New OXM Rumor: Nintendo Xbox 2
- Thread starter SegaR&D
- Start date
Wasn't even remotely touching on that. (Not that it's happening.) It was just the only fact around that could accumulate commentary.PC-Engine said:
I'm sure that a joint Nint/MS console launched one year before PS3 could do VERY VERY well. And in that situation, the roles would be inversed. In that case PS3 would be the one that needs to outsell the competition, because PS3 will be the last kid on the block, and XGC2 would have already sold million by the time Sony's console comes out...
But this whole thing is not ture, so...
But this whole thing is not ture, so...
pro :
1/ Nintendo is mainly interested in software and human interface design.
2/ 3 players is too much to balance the maket
3/ Ms is not giving up
4/ The handheld market is not so safe anymore to do anything on the console front
5/ Ms desperatly needs a solid userbase that would stay with its console even if a more powerful ps3 come one year later (will happen with the nintendo crows, not with the tech-centred xbox crowd)
5/ Ms need a solid first party line that sells
6/ Nintendo is losing marketshare gen after gen
con :
1/ japanese pride
2/ Ms arrogance
1/ Nintendo is mainly interested in software and human interface design.
2/ 3 players is too much to balance the maket
3/ Ms is not giving up
4/ The handheld market is not so safe anymore to do anything on the console front
5/ Ms desperatly needs a solid userbase that would stay with its console even if a more powerful ps3 come one year later (will happen with the nintendo crows, not with the tech-centred xbox crowd)
5/ Ms need a solid first party line that sells
6/ Nintendo is losing marketshare gen after gen
con :
1/ japanese pride
2/ Ms arrogance
And let's not forget, the most powerful console never wins. So it would be very funny to see PS3 being a total monster, and not win the console war in the next generation After both its predecessors won, being the weakest competitors...
After both its predecessors won, being the weakest competitors...Pretty much every console has been the most powerful one available at launch (not counting one or two bastard mutations). Machines launchign simultaneously, like Playstation vs Saturn and Gamecube vs Xbox, have been pretty much on par as far as processing power goes.
So, really, the winning console has always been the most poweful -- at launch. The better interpretation is that power hasn't really been that important, as everyone always has been following the general hardware trend.
Handhelds is a different market altogether since it hasn't proven sensible to put processing/graphics power over ergonomics and power consumption.
So, really, the winning console has always been the most poweful -- at launch. The better interpretation is that power hasn't really been that important, as everyone always has been following the general hardware trend.
Handhelds is a different market altogether since it hasn't proven sensible to put processing/graphics power over ergonomics and power consumption.
VNZ said:
Another point would be that in the whole generation, the most powerful console never wins. Might be the most powerful at launch (of course) but that doesn't change the "curse"
It was just an observation, PS3 will be in N64 and Xbox's position next generation in terms of (1)time of release (2) power compared to the other consoles in the same generation.
Evil_Cloud
Veteran
hey69 said:
What do you expect from titles that have been in development for 8 to 11 months, or even less? Timesplitters was made by a 4 man team in 8 months if I recall corectly, that's quite an achievement.
PlayStation 2's launch line-up was horrible.
I'd say the we've seen too few console generations pass to use them as statistical data for any future predictions. They also tend to be quite fuzzy -- the separate launches in each generation (from Atari 2600 to NES, PC Engine to SNES, 3DO to N64, Dreamcast to Xbox) are so far between that it's pointless to draw such lines.
Really?! Old Vectrex fans never cease to amaze me... Get over it! NES won! It's okay to cry!hey69 said:
Pong uber alles~!
About this subject, after his interview of Dave Orton, DaveB told us that:
Link to that thread
DaveBaumann said:
Link to that thread
While teaming up would likely be good for both involved (plus the public of course), it seems to me it would be gooderer for Nintendo than for MS, and that is probably the biggest obstacle against such a move. MS would actually HELP a competitor... They generally don't do that, they tend to simply buy stuff they want instead.
Guden Oden said:While teaming up would likely be good for both involved (plus the public of course), it seems to me it would be gooderer for Nintendo than for MS, and that is probably the biggest obstacle against such a move. MS would actually HELP a competitor... They generally don't do that, they tend to simply buy stuff they want instead.
They already tried to buy Nintendo for 25B$ in 2001
wazoo said:Guden Oden said:While teaming up would likely be good for both involved (plus the public of course), it seems to me it would be gooderer for Nintendo than for MS, and that is probably the biggest obstacle against such a move. MS would actually HELP a competitor... They generally don't do that, they tend to simply buy stuff they want instead.
They already tried to buy Nintendo for 25B$ in 2001
*prays to Jeebus* Oh dear sweet lard, let them cave in and take the 25 billion *nods solemly*
jvd said:
Sony is 50B$ overall, I think, it is more than their cash disposal
25B$ is what Nintendo worth. So if you want to buy it, that ist he amount of money you have to pay.
It is not about gaming. It is about multimedia corporations geant battles to reign over the living room. MS knows they depend too much on the PC, and the PC failed to prove it can become the home multimedia center. So, they are scared of Sony and 25B$ is not much to counter such threat.
Similar threads
