online gaming and developed a better overall environment on the 360. They basically played to their strengths as a software house and that showed. But Sony did hand it to them on a platter by being a year late, and with an over priced and 3rd party unfriendly box. If they had launched on time with a far more developer friendly machine the likelyhood is that the 360, for all its advancements, would never have gained the popularity or traction that it did. A whole years head start is a massive lead to have after all.

But MS put the work in to be able to launch in 2005, have by far the best GPU of the generation etc, have by far the best online experience etc. Sony couldn't have launched in 2005 - even without Bluray they wouldn't have had a GPU ready, and probably wouldn't have had Cell ready for mass production for summer 2005. If Sony had tried to launch PS5 in 2005 it would probably have been a different and much worse machine.

Sony's positioning only help MS because MS intentionally made a gamer focused powerhouse of a machine that was available in from 2005. It wasn't a lucky accident, it was intended. And for a few months of 2006 (or was it 2007?) MS had to stop 360 production to try and mitigate RRoD. And RRoD was a huge piece of ongoing negative publicity. They still nailed it thanks to the software, the machine, the ecosystem and the marketing. Heck, with Gears, Halo, Xbox Live and that sweet GPU the 360 would probably have still done 'okay' (but not as well) head to head.

But yeah, Sony's relative position did help the 360. But then again XBone's position helped PS4 recover marketshare in a similar way too - and it wasn't only the "disastrous launch position" (as you accurately put it!).

XBone was unnecessarily weak hardware that helped Sony for the entire generation, the original XBone spent years as a huge ugly thing with a huge powerbrick, early adopters that paid for Kinect 2 got burnt, MS killed or lost some of their best developers and MS became distracted by Gamepass, streaming and expansion.

And they've continued in this subscription, streaming, expansion and 'content' focused vein this generation. Having some extra TFlops and GB/s doesn't matter if you don't have exclusive games people are clamouring to play (and it takes three years for those TFlops and bandwidds' to actually start making a difference... :s)

I'd say MS pretty much repaid any advantage that Sony gave MS with their early PS3 missteps.

 

[AmFreak]

But MS put the work in to be able to launch in 2005, have by far the best GPU of the generation etc, have by far the best online experience etc. Sony couldn't have launched in 2005 - even without Bluray they wouldn't have had a GPU ready, and probably wouldn't have had Cell ready for mass production for summer 2005. If Sony had tried to launch PS5 in 2005 it would probably have been a different and much worse machine.

If anything the gpu had been ready. The target was end of 2005 and the pc equivalent launched in the middle of 2005. If the CELL was ready is questionable, but the huge obstacle clearly was Blu-Ray.

 

[Seanspeed]

I didn't say they didn't get a lot of things right with the 360

You said their success was entirely due to Sony bungling the PS3 launch, so yes that was what you were suggesting.

Maybe you should tone down the extremities of your claims cuz many of your supporting reasons are entirely fine, but this idea that the 360 couldn't or wouldn't have been a success on its own is bizarre given what Xbox and 360 actually did accomplish that was genuinely game-changing for the industry and for the growth of gaming in general.

Even with its eventual retarding of momentum, I still think the 360 is one of the best and most important console platforms/generations ever. The whole RROD thing should have been a death sentence for any lesser console even with free repairs, but people loved the platform enough to stick with it because it genuinely was fantastic in the ways that mattered most to gamers. Heck, 360 got a number of things wrong ecosystem-wise like lack of a hard drive as standard, lack of HDMI as standard, lack of Wifi as standard, and a bad bet on HD DVD's - and it didn't matter - gamers still loved the platform cuz it delivered in spades on the gaming experience.

 

[BoardBonobo]

You said their success was entirely due to Sony bungling the PS3 launch, so yes that was what you were suggesting.

Maybe you should tone down the extremities of your claims cuz many of your supporting reasons are entirely fine, but this idea that the 360 couldn't or wouldn't have been a success on its own is bizarre given what Xbox and 360 actually did accomplish that was genuinely game-changing for the industry and for the growth of gaming in general.

Even with its eventual retarding of momentum, I still think the 360 is one of the best and most important console platforms/generations ever. The whole RROD thing should have been a death sentence for any lesser console even with free repairs, but people loved the platform enough to stick with it because it genuinely was fantastic in the ways that mattered most to gamers. Heck, 360 got a number of things wrong ecosystem-wise like lack of a hard drive as standard, lack of HDMI as standard, lack of Wifi as standard, and a bad bet on HD DVD's - and it didn't matter - gamers still loved the platform cuz it delivered in spades on the gaming experience.

Well I actually said you could argue that their sucess was down to Sony dropping the ball. Which you have, so I was right. It is arguable . I still think that had Sony not messed up, coming of the back of the PS2 juggernaut, and had introduced a developer friendly, cost effective, and on time console, then the 360, for all of the extras it brought to the table, would have been sidelined.

 

[techuse]

Has the system with the best software library ever not won?

 

[cheapchips]

Has the system with the best software library ever not won?

That's an interesting question isn't it. 'Best' frames it a little too subjectively? PlayStation throughout it's generations has had biggest breath in it's software library. You could argue for the best games of any generation sitting on other platforms.

 

[function]

If anything the gpu had been ready. The target was end of 2005 and the pc equivalent launched in the middle of 2005. If the CELL was ready is questionable, but the huge obstacle clearly was Blu-Ray.

It's not so much about when Nvidia had the first of the 79xx line ready to go in PC, it's about when they could have had a version ready to go into PS3. The question is whether Sony had commissioned Nvidia early enough to have RSX ready for mass production summer 2005. For this you're looking at Sony committing to a specific Nvidia design back in 2003 or earlier.

For example, MS were working with ATI on the 360's GPU back in early 2003 or late 2002 or something. Lots of intensive work over more than two years, and MS and ATI were still ultra squeezed on getting the thing out and "mass produced" for a limited late 2005 launch. The rush probably contributed to flaws in the GPU such as improper hotspot temperature monitoring and system airflow and a cooler that didn't take into account the hastily added HDD connector.

Even if a GPU architecture is complete it's a long road to making a semi custom console part.

The 7800 GTX which launched on PC in 2005 was on 11nm btw, and clocked at 430 mhz, slower than the 90nm PS3 part (90nm 79xx parts on PC only appeared in mid 2006 too). If the PS3 had launched in 2005 it would probably have had an even worse GPU than it did, and ceded an even bigger advantage to the 360.