360 one of Endgadget's "10 gadgets that defined the decade"

[ShadowRunner]

Do you hand on heart honestly believe that the 360 has bought the same sort of revolution to gaming as the Wii? I think you could argue the case for Xbox Live as a service, maybe, but come on PS3 and 360 are everything but revolutionary as standalone devices.

To me the argument for the 360 being a defining gadget of the decade is akin to wether the original ipod should be given the nod or the latest generation of it. Sure the latest gen ipod would be the best implementation so far but the true defining moment would be with the original that started it all.

For me personally the dreamcast would be my defining moment in console online gaming, it was my first real experience with it, i would play quake 3 hours on end, everything since then has just been a natural evolution of that to me. Thats a very personal experience though and it would be hard to argue that anyone else should hold that view.

 

[BadTB25]

Do you hand on heart honestly believe that the 360 has bought the same sort of revolution to gaming as the Wii? I think you could argue the case for Xbox Live as a service, maybe, but come on PS3 and 360 are everything but revolutionary as standalone devices.

To me the argument for the 360 being a defining gadget of the decade is akin to wether the original ipod should be given the nod or the latest generation of it. Sure the latest gen ipod would be the best implementation so far but the true defining moment would be with the original that started it all.

For me personally the dreamcast would be my defining moment in console online gaming, it was my first real experience with it, i would play quake 3 hours on end, everything since then has just been a natural evolution of that to me. Thats a very personal experience though and it would be hard to argue that anyone else should hold that view.

Maybe not the original Ipod, but definitely the Iphone and Touch. Like the Iphone, Live and the 360 can not be separated (at least in the current iteration). The service (Live) is enabled by the device (360) the same as IPhone/Touch is with its apps. It's more of a symbiotic relationship than a standalone. Although Live did exist before the 360, it was so primitive compared to what it is now. I'd argue the same thing exists for the DS. If it wasn't for the creative implementation by devs, I'd doubt it would had the success it would have.

The Wii may be revolutionary, I can't argue either way. It's not for me at this time....most of the games don't appeal to me and my gaming dollars and time are limited.

OT: The dreamcast is one of my favorite consoles of all time. I had a ton of memorable moments playing PSO and NFL2K on it. Too bad it died an early death way before its time, but even its online mp was light years behind what we have now. Keyboard chats were terrible, especially when you suck at typing.

 

[Rotmm]

Do you hand on heart honestly believe that the 360 has bought the same sort of revolution to gaming as the Wii?

I'm not sure who you're asking, so I'll assume it's me

I'm kinda torn on this. If you'd have asked the same question a couple of years ago, I would without hesitation have said the Wii. But the passage of years has shown that the Wiimote, while unlike any previous user control scheme on consoles, has done anything but define a new way to interface with games. Or rather, it has, but only in a very narrow context.

When the PS2 was released, it sold very well to PS1 owners who were looking for the next big thing, and were excited by Sony's usual extravagent claims about the power of the system. But what kept it selling for years was the new and exciting games that came out, the God of Wars, the Ico's, the GTA's, Eyetoy titles, Guitar Hero, etc, etc. 63 games with a Metacritic of 90 or above (basically "unmissable") and 320 of above 80.

What keeps the Wii selling? The same software year after year. And if not exactly the same software, copycat minigame compilations. And anything that tries to be different is largely ignored by the Wii purchasers. 9 titles above 90 and 71 above 80. The new control scheme hasn't improved gaming, it hasn't expanded gaming, it hasn't redefined gaming. The new controller has allowed Nintendo to target a different audience, the same audience that plays games on Facebook. But it hasn't brought about a revolution, or even much of an evolution of gaming.

However, the marketing of the Wii (and the DS, for that matter) has been masterful. It's the marketing that has tapped into the new market, not the control scheme itself.

And while the success of the Wii has encouraged MS and Sony to look at their own control schemes, they are not trying to copy the Wiimote (well, Sony are to an extent, but with a different take on it), but are rather looking at a way of tapping into that new market while continuing to provide the diversity of experiences that they already offer.

They say imitation is the purest form of flattery, so it's pretty telling that both Sony and MS are looking at doing it differently than Nintendo.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Rotmm has described it pretty well, I'd only try to sum it up:
Despite the Wii's success, motion controllers are still not going to be supported in every game.
But because of Live's success, every upcoming console will need to have a robust online infrastructure.

I'd also add that one of the biggest gaming events ever is the release of Modern Warfare 2 IMHO (heh, probably worthy of a discussion of its own), and it's been completely unaffected by the Wii - but online multiplayer is more then likely an integral part of the huge interest.

 

[manux]

Rotmm has described it pretty well, I'd only try to sum it up:
Despite the Wii's success, motion controllers are still not going to be supported in every game.
But because of Live's success, every upcoming console will need to have a robust online infrastructure.

I'd also add that one of the biggest gaming events ever is the release of Modern Warfare 2 IMHO (heh, probably worthy of a discussion of its own), and it's been completely unaffected by the Wii - but online multiplayer is more then likely an integral part of the huge interest.

One could also spin it so that due to wiis motion controller success every next generation and current generation console must have a motion controller. It's just a matter of taste and desire how to spin what is important and what is not.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Rotmm has described it pretty well, I'd only try to sum it up:
Despite the Wii's success, motion controllers are still not going to be supported in every game.
But because of Live's success, every upcoming console will need to have a robust online infrastructure.

I'd also add that one of the biggest gaming events ever is the release of Modern Warfare 2 IMHO (heh, probably worthy of a discussion of its own), and it's been completely unaffected by the Wii - but online multiplayer is more then likely an integral part of the huge interest.

But the 360 didnt create online gaming or the fundamentals of the live service. If the 360 didnt exist at all every system in the future would still have a robust online infrastructure. We would still have mordern warfare on PSN, we would still have digital downloads, and while PSN isnt as full featured as Live i dont think that the features the 360 has introduced are too significant over what we would have had without it. 360 should certainly be praised for its online features but saying it is a gadget that gas defined the decade is a little much.

 

[ShadowRunner]

One could also spin it so that due to wiis motion controller success every next generation and current generation console must have a motion controller....

Indeed. The difference being that the wii is pretty much solely responsible for this, i dont think the 360 is anywhere near solely responsible for the rise of online gaming.

 

[obonicus]

To be perfectly fair, SCEE probably showed the potential with the EyeToy. Nintendo was smart enough to notice SCEA's ineptitude in this area and capitalize on it. And the expansion into untapped markets was more the DS' doing (and something the DS is vastly more successful than the Wii at).

But in general, people seem to be arguing in circles. If Live is enough reason to say a console defined the decade, then the spot belongs to the original xbox, not the 360.

 

[groper]

This is my vote for the most innovative gadget of the decade. :smile:

 

[theLonely1]

I'd also add that one of the biggest gaming events ever is the release of Modern Warfare 2 IMHO (heh, probably worthy of a discussion of its own), and it's been completely unaffected by the Wii - but online multiplayer is more then likely an integral part of the huge interest.

But the Wii was also largely unaffected by Modern Warfare 2.

 

[corduroygt]

I'd say the Wii based on its popularity, and causing both MS and Sony to add motion controls. Playing games online, in HD is nothing new, PC users have been doing it for years. However, playing the wii is fundamentally different and gained much of the mainstream media attention as well. Everybody, including people who don't know a thing about gaming know what the wii is, more so than the PS3/360.
Also, nobody I know cares about Palm, I'd choose blackberry and iphone in the cell phone category myself.

 

[theLonely1]

What keeps the Wii selling? The same software year after year. And if not exactly the same software, copycat minigame compilations. And anything that tries to be different is largely ignored by the Wii purchasers. 9 titles above 90 and 71 above 80. The new control scheme hasn't improved gaming, it hasn't expanded gaming, it hasn't redefined gaming. The new controller has allowed Nintendo to target a different audience, the same audience that plays games on Facebook. But it hasn't brought about a revolution, or even much of an evolution of gaming.

The scores for wii games are all over the place. A perfect example of this is the Wii version of CoD4. While sites like Gamespot and Gametrailers praised it as a very good port, others like GameInformer flat out said it had broken fps controls.

For me, as a regular Wii gamer, I don't find the Wii fps controls to be bad. In fact, i like them better than the dual analog setup. So, the opinion of the likes of GameInformer are a non factor for me and a thousands others. But the average of the game is in the 7s and thus, not on your list...

 

[Rotmm]

To be perfectly fair, SCEE probably showed the potential with the EyeToy.

To be fair, the concept behind the PowerGlove was probably more influential to Nintendo than Eyetoy.

But in general, people seem to be arguing in circles. If Live is enough reason to say a console defined the decade, then the spot belongs to the original xbox, not the 360.

And there you go again, arguing in circles

I'm quite sure you never had an original Xbox, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a comment. Live over the Xbox was pretty much like PC gaming... disconnected, unintuitive and sorely lacking cohesion.

The Xbox360 Operating System and GUI was designed with Live in mind, not just in multiplayer gaming, but in communication, friends, invites, XBLA, cross game achievements, player ratings, networking, media streaming, etc. Before Xbox360/XBL there had never been such a feature rich environment, where every game released on the system adhered to the same set of rules, and that the core communication abilities were title-independent. It's the "package" that makes it standout, not just being able to play the occasional game online.

 

[obonicus]

To be fair, the concept behind the PowerGlove was probably more influential to Nintendo than Eyetoy.

Not at all. EyeToy was an actual success in Europe, which is more than you can say for the Power Glove -- it established the existence of an untapped, underserved market. It also established the important point about marketing and success in the expanded marketplace.

And there you go again, arguing in circles

Before you accuse people of arguing in circles you really should address the points made earlier.

I'm quite sure you never had an original Xbox, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a comment. Live over the Xbox was pretty much like PC gaming... disconnected, unintuitive and sorely lacking cohesion.

Wrong. I had one. I do know what I'm talking about. It's not your favoritest console, but that doesn't mean you can rewrite history to favor the console you do like.

The Xbox360 Operating System and GUI was designed with Live in mind, not just in multiplayer gaming, but in communication, friends, invites, XBLA, cross game achievements, player ratings, networking, media streaming, etc. Before Xbox360/XBL there had never been such a feature rich environment, where every game released on the system adhered to the same set of rules, and that the core communication abilities were title-independent. It's the "package" that makes it standout, not just being able to play the occasional game online.

And here you don't address ShadowRunner's comment. Without the 360 we'd still be more or less at the same place, online-wise. This isn't about the console you like best of the decade. It's about the console that defined the decade. The original Xbox's feature-set set standards for every following console. The 360 did nothing but define its own environment. Hell, some of the things you seem to set down as crucial, only the 360 does! How does that define anything? If the 360 were at least the best-selling console of the generation, proving its point that way, but the best-selling console this generation is the Wii, with a much weaker online infrastructure.

 

[Dr. Nick]

The Xbox360 Operating System and GUI was designed with Live in mind, not just in multiplayer gaming, but in communication, friends, invites, XBLA, cross game achievements, player ratings, networking, media streaming, etc. Before Xbox360/XBL there had never been such a feature rich environment, where every game released on the system adhered to the same set of rules, and that the core communication abilities were title-independent. It's the "package" that makes it standout, not just being able to play the occasional game online.

Also remember that when you get your Xbox 360 you a expected to make a profile. This profile is essentially an Xbox Live membership. It could be your old Xbox Live account from Xbox 1 which is now a Gold membership or a Silver membership is pretty much everyone else. Even when you cancel your gold membership you still remain a member of Live through Silver membership unless they ban your profile. Many if not all of your gamesaves are tied to this profile). Every single Xbox 360 sold is pretty much expected to have enrollment into the Xbox Live service.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Also remember that when you get your Xbox 360 you a expected to make a profile. This profile is essentially an Xbox Live membership. It could be your old Xbox Live account from Xbox 1 which is now a Gold membership or a Silver membership is pretty much everyone else. Even when you cancel your gold membership you still remain a member of Live through Silver membership unless they ban your profile. Many if not all of your gamesaves are tied to this profile). Every single Xbox 360 sold is pretty much expected to have enrollment into the Xbox Live service.

There are a significant number of xboxes that have never been connected to live at all, silver or gold. Its close to half the userbase isnt it? You can make offline profiles which many do. You make profiles on PS3 also. Im not sure what this has to do with anything anyway.

 

[Dr. Nick]

There are a significant number of xboxes that have never been connected to live at all, silver or gold. Its close to half the userbase isnt it? You can make offline profiles which many do. You make profiles on PS3 also. Im not sure what this has to do with anything anyway.

Even the offline profile can become an online profile. It pretty much shows how intergrated Live is into the console and the experience Microsoft wants you to have on it. My point is that every 360 is expected to become part of Xbox Live. That is what I was trying to add to what I quoted.

 

[patsu]

No it does not. So putting CoD and Gears in this whole text:

"You don't remember a console for the chips inside or the case design, but the games you played. For me those games were Gears of War and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. I bought the 360 in 2006, and always felt a little out of step with what my friends were playing -- particularly as the catalog has ballooned in 2008 and 2009. But these two games forged the perfect intersection with my Xbox Live friends list. I spent untold hours hopping from match to match with a group of peers, shouting cries of despair into my wired headset as I continually fulfilled my role as "the weakest link" on my team. Those two games were everything I'd ever tried to emulate growing up with a game of laser tag, a pair of walkie talkies or an elaborately constructed Lego battlefield, and I got to share them in real time with real people thanks to technologies so complicated and market forces so beyond me that I'd really prefer not to even think about them. - Paul Miller"

Is what prompted the blow up? What would have been better? Halo and Rainbow Six? GRAW and Trails HD? it doesn't matter what he wrote. The blow up happened because he picked the 360.

Those games he listed or many other he could have listed simply brought him close to Live which is the main reason he picked the 360.

Sure, but I do think his explanations made it worse.

You can do what he mentioned with just in-game voice chat, which has been around for many years -- especially if those are the games he highlighted. We did the same thing on PC online gaming and even on PS3 launch titles (RFOM).

XBL shines in the real-time community aspect and consistency across all games, which he utterly failed to explain.

And the unfortunate fact that the list fails to acknowledge PS2 and Wii, when RAZR and non-gadgets took up the remaining spots further discredit the editors. Heck, if they want to acknowledge OSX and XP, they should also give a spot to Google Services (Search, YouTube, Maps), which I use every day and available on almost all networked gadgets with a screen. They affect all of us during this decade, and made gadgets extremely useful and fun to use.

 

[Arwin]

Personally I was totally surprised to see the 360 in this list, not just because of being a console that has to compete in this decade with the PS2, PS3, Wii and so on, but simply because I have trouble finding a definition of gadget that includes the 360.

Take the following free online dictionary definitions:

1. a small mechanical device or appliance
2. any object that is interesting for its ingenuity or novelty rather than for its practical use

It's not big, but I don't see the 360 fitting 1, and if it fits 2, then it's hardly a compliment, and most people would agree that it is practical more than ingenuous or novel, imho.

Never mind how something like an online service in and of itself is almost completely outside the realm of gadgetry.

 

[RobertR1]

Sure, but I do think his explanations made it worse.

You can do what he mentioned with just in-game voice chat, which has been around for many years -- especially if those are the games he highlighted. We did the same thing on PC online gaming and even on PS3 launch titles (RFOM).

XBL shines in the real-time community aspect and consistency across all games, which he utterly failed to explain.

And the unfortunate fact that the list fails to acknowledge PS2 and Wii, when RAZR and non-gadgets took up the remaining spots further discredit the editors. Heck, if they want to acknowledge OSX and XP, they should also give a spot to Google Services (Search, YouTube, Maps), which I use every day and available on almost all networked gadgets with a screen. They affect all of us during this decade, and made gadgets extremely useful and fun to use.

Anyone who has used Xbox Live knows what he's talking about when he refers to Xbox Live as the reason. The meltdowns seem to be coming form those with no XBL experience or perhaps a very limited exp in countries where XBL feature is watered down.