PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Ginko on October 20, 2004, 06:07:23 PM
-
Hardware
Gba $42,023,530 527,133
Xbx $39,379,728 265,067
Ps2 $38,046,609 253,295
Gcn $11,387,827 114,789
Software
All Platforms
1 Gba Pokemon Firered W/adp $21,065,130 684,283
2 Xbx Fable $29,948,580 604,084
3 Gba Pokemon Leafgrn W/adp $17,103,620 556,065
4 Ps2 Madden Nfl 2005 $14,226,930 288,747
5 Xbx Sw: Battlefront $13,395,470 275,186
6 Ps2 Sw: Battlefront $12,949,310 267,465
7 Ps2 Star Ocean: Till End $11,053,760 222,986
8 Ps2 Nba Live 2005 $8,106,411 203,322
9 Ps2 Espn Nfl 2k5 $3,956,769 203,101
10 Ps2 Tiger Woods Pga 2005 $8,297,772 169,657
11 Ps2 Nascar 2005:chase Cup $7,129,704 143,611
12 Gcn Pikmin 2 $6,583,169 132,618
13 Xbx Espn Nfl 2k5 $2,481,845 128,226
14 Xbx Burnout 3: Takedown $6,164,830 124,327
15 Gcn Wwe Day Of Reckoning $6,070,188 122,168
Gba
1 Pokemon Firered W/adp $21,065,130 684,283
2 Pokemon Leafgrn W/adp $17,103,620 556,065
3 Dragonball Z: Buu\'s $1,752,800 59,085
4 Yu-gi-oh! Reshef $1,288,909 42,417
5 Spider-man:the Movie2 $1,178,754 40,479
6 Mario Bros 3: Mario 4 $1,177,994 38,906
7 Mario Vs. Donkey Kong $987,152 31,746
8 Super Mario Classic $627,966 31,599
9 Teenage Mutant Turtle $331,434 28,711
10 Pokemon Ruby $909,743 27,327
11 Namco Museum $392,329 26,996
12 Sonic Advance 3 $771,602 26,224
13 Pokemon Sapphire $861,662 26,151
14 Disney\'s Finding Nemo $507,598 25,557
15 Shrek 2 $686,001 23,765
Gcn
1 Pikmin 2 $6,583,169 132,618
2 Wwe Day Of Reckoning $6,070,188 122,168
3 Donkey Konga W/bongos $2,053,434 41,932
4 Super Smash Bro Melee $1,091,327 36,422
5 Tales Of Symphonia $1,680,868 33,852
6 Madden Nfl 2005 $1,658,302 33,441
7 Sonic Mega Collection $631,538 32,454
8 X-men: Legends $1,466,533 29,463
9 Spongebob: Battle $468,156 23,403
10 Mario Kart: Double $1,108,446 22,374
11 Soul Calibur Ii $444,007 22,200
12 Spider-man:the Movie2 $983,515 20,671
13 Sonic Adventure 2 $396,458 19,796
14 Tony Hawk Underground $390,054 19,553
15 Super Monkey Ball 2 $381,227 19,198
Ps2
1 Madden Nfl 2005 $14,226,930 288,747
2 Sw: Battlefront $12,949,310 267,465
3 Star Ocean: Till End $11,053,760 222,986
4 Nba Live 2005 $8,106,411 203,322
5 Espn Nfl 2k5 $3,956,769 203,101
6 Tiger Woods Pga 2005 $8,297,772 169,657
7 Nascar 2005:chase Cup $7,129,704 143,611
8 Sly 2:band Of Thieves $4,742,280 119,539
9 Def Jam: Fight For Ny $5,720,625 115,861
10 Street Fighter Anniv $3,328,188 111,680
11 Burnout 3: Takedown $5,198,917 104,545
12 Street Racing Syndcte $4,840,836 97,316
13 Espn Nhl 2k5 $1,897,349 96,566
14 Shellshock: Nam \'67 $4,774,473 95,837
15 X-men: Legends $4,126,100 82,905
Xbx
1 Fable $29,948,580 604,084
2 Sw: Battlefront $13,395,470 275,186
3 Espn Nfl 2k5 $2,481,845 128,226
4 Burnout 3: Takedown $6,164,830 124,327
5 Madden Nfl 2005 $5,091,888 102,886
6 Espn Nhl 2k5 $1,922,700 97,983
7 Tiger Woods Pga 2005 $4,425,786 90,158
8 Halo $2,609,295 87,529
9 Nba Live 2005 $3,266,275 81,958
10 Espn Nba 2k5 $1,599,382 80,437
11 X-men: Legends $3,817,020 76,829
12 Street Racing Syndcte $3,498,198 70,415
13 Nascar 2005:chase Cup $3,467,849 69,852
14 Def Jam: Fight For Ny $3,314,719 67,136
15 Shellshock: Nam \'67 $2,730,086 54,837
Xbox outsells PS2...again. Looks like Fable did alright, over 600,000 sold, for the two weeks it had in September. Looks like Halo dropped off the top ten for all system software. I\'m very surprised with the Pikmin 2 numbers, I didn\'t think it was so popular.
-
6 of the top 10 titles are on PS2
2 are xbox
numbers looks normal to me
-
Xbx $39,379,728 265,067
Ps2 $38,046,609 253,295
and these look good to me.
-
only took 4 years
:)
-
It was you, a long time ago that said xbox would never outsell PS2--this is at least the fourth time it has happened this year. Even you have to admit xbox is winning some mindshare.
-
please waste your time and find where i said that specifically
what are the total units sold by xbox and ps2 to date anyways?
-
I\'m not going to waste my time to dig that up. You said it, and you have to admit it sounds like something you\'d say. oseven and hurricane were also in that conversation.
The issue isn\'t total sales, no one would suggest the xbox will catch PS2, but in terms of mindshare and going into next gen, Sony isn\'t as powerful as they once were. It\'ll get really interesting once Halo 2 drops.
-
no one would suggest the xbox will catch PS2
k, ill compromise
since xbox launch, what has sold more, PS2 or xbox?
it will get interesting when GTA:SA ships
-
The issue isn\'t total sales, no one would suggest the xbox will catch PS2, but in terms of mindshare and going into next gen, Sony isn\'t as powerful as they once were. It\'ll get really interesting once Halo 2 drops.
Yep, Xbox has only gained momentum over the past three years and I think MS is getting into a very good position to take Sony head on next gen.
I also find it interesting that some of the multi-platform games have sold better on Xbox than PS2, specifically Burnout and Starwars.
-
you\'re back peddalling--you said it would never happen, it\'s happened 4 months this year. That\'s not a fluke. You can spin it anyway you want, but four out of nine months so far, is not too bad.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
you\'re back peddalling--you said it would never happen, it\'s happened 4 months this year. That\'s not a fluke. You can spin it anyway you want, but four out of nine months so far, is not too bad.
Hmmm let me see... could it be bacuse of the HYPE from LARGELY overrated HALO2 ?
Either way it is Pathetic that it took THIS long to hit a month where they just for once stopped the gap from growing..
Remember the PS2 has been outselling DA XBOUX since day one.
And After about 4 years that’s ONE HELL of a GAP…. (Gap more like Grand canyon)
-
There\'s no doubt about it, these numbers PROOVE the Xbox sucks and is a miserable failure.
But of course it\'s useless to argue here. A console has to be #1 and only #1 for years for it to be good. Anything else is just a child\'s toy right? I guess by this logic a Toyota is the only car anyone should ever own.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Hmmm let me see... could it be bacuse of the HYPE from LARGELY overrated HALO2 ?
Have you played it yet? Oh.......you haven\'t.
YOU\'RE A DUMBASS, PLEASE STOP POSTING
-
anyway, most people that have a PS2 have an Xbox and vice versa.
what system you guys have ? i got em all.
when there is a new generation, people just buy one console.. and when price drop, they usually buy the competitor\'s.
numbers mean not much.
-
i got em all, too
xbox is currently being punished untill halo 2 comes out. then i will stick it in the console graveyard once i beat it.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Have you played it yet? Oh.......you haven\'t.
YOU\'RE A DUMBASS, PLEASE STOP POSTING
It a First Person Shooter thats Clocked at 30 Frames Per Second...
= Piss poor.
Sorry but with FPS\'ers the frame rate is the life blood of the game, as it affects your aimming and responce to incoming fire.
Reason why FABLE which WAS clocked at around 30 FPS wasn\'t even a problem because it ran for the most part in 3rd person persective.
Originally posted by mm
i got em all, too
xbox is currently being punished untill halo 2 comes out. then i will stick it in the console graveyard once i beat it.
Getting rid of mine in the next few weeks anyway as i have comleted the reason got my X box for (fable).
-
The PS2 has been in short supply for a while now, Sony is trying to clear out the old model from the stores.
Enter PSTwo, next month will be more interesting.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
It was you, a long time ago that said xbox would never outsell PS2--this is at least the fourth time it has happened this year. Even you have to admit xbox is winning some mindshare.
Xbox still hasn\'t out sold the PS2.
-
Hmmm let me see... could it be bacuse of the HYPE from LARGELY overrated HALO2 ?
Either way it is Pathetic that it took THIS long to hit a month where they just for once stopped the gap from growing..
Remember the PS2 has been outselling DA XBOUX since day one.
And After about 4 years that’s ONE HELL of a GAP…. (Gap more like Grand canyon)
Guess you didn\'t read the whole post...Xbox has outsold PS2 three times this year and before that it had been getting closer and closer to the same number of units sold per month as PS2. Let me remind you it hasn\'t even been three years yet, next month on the 15th will mark three years, but in that short amount of time Xbox has managed to go from absolutely nothing to being the number two console AND sometimes beating out number one on the monthly chart.
Also...you think it\'s pathetic that Xbox has managed to catch up with the mighty Sony in terms of monthly sales? So what do you think about Nintendo?
It a First Person Shooter thats Clocked at 30 Frames Per Second...
= Piss poor.
Sorry but with FPS\'ers the frame rate is the life blood of the game, as it affects your aimming and responce to incoming fire.
Reason why FABLE which WAS clocked at around 30 FPS wasn\'t even a problem because it ran for the most part in 3rd person persective.
anyway...
Halo=5.5+ million sold
Halo 2=1.5+ million pre-sold
I wouldn\'t call that piss poor...
;)
-
Originally posted by ooseven
It a First Person Shooter thats Clocked at 30 Frames Per Second...
= Piss poor.
Sorry but with FPS\'ers the frame rate is the life blood of the game, as it affects your aimming and responce to incoming fire.
How about you play the game then come back to us. Until then stop making an idiot of yourself commenting on things you don\'t have the first clue on. Yea, you know what frame rate it has at certain times, but you still haven\'t played the game. Simple as that.
Also, if you\'re getting rid of your xbox then we\'ll gladly lose your presence here I assume. You\'re slowly becoming mm.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
How about you play the game then come back to us. Until then stop making an idiot of yourself commenting on things you don\'t have the first clue on. Yea, you know what frame rate it has at certain times, but you still haven\'t played the game. Simple as that.
Also, if you\'re getting rid of your xbox then we\'ll gladly lose your presence here I assume. You\'re slowly becoming mm.
What are you talking about, ooseven has always been like that. Besides, his agument doesn\'t hold much weight. Everyone is working under the 30 fps "handicap" so it won\'t effect your ability to evade incoming fire nor will it hamper aiming since you are aiming at people running at 30 fps.
It\'s a ridiculous point of view anyway--none of us are bloody surgeons with FPSs nor are we professionals who may notice the subtle difference--anyone who suggests that there is a marked difference in your ability to play is kidding themselves.
One can see the difference, and there may be a valid argument to be made there, but claiming that it hampers your aiming and dodging is absolutely ridiculous.
-
so your saying there\'s no difference between 60 fps and 30 fps?
why do you think doom 3 was frame rate throttled...
frame rate and general game speed makes the world of difference in aiming/movment
-
Xbx $39,379,728 265,067
Ps2 $38,046,609 253,295
Wow, that is the hugest gap ive seen in my life...
Xbox may be selling somewhat better now but after how long and by how much? Not a lot at all. You figure everybody and their mother has a ps2 so its only expected that the rate would slow down after its 4th or so year if not more. Its a sad statement to say that this slight gap says anything about how well the xbox is doing or how "poorly" the ps2 is doing.
There really is no argument.
And about FPS\'s: The frame rate is easily noticed. To say that the difference is tiny is pretty stupid. Perhaps some dont have the perception that others do but it makes a decent difference. Maybe not the world but it is undeniably different. Personally, i didnt like Halo too much but id be lying if i said that Halo 2 didnt catch my interest. If it was locked at 60FPS even I might have to go and buy an Xbox....
Sadly this isnt true. Maybe at another price drop.
*shrugs*
-
muahhaha Final Fantasy the Spirits Within is capped @ 24fps, whores. :p
-
(1) Could it be the Xbox outsold the PS2 due to the fact almost everyone has a PS2 by now? At some point, you get to a point where you can\'t sell that many more units and I think the PS2 is approaching that. Not to mention Halo 2 is a system seller..
(2) It a First Person Shooter thats Clocked at 30 Frames Per Second...
= Piss poor.
Dumbest ...thing.. ever.
I dislike Halo, but it is not due to it being locked at 30FPS. The frame rate alone should not break or make a game, unless the game has massive frame rate problems where the engine is constantly dipping. Halo does not suffer from that problem, instead it is locked ... And you compare it to Fable, while I enjoy Fable, I think that was a "piss poor" comparison, because not only is Fable at 30FPS, it actually dipps below 30FPS quite often.
(3) The PS2 has been in short supply for a while now, Sony is trying to clear out the old model from the stores.
Enter PSTwo, next month will be more interesting.
The so called PSTwo is not going to make a massive difference. The real of appeal of that is people who are either replacing a dead unit or collectors who think they need it all.
-
Originally posted by mm
so your saying there\'s no difference between 60 fps and 30 fps?
why do you think doom 3 was frame rate throttled...
frame rate and general game speed makes the world of difference in aiming/movment
Play the new one then talk to me. The tiny delay you saw in Halo 1 has almost completely been taken out. You\'re just lying to yourself till you actually believe the shit that comes out.
-
tiny?
come on bro, your really grasping at straws now
lol, tiny
:laugging:
-
Originally posted by Ginko
I also find it interesting that some of the multi-platform games have sold better on Xbox than PS2, specifically Burnout and Starwars.
have you considered the fact that ps2 might have way more good games? :)
-
haha, politiepet.. :D That\'s flame bait if I ever saw it.
My first time through Halo I honestly never saw any framerate drops. Even during the final run. I remember making comments to my friend (with whom I was playing co-op) that it\'s probably the best frame-rate I\'ve seen in a console FPS, due to it being so smooth. As even TimeSplitters had frame-drops.
However, I think I did get lucky, as the next few times through the game the shit hit the fan and there was chop all over the place. :confused:
Anyways, if the framerate is as smooth as my first time through the original, I\'ll be more than happy. Even if it\'s not at my precious 60fps.
I\'m just looking forward to a good co-op FPS again. We\'ve played TimeSplitters 2 to death. And Halo 2 should be somewhat more cohesive in it\'s structure I think.
-
Originally posted by mm
tiny?
come on bro, your really grasping at straws now
lol, tiny
:laugging:
Sorry, the jokes on you.
You\'re trying to act as if you shot and your gun fired 2 seconds later, and the bullet reached another 2 seconds after that. Either way it\'s much more spot on now.
:laugging:
-
At this stage of the PS2, it\'s only natural that Xbox gains a few inches on the PS2. In some markets, PS2 is saturated and so naturally, they\'ll choose either Xbox or GC as their next console.
Still, Xbox will never out sell the PS2 unless you break it down to monthly sales.
-
I don\'t think it\'s only natural that a console would outsell PS2 now because otherwise GC would be doing it too.
It\'s the fact that people are choosing to buy an Xbox to go along side their PS2, it\'s gaining ground in the industry...something alot of people said wouldn\'t happen.
have you considered the fact that ps2 might have way more good games?
A fact? Really...
Anyway, the good news about that is it encourages 3rd party developers to make games for Xbox as well as PS2.
-
2 seconds? now your acting irrational just to backpeddle
a split second will make the difference between being killed and not being killed.
-
2 seconds? now your acting irrational just to backpeddle
a split second will make the difference between being killed and not being killed.
but if everything is happening at 30fps then how does this matter?
-
The framerate drops in HALO aren\'t even that serious. This is like the only forum where I still see it being brought up regularly.
HALO isn\'t a twitch FPS. It moves at a fairly slower pace than what most are used to. The aim also isn\'t nearly as strict as most other FPS(giant reticles, aim-assist)...
When there are some hiccups in the action, it hardly ever effects the outcome
-
The framerate drops in HALO aren\'t even that serious.
lies
HALO isn\'t a twitch FPS. It moves at a fairly slower pace than what most are used to.
exaggerations
-
Seriously, I didn\'t notice any framerate drops until the final stage and it seemed to be random. Sometimes I would have a perfect run without a single hitch and other times it repeatedly dropped.
Oh, for those who care, OXM gave Halo 2 a 9.7. I believe that\'s a point or two higher than they gave the original game.
-
Originally posted by mm
lies
I guess it\'s kind of subjective. But the framerate dips never got so bad, or lasted so long that I couldn\'t tell what was going on.
A more consistent 30fps would\'ve been nice. A consistent 60fps would\'ve been perfect. But honestly, not necessary. At least, not for the majority.
exaggerations
Not at all. I don\'t even see how this can be argued.
-
easy, the game consistantly had framerate issues
30 is fine IF it is locked
-
Originally posted by mm
easy, the game consistantly had framerate issues
30 is fine IF it is locked
Have you played the new one? Oh, case closed.
-
actually mr. smarty pants, i have
halo 2 is not locked at 30fps
case open?
-
is it 90% of the time at steady framerates?if yes then no problem.The game is adjusted to play well at 30fps so its no big deal.Halo1 didnt feel like the choppy FPS that are supposed to play at 60fps but have often frame drops due to hardware limitations.
-
halo 1 and halo 2 DO NOT perform at 30 fps (or even close to it) 90% of the time.
more like anytime your looking into a corner
-
Originally posted by mm
actually mr. smarty pants, i have
halo 2 is not locked at 30fps
case open?
I don\'t hold it above you to lie so......NO. And if you have then it really shows how desperate you are to trash anything xbox.
-
or to show how desperate you are to attempt and counter anything i say
nice try tho
-
Originally posted by mm
halo 1 and halo 2 DO NOT perform at 30 fps (or even close to it) 90% of the time.
more like anytime your looking into a corner
i never noticed the casual horrendous frame drops you are talking about
-
I agree with boz, you tend to exaggerate quite a bit.
Even if Halo doesn\'t run at a solid 30fps you\'re ignoring the fact that 90% time it doesn\'t hinder gameplay. Like I said, the last stage is the only place I had problems with the frame rate drop.
-
guess you guys never played co-op mode at all
-
the fact that the single player mode doesnt have casual problem with frame drop and the fact that its co-op when it has many frame drops makes up for it.Its a first gen XBOX game anyways
-
:laughing:
-
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/535/535509p1.html
lalalala
probably you can tell us since you know everything why Halo is prefered over the 60fps Timepsliiters2 when it comes to co-op?
-
wow, i almost forgot i compared halo to timesplitters 2
oh wait, i never did.
very nice attempt to completely change the topic
it\'s really pathetic how you constantly have to compare halo to other titles to make it look better.
anyways, halo had a single player game? i never noticed
-
:laughing:
still trying to change the meaning of my post?
Since you never get it(actually you do but you pretend you dont) I ll explain it to you.60 fps dont always matter.
-
who the hell said anything about 60fps?
bro, i need to you comprehend basic english if this is to continue.
-
anyways, halo had a single player game? i never noticed
huh?
What are you trying to accomplish, mm? If you want us to acknowledge that Halo has frame rate issues then you\'ve got nothing to carry on. We\'ve already recognized that Halo has occasiaonal drops but it\'s almost unanimous that it\'s not a big deal, the game manages to pull through just fine.
-
Originally posted by mm
who the hell said anything about 60fps?
bro, i need to you comprehend basic english if this is to continue.
Oh you never mentioned the framerate issue?Is that so?Ok then....whats wrong with Halo\'s co-op again?Because you mentioned it but you didnt explain whats the problem with it.
-
.....
:stick:
-
mm, I agree on the single player mode. I enjoyed co-op as much as Contra with the extra lives code. :)
But single player I played til I ran out of ammo in one of the first sections and never played it again. Death match was also too cliche with boring environments for me to enjoy. Co-op was good, the rest still lags behind Goldeneye to me.
Framerates never bothered me.
I won\'t buy Halo 2.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by mm
or to show how desperate you are to attempt and counter anything i say
nice try tho
You\'d have a good point if anybody respected you. Don\'t act high and mighty with your opinions, you just come off looking ignorant.
-
or, i could be like boz or uni and just change the subject (or make wild comparisons to PS2) when i cant prove anything
-
Ok thats it.Now I am 100% you still dont know how to use your brain.The only person changing the subject its you when you dont know what to say against someone\'s arguement.
You always hold on certain words but never on the point.
And I am with Boz.Too bad I had so much repsect for you in the past but your present stubborness and arrogant attitude towards others make you lose respect.
edit:You know what I hate so much in people?When they twist the meaning of my words
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/535/535509p1.html
lalalala
probably you can tell us since you know everything why Halo is prefered over the 60fps Timepsliiters2 when it comes to co-op?
mm is right on this one. This really doesnt prove anything. 60fps would make halo a good deal better IMO. Comparing it to other games doesnt really do much. Just because TS2 is 60 fps doesnt mean anything. You cant talk about framerate because theres a preferance in which game people like more as well. Personally id rather play Red Faction 2 (though it doesnt have the same longevity). They are two completely different games and unless they were, you cant compare the framerate.
I didnt notice too many frame dips in Halo but it did hurt my head. It would dip every now and then but i couldnt tell you if it was that bad or not because at this point in time i really dont like the game that much (to put it shortly - im biased).
-
^^
That was actually MY point
-
And what exactly is that?
-
Originally posted by mm
or, i could be like boz or uni and just change the subject (or make wild comparisons to PS2) when i cant prove anything
Wrong
You complain about the FPS, but I\'ve played and it doesn\'t hinder the gameplay AT ALL. Especially in Halo 2. I\'ve already said that before this, sorry I had to spell it out for you again.
-
the fps (or lack there of) ruins halo (and halo 2) for me. ESPECIALLY in co-op.
again, especially in co-op
sorry if you have low expectations
im sure halo 3 will really wow you
:rolleyes:
-
People remember who you are talking to.
None other than THE Elitist PC Gamer. :p
Halo2? psh. Wait for the pc release :rolleyes:
Right?
:D
-
Originally posted by mm
the fps (or lack there of) ruins halo (and halo 2) for me. ESPECIALLY in co-op.
So first I was changing the topic, now you just disagree.
:rolleyes:
This has become pointless.
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
And what exactly is that?
The framerate issue he is using as an arguement prooves nothing about Halo\'s quality.Framerate doesnt affect it at all.There are things that make people like the game other than good/bad framerate.As you said its a matter of preferences.Halo satisfies many of gamers preferences.
I wasnt comparing Timesplitters with Halo to show which is better or not.It actually shows that framerate doesnt matter.One is 60fps constant the other is 30fps with some framerate drops.Yet people like Halo as if the low framerate pnenomenon isnt there since it is has its other own characteristics that make people prefer it.
As I said before
60 fps dont always matter
With other words what mm is trying to proove with the framerate issue is like trying to make holes in water
Now if you personally dont like it then no problem.Its totally understandable.Some people are bound not to like a game for reasons other people arent bothered with.
There is no game that is liked by 100% of the gamers that try it.
But trying to proove that it sucks and that everyone who likes the game is wrong for liking it just because you dont like it is not understandable (mm).
-
Framerate doesnt affect it at all.
lies
i have never said halo sucks. yet again, you attempt to quote me as saying something to support your pathetic argument.
-
1)First of all learn how to respect other people\'s arguements.You hear?I am sick of your arrogant behaviour
2)you are the one saying how much it lacks as a game due to framreate and repeated levels and that it doesnt offer anything worth mentioning
3)You are the one who said it sold because there was/is no other choice on the xbox
4)You are the one who sais it doesnt deserve the attention it got
5)You are the one mentioning spongebob\'s sales as proof that Halo gained sales easily and not because its considered to be a great game
6)Originally posted by mm
i stated repeatedly that i liked halo, untill i beat it, than it sucked
Oh yeah and just because mr mm isnt interested on the game after finishing its proof that the game sucks and doesnt deserve the praise that it gets from the many gamers out there.
Then I guess Kingdom Hearts, FFX , R&C1 and 2, J&D etc suck too because I, personally dont bother finishing them twice
SO....whats your problem?The framerate?The similar looking locations?Why on earth are you making them such a huge issue?
learn to respect and be thankful for what you get.You never seem satisfied with anything and I sometimes wonder what good console games have you bought and finished in this generation.You always complain.Especially when a game is for XBOX
-
mm doesn\'t hate HALO, he doesn\'t think it sucks, he does think it\'s overrated.
The only reason he says shit like that is to get a rise out of people.
He TROLLS! Okay? :p
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
edit:You know what I hate so much in people?When they twist the meaning of my words
Hey dickhead, why don\'t you just grow up. I know you have your disagreements with mm, but saying that you hate him is just childish.
-
Anyhoo back on topic
The sales last month where
Xbx 265,067
Vs
Ps2 253,295
That’s means that the X box only sold 11,772 units more…Just for one month (too late too late sorry)
But still it does mean that they can have a fresh slate come next GEN.
With 20 to 30 million (by the end of the X box\'s life) they will be able to really put the pressure on sony, next round.
I know for one i will be holding off Buying a X box 2 till around this time in the next gen\'s cycle.
mm doesn\'t hate HALO, he doesn\'t think it sucks, he does think it\'s overrated.
The only reason he says shit like that is to get a rise out of people.
He TROLLS! Okay?
Same here....
Sorry but i have never seen the "BIG" deal with HALO... for me its not the BE all or End ALL for FPS. The game just didn\'t offer anything new that wasn\'t already done better in other FPS\'ers
And i still don\'t see what the big fuss is over the second one... now what with all the HYPE its getting.
-
nice to see people have to resort to bailing out and calling me names instead of proving something. i love it.
-
damn, this thread has gone of the tracks....
-
Originally posted by mm
nice to see people have to resort to bailing out and calling me names instead of proving something. i love it.
I already asked you what you\'re trying to prove. I\'m not going to waste any more time trying to figure it out.
Anyhoo back on topic
The sales last month where
Xbx 265,067
Vs
Ps2 253,295
That’s means that the X box only sold 11,772 units more…Just for one month (too late too late sorry)
But still it does mean that they can have a fresh slate come next GEN.
With 20 to 30 million (by the end of the X box\'s life) they will be able to really put the pressure on sony, next round.
I know for one i will be holding off Buying a X box 2 till around this time in the next gen\'s cycle.
Actually, the Xbox has outsold PS2 three times. April, August, and now September. What it means is that the Xbox name is gaining momentum.
Also, I don\'t get why you people keep saying too little, too late...what are you suggesting?
-
Too little to late as in the Console has been out for 4 years and is Rival Broke the 70 million mark a long time ago.
Yes the X box is established but its Still light years of being Da PS2 Kuller it was hailed as on launch day.
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
Hey dickhead, why don\'t you just grow up. I know you have your disagreements with mm, but saying that you hate him is just childish.
I hate/dislike certain behaviour not him.
And whats your problem?DID I TALK TO YOU?Did I say something that was directed to you???I guess you are the finest example of maturity since you jumped out of nowhere and called me a DICKHEAD!!
Even if I am immature that alone makes you less mature than I am.
-
gaining momentum?
hello? did it ever occur to you that maybe everyone has a ps2 already?
it\'s pretty damn late to be celebrating over 3 months 4 years in the consoles lifespan :rolleyes:
especially, for the "teh ps2 killah"
oh, and i was bored
ps2 sold more than 70 million, eh?
Xbox continues to go from strength to strength, with cumulative worldwide shipments of 15.5 million consoles since launch
ripped from teamxbox website dated 10/22/04
/vomit
:laughing:
and
:laughing: again
god damn, thats just funny.
15 million?
i havent paid much attention to consoles sales in the last few years, but only 15 million?!
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
I hate/dislike certain behaviour not him.
And whats your problem?DID I TALK TO YOU?Did I say something that was directed to you???I guess you are the finest example of maturity since you jumped out of nowhere and called me a DICKHEAD!!
Even if I am immature that alone makes you less mature than I am.
ROFL
Nobody ever gets my jokes.
:(
-
:laughing: that back fired ey booby.
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
ROFL
Nobody ever gets my jokes.
:(
SORRRYYYYYYYYYYY
use the J/K thingie so I can distinguish :fro: :p
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Too little to late as in the Console has been out for 4 years and is Rival Broke the 70 million mark a long time ago.
Yes the X box is established but its Still light years of being Da PS2 Kuller it was hailed as on launch day.
First, you should stop reading mm\'s posts, he has a tendency to over exaggerate and sometimes flat out lie even when given the facts. The Xbox has not even been out three years yet, the 15th of November will mark the three year anniversary.
Second, did anyone expect Xbox to trample Sony\'s total units sold? I don\'t recall that ever being commented.
"Yes the X box is established "
^Wasn\'t that the objective?
PS2 kuller? Let\'s not go down that road otherwise we can all start bringing up a bunch of media bullshit and we all know that doesn\'t get us anywhere.
gaining momentum?
hello? did it ever occur to you that maybe everyone has a ps2 already?
Everyone? There are an estimated 30 million PS2\'s in the U.S., I don\'t know the other countries figures, but that\'s hardly everyone. PS2 total=70+million. The Playstation managed to get in to 100 million homes, looks like there\'s an untapped 30 million left.
The Xbox has been on an uprise since release. More developers have signed on since release and the console has steady sales figures. It\'s certainly not tanking so what else could I say than it\'s gaining momentum?
it\'s pretty damn late to be celebrating over 3 months 4 years in the consoles lifespan
especially, for the "teh ps2 killah"
mm, it has not been 4 years, Xbox was released on Nov. 15th of 2001. I\'ll leave it to you to do the math.
Celebrating what?
Answer my question, what is it about Halo that you want to prove?
-
3 years, 4 years so what. i dont pay much attention. got it confused with ps2 launch date oct/2000.
which is even worse in your defense cause xbox came out over a year later and barely sold 15 million so far
what is it about what i said about halo already that you tried to disprove?
so tell me again how only selling 15 million for a console that came out a year later is ok.
-
Originally posted by mm
which is even worse in your defense cause xbox came out over a year later and barely sold 15 million so far.
WTF...mm, look up any thread from console debating in the last 3 years and you\'ll find out my response to this.
what is about what i said about halo already you tried to disprove?
I asked what you\'re trying to prove? I only found this one post but I think it sums up the rest of them...
"the fps (or lack there of) ruins halo (and halo 2) for me. ESPECIALLY in co-op.
again, especially in co-op
sorry if you have low expectations
im sure halo 3 will really wow you"
If that\'s your opinion then there\'s nowhere to go with it, I just didn\'t understand why you posted this...
nice to see people have to resort to bailing out and calling me names instead of proving something. i love it.
EDIT: You always edit your post...
so tell me again how only selling 15 million for a console that came out a year later is ok.
Why isn\'t it okay?
-
....
i think you forgot to say anything
-
That\'s because I\'m waiting to hear something from you. Here are the questions, again...
I asked what you\'re trying to prove? I only found this one post but I think it sums up the rest of them...
"the fps (or lack there of) ruins halo (and halo 2) for me. ESPECIALLY in co-op.
again, especially in co-op
sorry if you have low expectations
im sure halo 3 will really wow you"
If that\'s your opinion then there\'s nowhere to go with it, I just didn\'t understand why you posted this...
You can only prove a fact...I\'m asking what fact you have proven and what you expected anyone to argue?
My second question was "why isn\'t it okay?" to have a console that sold 15 million.
-
your still not saying anything
asking me why i think it\'s not ok for a console to only sell 15 million is rediculous.
-
The point on the console debate is that xbox is expectedly outselling the ps2, more or less over a few months because of the fact that so many more people have ps2\'s. The selling rate is bound to slow.
Too little too late? Yeah, as in the xbox doesnt look like it will match the ps2\'s # of installation for a long time if it does at all. I dont see why this is so hard to understand.
The xbox has been out 3 years you say? The ps2 has been out for about 4 yet the numbers are almost double that of xboxes sold. Sure this is microsofts first outing but the fact of the matter is that the xbox just isnt making any large competative strides when you look at the big picture. So the xbox sold more in a few months. This says very little and i dont know why anybody makes such a deal out of it. If this trend of sales continued for a year i still dont think it would have caught up so its a pointless argument.
As for the argument of the ps selling so much more - It was out for double the amount of time the ps2 has. Perhaps thats why its installation numbers are so high hmm?
Really, this whole thing is just stupid.
-
XBOX=new in the industry.
Playstation=huge popularity
Nintendo=known since only god knows when, yet has less sales than XBOX.
-
originally posted by mm
your still not saying anything
asking me why i think it\'s not ok for a console to only sell 15 million is rediculous.
You still haven\'t said anything. I can\'t make an arguement if there\'s nothing to disprove.
You\'d have to make a case proving that 15 million consoles for the specific case of the Xbox is a bad thing, otherwise there\'s nothing to argue. It\'s just you talking shit again.
Oh, and what was that you were saying about Halo? Still haven\'t heard anything from you.
originally posted by Lord Nicon
The point on the console debate is that xbox is expectedly outselling the ps2, more or less over a few months because of the fact that so many more people have ps2\'s. The selling rate is bound to slow.
Read back a few posts, I\'ve already stated this is more about the Xbox gaining momentum than anything.
Too little too late? Yeah, as in the xbox doesnt look like it will match the ps2\'s # of installation for a long time if it does at all. I dont see why this is so hard to understand.
Nobody ever said that Xbox would outsell PS2\'s total units. I\'ve already said this and I don\'t see why that\'s so hard to understand?
Xbox will never reach 70 million units. It\'s not possible. The Xbox is the ground work, MS has said this repeatedly. That\'s why "too little, too late" doesn\'t make any sense. The Xbox has established itself, with a userbase and a healthy amount of developer support, and has set up MS for next gen.
^Why is that hard to comprehend?
The xbox has been out 3 years you say? The ps2 has been out for about 4 yet the numbers are almost double that of xboxes sold. Sure this is microsofts first outing but the fact of the matter is that the xbox just isnt making any large competative strides when you look at the big picture. So the xbox sold more in a few months. This says very little and i dont know why anybody makes such a deal out of it. If this trend of sales continued for a year i still dont think it would have caught up so its a pointless argument.
The PS2 is the successor the best selling console in history. Did anyone expect MS to take over in 3 years time? Are you out of your mind?
I think it\'s you who\'s failing to see the bigger picture. It is MS\'s first outting and to say they haven\'t made any progress is near sighted. The fact that the console has managed to keep steady sales and garner more developer support since release proves MS has made strides.
As for the argument of the ps selling so much more - It was out for double the amount of time the ps2 has. Perhaps thats why its installation numbers are so high hmm?
Missed the point again, huh? There are still 30 million potential buyers plus the industry is still growing. Right now the U.S. market is split between Xbox and PS2.
Really, this whole thing is just stupid.
Don\'t like it then don\'t read it. If you\'re going to make an arguement then the least you could do is try to keep up.
-
xbox is hardly "new" to the industry
which doesn\'t even attempt to explain it\'s lethargic (pathetic) sales
yeah, the split is like 80/20
-
If you are talking about its hardware then you miss the point once again
edit:what explains GCs "pathetic" sales I wonder
-
perhaps if you ever made a point
-
Originally posted by mm
xbox is hardly "new" to the industry
Really?
Nintendo = 20 years in the console industry
Sony = 10 years in the console industry
Microsoft = 3 years in the console industry
Now what?:p
-
Originally posted by mm
perhaps if you ever made a point
When I say new I mean another competitive product.A new brand.A new name in the industry.
THERE.
If the hardware is new or NOT means nothing (XBOX sales > GC sales)
-
still not new, not even close
please try again
got some proof that xbox > GC still
this isnt 2003 anymore, ya know
-
God!!its like talking to a wall!!
-
Originally posted by mm
still not new, not even close
please try again
got some proof that xbox > GC still
this isnt 2003 anymore, ya know
Not new to the industry? A new console going up against established console companies...what\'s there to argue?
Well, I\'m not sure what proof you\'re aksing for. The sales numbers are at the beginning of this thread. GC is getting outsold 2:1 by both PS2 and Xbox.
EDIT: Found this for you...
As of June 2004
Xbox = 15.5 Million Worldwide (http://news.com.com/Microsoft+earnings+paint+mixed+picture/2100-7343_3-5280372.html?tag=nefd.top)
Gamecube = 15.22 Million Worldwide (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n10/news/040728e.pdf)
-
Ginko, you never stated that this is ALL about the the xbox gaining momentum. Mentioned it yes. Ive read what youve said. Nothing is too hard to comprehend. Your point was unclear. Everybody makes this sales thing look like some big stride.
You said:
"The PS2 is the successor the best selling console in history. Did anyone expect MS to take over in 3 years time? Are you out of your mind?"
"Not new to the industry? A new console going up against established console companies...what\'s there to argue?"
Out of my mind? Not at all. You proved a point (more or less). Playstation came up against 2 VERY established companies (both being around for not one but two generations before it) and despite coming out in between the two, still dominated, easily. This whole, new to the industry argument holds no water when playstation did this exactly.
Don\'t like it then don\'t read it. If you\'re going to make an arguement then the least you could do is try to keep up.
Kept up. And if this was the case then we would have no debates. I was just stating that its a semi silly argument from the perspective i had. Im not posting against my will. All this "dont like it dont read it" crap can go somewhere where it actually means something.
-
the difference between 15.2 and 15.5 is hardly worth even mentioning
would like to see current numbers, however
and nicon, dont try and use rational thought on these guys. it doesnt work
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
Ginko, you never stated that this is ALL about the the xbox gaining momentum. Mentioned it yes. Ive read what youve said. Nothing is too hard to comprehend. Your point was unclear. Everybody makes this sales thing look like some big stride.
"The Xbox has been on an uprise since release. More developers have signed on since release and the console has steady sales figures. It\'s certainly not tanking so what else could I say than it\'s gaining momentum?"
What\'s unclear about that?
You said:
"The PS2 is the successor the best selling console in history. Did anyone expect MS to take over in 3 years time? Are you out of your mind?"
"Not new to the industry? A new console going up against established console companies...what\'s there to argue?"
Out of my mind? Not at all. You proved a point. Playstation came up against 2 VERY established companies (both being around for not one but two generations before it) and despite coming out in between the two, still dominated, easily. This whole, new to the industry argument holds no water when playstation did this exactly.
Geez, let\'s jump back into the last three years worth of console debate...where have you been? I\'ll get you up to speed.
Sony VS. Nintendo VS. Sega
Sony and Sega both released their 32-bit consoles, in Japan, in 1994. The U.S. later received both of these consoles in 1995.
Sega had previously released several add-ons for the Genesis that amounted to failures that would make any consumer cautious of future purchases, as well as developers. Add to that the Saturn was meant to be the ultimate 2D machine and it wasn\'t until Sega found out what Sony was planning when they decided to modify the Saturn to do 3D. The architecture of the Saturn was a nightmare for developers, not to mention the lauch price of the Saturn was $400 compared to the Playstation\'s $300. A lackluster lineup of launch games and poor developer support didn\'t look good.
Sony released the Playstation. The architecture was simple meaning developers could make the most out of their time and resources, plus it was on a cheap media, the cd. 3rd parties jumped on board. Games became "cool" and the rest is history.
Nintendo released the N64 in 1996. The format was cartridge, an expensive medium, making the Playstation a more attractive choice for develoers. Plus the N64 was more difficult to program for than the PS and Nintendo\'s stance on quality drove some developers away. The launch of the N64, and thereafter, consisted of very few games and much less 3rd party support than the Playstation.
What you have is two established companies making huge errors in judgement that cost them consumer confidence and developer support. Sony made some very good moves and mostly they were in the right place at the right time. They benefitted very largely from Nintendo and Sega\'s mistakes.
Fast forward to today. Sony hasn\'t made any mistakes to cost them developers or customers. The architecture of the PS2 might not be the most friendly but consumers don\'t care so the developers just have to make due. The transition from PS to PS2 is a no brainer for the consumer and the developer.
Nintendo entered this generation with a less than desirable image and they are trying to win back both developers and consumers. They\'ve lost several developers during this generation.
Microsoft enters in under Sony. The fact that they\'ve been able to get the amount of support they have today is amazing. Their developer support has grown since release and the console is still garnering steady sales with occasional spikes. It\'s worth mentioning that the huge market of Japan is flat out ignoring Xbox. They will never accept an American made console. All this while Sony is sprinting ahead and Nintendo is trying to make their comeback.
You are very much mistaken to say that MS entered under the same circumstances as Sony did almost 10 years ago.
-
Originally posted by mm
the difference between 15.2 and 15.5 is hardly worth even mentioning
would like to see current numbers, however
and nicon, dont try and use rational thought on these guys. it doesnt work
You asked for proof and I gave it to you. Currently, the Xbox is outselling the GC 2:1 in the U.S. What more proof do you need?
and nicon, dont try and use rational thought on these guys. it doesnt work
This coming from someone who rarely makes a point, an attempt at rational discussion, and always dodges the question.:rolleyes:
-
Yes unclear as to you making momentum your main argument. I said it was mentioned. One statement doesnt solidify the point of both past and present arguments. Jesus. The point is taken lets move on now.
The ps2 had a shortage and from what many said a semi poor set of launch games besides a few pretty good ones. Nothing that was supposed to be a killer app like the rumored GT2000, etc. The graphics were debatably better or worse than the already released dreamcast, and dev complaints as well as rumors of ps2\'s in superiority due to bottlenecks and 4megs of vram was always a common issue. Of course the only thing it really had going for it besides a few good games was its hype.
The hype on dolphin and xbox were nothing to laugh about with all the tech demos and rumored specs that were so much greater than the ps2\'s. Not to mention the xbox could do everything the ps2 could plus more except for backwards compatibility. The numbers far outclassed that of ps2\'s. Not to mention th fact that its pc architecture allowed plenty of pc devs to jump on the boat.
The 64, had all sorts of hype going for it as well, not to mention that all of its previous consoles were highly regarded. 2 generations to be exact, when this time around, sony had one console under its belt (i admit a very good one but still one gen). Not only did the system boast double the power supposedly, it also had zero load times etc (and by this time everybody was far too aware of this issue with cd rom systems). The casual gaming population made little fuss about the pricing and the fact that the games were cartridges because there were so many pluses and damaging one was so much more difficult.
Often we forget how huge of a percentage the casual gaming population makes. We\'ve seen some crappy games go up on the top 20 sales list and this is all due to misinformed casual gamers. All this tech and specifics bull could barely matter any less to these people.
Sure ms didnt have the same set of advantages, etc. but the same advantages arent always needed. I cant remember a single launch game that looked anywhere below the level of ps2\'s middle tier games. There were many selling factors so dont make it out to be a case where xbox was going to sell this way from the get go. Lets not even talk about ps2\'s not so wonderful e3 outing a couple years back. Microsoft had plenty of opportunities to make for better sales.
And they are gaining some foothold in the Japanese market. Of course Japan was never the main money maker. We were talking about american numbers previously and despite Japanese sales, the american numbers of the ps2 etc. are still outclassing. Yes there are reasons behind this, but you make it out to seem like this is better than microsoft could have ever done and under these circumstances its doing so incredibly well.
I beg to differ.
Then again, opinions are opinions and there are really no flat facts that disprove one argument or the other. This is just how i see things.
;)
-
This coming from someone who rarely makes a point, an attempt at rational discussion, and always dodges the question.
and this coming from someone who conveniently changes any subject when it fits him best
-
Originally posted by mm
and this coming from someone who conveniently changes any subject when it fits him best
Like what you\'re doing right there
:rolleyes:
-
Why do I get the impression that Nicon and Ginko are argueing about the same thing they are agreeing with?
-
why do i get the feeling that bozco and ginko are the same person?
:confused:
-
I predict you ll say that bozco unicron and ginko are the same person later :p
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
Yes unclear as to you making momentum your main argument. I said it was mentioned. One statement doesnt solidify the point of both past and present arguments. Jesus. The point is taken lets move on now.
Actually, I mentioned it twice. Once on the first page then again a few posts back. Check it out if you want...
The ps2 had a shortage and from what many said a semi poor set of launch games besides a few pretty good ones. Nothing that was supposed to be a killer app like the rumored GT2000, etc. The graphics were debatably better or worse than the already released dreamcast, and dev complaints as well as rumors of ps2\'s in superiority due to bottlenecks and 4megs of vram was always a common issue. Of course the only thing it really had going for it besides a few good games was its hype.
You\'re forgetting to mention that the PS2 would have the luxury of having the most successful console in history as its\' older brother. I believe the Playstation had well over 60 million units sold when the PS2 released. The large, casual consumer base, that Sony basically created, will move over. Sony made it cool to be a gamer, that\'s why their numbers sky rocketed during the Playstation years and why the PS2 was a success long before it was due.
The PS2 launch was dismal however Sony made another incredibly smart move. The PS2 had DVD support. Japan\'s DVD players were still very pricey so the fact that PS2 could play dvd\'s as well as play games put it on the fast track to success and buried the Dreamcast in Japan. Do I need to remind you that The Matrix was the number one seller for PS2 in Japan? The wait for games might have ticked off a few gamers but in the end Playstation 2 delivered. The mass market doesn\'t remember or doesn\'t care they had to wait a while because it paid off, Sony brought them the games again.
Dreamcast was DOA. It came out at an awkward time and would eventually be overtaken by the soon to be released consoles from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. The third party support was okay, still very cautious, and those that did develop for it jumped ship as soon as PS2 was released. Sega made way too many mistakes and it cost them their hardware business. That we can all agree on.
The hype on dolphin and xbox were nothing to laugh about with all the tech demos and rumored specs that were so much greater than the ps2\'s. Not to mention the xbox could do everything the ps2 could plus more except for backwards compatibility. The numbers far outclassed that of ps2\'s. Not to mention th fact that its pc architecture allowed plenty of pc devs to jump on the boat.
Not really a problem for Sony. By the time MS and Nintendo would release their consoles Sony already had around 30 millions PS2\'s and had just begun to hit its\' stride with games. Xbox and GC launch had some good games but they were going up against Gran Turismo 3, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy X, Jak & Daxter, etc.
The Xbox numbers might have outclassed PS2 but that\'s not enough. MS had to prove they could sell games before they would get more developer support.
Nintendo was up against their "kiddy" image, the format they choose, and a lack of developer support from 3rd parties.
The 64, had all sorts of hype going for it as well, not to mention that all of its previous consoles were highly regarded. 2 generations to be exact, when this time around, sony had one console under its belt (i admit a very good one but still one gen). Not only did the system boast double the power supposedly, it also had zero load times etc (and by this time everybody was far too aware of this issue with cd rom systems). The casual gaming population made little fuss about the pricing and the fact that the games were cartridges because there were so many pluses and damaging one was so much more difficult.
Hype can dwindle quite fast after the consumer realizes what they\'re getting. The N64 had record sales but quickly went down hill due to a lack of games. The casual gamer might not have made a big fuss about cartridge prices, even though PS games were cheaper, but developers sure spoke up and reacted. The N64 didn\'t have the 3rd party support because of the issues I mentioned earlier. The Playstation had many choices over what the N64 could offer and the Saturn was getting ready to lie down in its\' grave.
Often we forget how huge of a percentage the casual gaming population makes. We\'ve seen some crappy games go up on the top 20 sales list and this is all due to misinformed casual gamers. All this tech and specifics bull could barely matter any less to these people.
And those people make up a very large part of the Playstation audience. They might get persuaded by hype but in the end they\'ll always go where the games are. Sony\'s where it\'s at and until someone convinces them otherwise they aren\'t moving.
Sure ms didnt have the same set of advantages, etc. but the same advantages arent always needed. I cant remember a single launch game that looked anywhere below the level of ps2\'s middle tier games. There were many selling factors so dont make it out to be a case where xbox was going to sell this way from the get go. Lets not even talk about ps2\'s not so wonderful e3 outing a couple years back. Microsoft had plenty of opportunities to make for better sales.
Average joe doesn\'t know what E3 is. Again, Playstation and PS2 are where the games are and joe won\'t forget that. Xbox had alot of hype going in but the lack of software is what kept it from selling more than it could have. PS2 was releasing the big guns in 2001 and hasn\'t stopped since.
Games sell hardware, you can\'t dispute that. That\'s why the Playstation sold and that\'s why the PS2 dominates. Now we are seeing 3rd parties taking a chance on Xbox and it\'s paying off so MS is winning over developers and consumers. However, the PS2 isn\'t losing anything.
And they are gaining some foothold in the Japanese market. Of course Japan was never the main money maker. We were talking about american numbers previously and despite Japanese sales, the american numbers of the ps2 etc. are still outclassing. Yes there are reasons behind this, but you make it out to seem like this is better than microsoft could have ever done and under these circumstances its doing so incredibly well.
Last I checked Xbox had sold 1.4 million in Japan...I\'d say it\'s dead and MS would be stupid to keep pursuing them. What has changed since the 32-bit generation is the influence of Japanese developers. They no longer can claim to be the major factors in the outcome of a console, I think American developers have taken that spot with some of the best selling games on the planet. I think MS has made some improvements in Japanese developer support because they can make money, however I don\'t see the Japanese consumers buying into the MS brand anytime soon...their market indicates they are loyal to themselves.
I beg to differ.
Then again, opinions are opinions and there are really no flat facts that disprove one argument or the other. This is just how i see things.
;)
Differ you have but I think your arguement is full of misconceptions and inaccuracies. You\'ve gone as far to mention the average gamer\'s role in the success of a console then go on to mention things like E3 and tech specs that should have sold GC and Xbox. They don\'t play a role to joe gamer, and they definitely don\'t determine the success of a console.
In the end, only the games sell hardware. Can we agree on that?
-
Originally posted by mm
and this coming from someone who conveniently changes any subject when it fits him best
I haven\'t changed the subject, if anything I always make an attempt to answer your wild misconceptions which lead us off track.
-
In the end, only the games sell hardware. Can we agree on that?
no, hype sells
look at xbox
-
Originally posted by mm
no, hype sells
look at xbox
Hype gets you buyers in the beginning but it doesn\'t hold ground for long. Case in point is the N64. Lots of hype even record breaking sales but a lack of software due to less 3rd party support kept it from selling more.
EDIT: We both know that Halo sold Xbox.;)
The third party support has grown and so does the consumer base. Like I said, games sell hardware.
-
Originally posted by mm
why do i get the feeling that bozco and ginko are the same person?
:confused:
NAH.. its just that they are joined at the HIP or was that the rectum ? :p
-
Games aren\'t selling the Xbox, in my opinion. I\'d say the image does. It\'s cool and it\'s becoming mainstream. PS2 is becoming old and people are buying the newer, bigger, console.
It\'s an interesting trend heading into the next generation of hardware. With three companies going head-to-head for round two, it\'s going to get pretty messy.
Will Rockstar\'s importance fade as GTA gets older? Will Xbox 2 continue its momentum with a headstart on the PS3? And will Nintendo ever stop outselling third parties enough to make its system a contendor for number one?
-Dan
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
Games aren\'t selling the Xbox, in my opinion. I\'d say the image does. It\'s cool and it\'s becoming mainstream. PS2 is becoming old and people are buying the newer, bigger, console.
I\'d attribute the Xbox going mainstream due to most of any game you can find on PS2 you can now find on Xbox.
It\'s an interesting trend heading into the next generation of hardware. With three companies going head-to-head for round two, it\'s going to get pretty messy.
I\'ve heard two different stances on next gen. One is that there will hardly be any differences in performance and any success will be due to who has the better games, much like this gen. Second is that the hardware will be largely different from each other and we\'ll see a clear distinction between what\'s offered for each console. /shrugs
-
Well Ginko, we really cant argue on what the casual gamer knows and doesnt know and i guess thats a dead point for our arguments, as we disagree but cant verify too much. Unless there is some crazy source that i dont know of that proves one of our points.
Differ you have but I think your argument is full of misconceptions and inaccuracies. You\'ve gone as far to mention the average gamer\'s role in the success of a console then go on to mention things like E3 and tech specs that should have sold GC and Xbox.
You could say that but rumors and real writeups on the true power of these systems are in semi different leagues. I know plenty of casual gamers that have talked about specs etc. Casual gamers as we should remember dont just buy things without any knowledge whatsoever.
Often specs or estimated specs are posted on the net or in magazines which can easily be misconstrued and/or passed down by word of mouth. I cant begin to recall how many xbox and ps2 fanboys there were before xbox even came out (this is inbetween the launch of ps2 and before the launch of xbox. Even after). Lets not forget the crowd that microsoft pulls from pc gamers etc. Those that arent on the japanese superiority boat. So when i mention casual gamers and specs you cant assume that only hardcore or tech heads hear of it (in one way or another)
In the end, only the games sell hardware. Can we agree on that?
This we can agree on, but one\'s opinion on those games is another variable that we cant fully say or debate (though it does effect this argument). So like i said we can go about this all day and despite our arguments its obvious that we have differences in opinion. Opinions that cant be proven unless you have some magical source that proves such things.
Like i said before. Its a pretty silly debate. Interesting i suppose but silly. And to think all this started over a couple of numbers etc.
Meh.
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
Well Ginko, we really cant argue on what the casual gamer knows and doesnt know and i guess thats a dead point for our arguments, as we disagree but cant verify too much. Unless there is some crazy source that i dont know of that proves one of our points.
You could say that but rumors and real writeups on the true power of these systems are in semi different leagues. I know plenty of casual gamers that have talked about specs etc. Casual gamers as we should remember dont just buy things without any knowledge whatsoever.
Often specs or estimated specs are posted on the net or in magazines which can easily be misconstrued and/or passed down by word of mouth. I cant begin to recall how many xbox and ps2 fanboys there were before xbox even came out (this is inbetween the launch of ps2 and before the launch of xbox. Even after). Lets not forget the crowd that microsoft pulls from pc gamers etc. Those that arent on the japanese superiority boat. So when i mention casual gamers and specs you cant assume that only hardcore or tech heads hear of it (in one way or another)
I didn\'t suggest they are completely ignorant with their purchases. What I\'m saying is that they don\'t buy games based on tech specs or an e3 performance, those don\'t count when it comes to system longevity. Only the games will and 70+ million PS2\'s says Sony knows that and in the end tech specs, e3 performances, shortages, etc. don\'t matter.
If you don\'t agree then how would you explain that the N64 reached less than a third of the Playstation userbase for reason other than it didn\'t have the selection of games the competition had? Or why PS2 managed to sell 4-5 times as much as the competition?
-
They do count if you consider the hype they generate. The positive press which turns into good impressions which turns into word of mouth.
If no one ever hears of a game, no one will buy it. But you\'re right in the cases of those good games which are great but don\'t end up selling well. Hopefully Prince of Persia 2 will make back some of the money the first one missed out on. :)
-Dan
-
Originally posted by Ginko
I didn\'t suggest they are completely ignorant with their purchases. What I\'m saying is that they don\'t buy games based on tech specs or an e3 performance, those don\'t count when it comes to system longevity. Only the games will and 70+ million PS2\'s says Sony knows that and in the end tech specs, e3 performances, shortages, etc. don\'t matter.
If you don\'t agree then how would you explain that the N64 reached less than a third of the Playstation userbase for reason other than it didn\'t have the selection of games the competition had? Or why PS2 managed to sell 4-5 times as much as the competition?
Sigh* Cant rest on anything.
Like i said, i dissagree. I think that tech specs etc are known in some way by casual gamers either through magazines or word of mouth etc. Thats what hype is all about. Nobody looks at a system and doesnt wonder what it can do. Obviously its ability to produce good graphics is of their concern. I never said the games dont sell the systems. I actually said that the visuals were of really high quality for xbox and thus it was a semi high selling factor for casual gamers looking for the next best thing(its not the only factor of course). As long as the visuals and/or the premise seemed kool then people were drawn to it.
In the long run its a mixed bag of misinformation and information where if one company cant perform later on in the game department then it will falter. There are those people that still play off either the hype machine or the kool visual tip. I cant pull up a chart right now but like i said before, we\'ve seen some pretty mediocre games make it to the top 20 in sales because of these types of gamers. I never said that xbox/microsoft wasnt making any progress in this area, i just dont think its the stride that some people are making it out to be. This is what the original argument was, right?
We go off on these tangents that end up meaning little to the topic at hand. With the only real competitor being sony, microsoft should be selling more units. Like i said - its expected.
-
Originally posted by mm
why do i get the feeling that bozco and ginko are the same person?
:confused:
Well thanks for putting me on his level, but no. Pathetic accusation really
And whats this, yes, another dodge of a comment.
-
feel free to change the subject again to fit your needs
-
Table salt
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
Sigh* Cant rest on anything.
Like i said, i dissagree. I think that tech specs etc are known in some way by casual gamers either through magazines or word of mouth etc. Thats what hype is all about. Nobody looks at a system and doesnt wonder what it can do. Obviously its ability to produce good graphics is of their concern. I never said the games dont sell the systems. I actually said that the visuals were of really high quality for xbox and thus it was a semi high selling factor for casual gamers looking for the next best thing(its not the only factor of course). As long as the visuals and/or the premise seemed kool then people were drawn to it.
In the long run its a mixed bag of misinformation and information where if one company cant perform later on in the game department then it will falter. There are those people that still play off either the hype machine or the kool visual tip. I cant pull up a chart right now but like i said before, we\'ve seen some pretty mediocre games make it to the top 20 in sales because of these types of gamers. I never said that xbox/microsoft wasnt making any progress in this area, i just dont think its the stride that some people are making it out to be. This is what the original argument was, right?
I can agree with most of that except I don\'t think hype carries as much weight as you seem to be giving it. The life of the system depends on good games being continually released and Sony does that better than anyone else at the moment, that\'s what I attribute to their success.
We go off on these tangents that end up meaning little to the topic at hand. With the only real competitor being sony, microsoft should be selling more units. Like i said - its expected.
I\'m amazed that MS has managed to sell as much as they have, gain developers, and establish themselves...that\'s certainly progress for a company that just entered the business under three years ago, and against the giant that is Sony.
mm, still waiting for those answers of yours...I won\'t hold my breath though;)
...
Table salt?
-
im not suprised that MS has managed to sell as little as they have
m$ has established nothing (aside from losing billions of dollars). xbox 2 will need halo 3 to sell at all.
ginko, still waiting for you to change the topic again
-
Table salt isn\'t as good as rock salt. Thats a fact..
debate....
-
Originally posted by mm
im not suprised that MS has managed to sell as little as they have
m$ has established nothing (aside from losing billions of dollars). xbox 2 will need halo 3 to sell at all.
ginko, still waiting for you to change the topic again
You know, I just wanted to see what you\'re referring to and I couldn\'t find anything where I changed topic to avoid answering. But I did notice you did it quite a few times. I\'ve asked you directly, two or three times, to tell me what you were trying to prove about Halo and you never answered.
The thread started out as a numbers thread that turned into a Halo thread because of a comment made by ooseven. The thread has gone between disputing the quality of Halo and the numbers...so now I have to ask what changes you are talking about that I provoked?
-
One of the biggest reasons why PS2 sold and sells are some key titles that have gain popularity from the previous generation and the expectations carried by the brand name.
The XBOX doesnt sell because the gamers are changing trends.Its a matter of good marketing.MS can push the XBOX no matter how much they lose.At the end its still here.It showed a presence that seemed strong although it wasnt till it doesnt matter anymore.The consumers were buying it for the "delusion" of a strong presence, gained userbase slowly, gained more support and at the end it was pushed so much that it doesnt matter anymore.Its presence became strong as an end result.It was forced by MS\'s ability to take heavy loses.
It even surpassed Gamecube in sales.Its prsence as an end result is as strong in the industry as much as its competitors.
Originally posted by mm
no, hype sells
look at xbox
I dont know about you but I wish I had an XBOX for certain exclusive games and some multiplatform games that play better on XBOX than on PS2
It doesnt matter if hype helped it.The end result matters.I can say as easily as you did "hype sells, look at PS2"
-
Originally posted by Ginko
But I did notice you did it quite a few times. I\'ve asked you directly, two or three times, to tell me what you were trying to prove about Halo and you never answered.
Yea, I called him out on it and he even changed topic. *Yawn*
-
keep dancing boz, it amuses me
oh, and feel free to change the topic again to suit your needs
I dont know about you but I wish I had an XBOX for certain exclusive games and some multiplatform games that play better on XBOX than on PS2
It doesnt matter if hype helped it.The end result matters.I can say as easily as you did "hype sells, look at PS2"
70 million to 15 million in sales, bro
get a grip
The XBOX doesnt sell because the gamers are changing trends.
<--points right to fable
there\'s your damn trend, eat it up
It even surpassed Gamecube in sales
oooh, it sold ~500k more
thats just fantastic. how much profit did nintendo make on gamecube again?
Its prsence as an end result is as strong in the industry as much as its competitors.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mm
70 million to 15 million in sales, bro
get a grip
Doesnt proove anything.The same counts for GC and that doesnt mean Nintendo\'s failure.There are many factors that keep the PS2 up there.XBOX could never have been the PSX of this generation whatever the efforts.
<--points right to fable
there\'s your damn trend, eat it up
That\'s just one game that came only recently
oooh, it sold ~500k more
thats just fantastic. how much profit did nintendo make on gamecube again?
Its not the difference that count.My point here wasnt trying to proove XBOX a more succesful console.The point here is that XBOX is around the same levels GC is.XBOX and GC around the same levels=XBOX reaching a considerable signifigant number
When a consumer goes out in the marekt he will see XBOX and GC having similar presence.
What profit Nintendo or MS makes is irrelevant.The consumer\'s view only sees the "exogenous" figures in the market.Not "endogenous" figures in firms.The market determines the strenth of the presence of the product.This is one rare example where a product does well phenomenically in the market but with loses in the firm because MS can take the loses.
Also there are other reasons why MS loses more than Nintendo depiste having similar sales because these resons dont have necessarily to do with how well it sells.
:rolleyes: [/B]
I dont know if you have noticed but I took a neutral point of view. :rolleyes:
-
Doesnt proove anything.
actually, it proves everything
-
Actually you are wrong.
-
mm, you just repeated most of what you\'ve already said in this thread only you still haven\'t proven anything.
I\'m still waiting for you to come back around to answering my questions about Halo and now, since you made such a big deal about it, prove that I provoked a change in topic.
Good luck...
-
Originally posted by Ginko
Nobody ever said that Xbox would outsell PS2\'s total units. I\'ve already said this and I don\'t see why that\'s so hard to understand?
Xbox will never reach 70 million units. It\'s not possible. The Xbox is the ground work, MS has said this repeatedly. That\'s why "too little, too late" doesn\'t make any sense. The Xbox has established itself, with a userbase and a healthy amount of developer support, and has set up MS for next gen.
^Why is that hard to comprehend?
The PS2 is the successor the best selling console in history. Did anyone expect MS to take over in 3 years time? Are you out of your mind?
Actually, I think M$ had expected it to. Remember a couple of years ago when M$ conceded defeat for this generation to Sony, as they had "underestimated" them? And that they were shifting forcus to next generation? I believe they gave the reason of the fact that Sony had a year head start on them. Which also happened to be the first time that they stated that the XBox 2 would be out before the PS3. As they wouldn\'t give Sony the same chance (paraphrasing from memory).
This whole business of just being groundwork for the next generation hadn\'t even entered their minds until then. And countless people jumped on it and started screaming at anyone who whinged about XBox being nowhere near PS2\'s userbase "BUT MICROSOFT WERE NEVER TRYING TO BEAT SONY THIS GENERATION! ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD THINK THEY COULD OVERTAKE THEM" etc. etc. <-- I think that\'s an actual quote I found at TXB once. ;)
If you don\'t agree then how would you explain that the N64 reached less than a third of the Playstation userbase for reason other than it didn\'t have the selection of games the competition had?
Oh come on. There are many reasons as to why the N64 was much smaller. Eik raised a very good point. Sony introduced a whole new world of advertising and marketting to the table. Everything from well timed price-drops to the introduction of the platinum range (around the same time of the N64 launch, I believe) helped contribute greatly.
Though, a lack of games was another major contributor. Nintendo\'s many hardware mistakes (such as cart inclusion) drove developers away.
Dreamcast was DOA.
And that explains why it was the most successful console launch in history? ;)
Dammit, I didn\'t expect this entire post to be against you Ginky, but.. I couldn\'t find all the other quotes I was planning to argue against. :D
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
And that explains why it was the most successful console launch in history? ;)
At the time. Then PS2 came out. :p
-
I don\'t know much, but I know MS knows business and is a smart company. I doubt that they really expected to catch and beat Sony. I can\'t believe that they thought they could win when no one else in the industry nor any financial analyst gave them any chance at all to even succeed.
MS knew there\'d be growing pains and knew it was an investment. That statement that you mention BH, was more of a PR, rally the troops, please the stockholders type thing.
MS wouldn\'t be where they are (not only speaking of xbox) if they had such horrible expectations and market researchers. It doesn\'t make sense and just ain\'t true.
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
Actually, I think M$ had expected it to. Remember a couple of years ago when M$ conceded defeat for this generation to Sony, as they had "underestimated" them? And that they were shifting forcus to next generation? I believe they gave the reason of the fact that Sony had a year head start on them. Which also happened to be the first time that they stated that the XBox 2 would be out before the PS3. As they wouldn\'t give Sony the same chance (paraphrasing from memory).
You\'d have to pull some major quotage to have me believe that MS expected to start outselling PS2 from the get go or shortly after. It\'s a ridiculous thought when you compare what the Xbox had to offer in terms of games to what PS2 had and what was coming. I remember their projections being optimistic but hardly unbelievable and I think outselling the PS2 at the time was unbelievable.
This whole business of just being groundwork for the next generation hadn\'t even entered their minds until then. And countless people jumped on it and started screaming at anyone who whinged about XBox being nowhere near PS2\'s userbase "BUT MICROSOFT WERE NEVER TRYING TO BEAT SONY THIS GENERATION! ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD THINK THEY COULD OVERTAKE THEM" etc. etc. <-- I think that\'s an actual quote I found at TXB once. ;)
But the Xbox is the groundwork no matter how you look at it and that\'s obvious since the successor to the Xbox has been in development since the original released. I believe the initial plans included two consoles, correct? I\'ll go looking for some articles as I\'m not entirely sure myself.
Oh come on. There are many reasons as to why the N64 was much smaller. Eik raised a very good point. Sony introduced a whole new world of advertising and marketting to the table. Everything from well timed price-drops to the introduction of the platinum range (around the same time of the N64 launch, I believe) helped contribute greatly.
Though, a lack of games was another major contributor. Nintendo\'s many hardware mistakes (such as cart inclusion) drove developers away.
Well, if you look at it from a lack games, which I commented, then there\'s obviously a lack of developers and that has to do with the reasons I mentioned well over a page back that had to do with hardware and cartridge issues.
but thanks for reiterating my point?
And that explains why it was the most successful console launch in history? ;)
And before that the N64 was the most successful console launch in history, look what happened there. Games sell hardware and with developer support for the DC waiting on the fence so close to PS2...well, you know what happened.
Dammit, I didn\'t expect this entire post to be against you Ginky, but.. I couldn\'t find all the other quotes I was planning to argue against. :D
I just gave you some more to discuss:)
-
Found some articles for the Xbox forecast...
___________________________________________________
Rosoff agreed. "From everything I\'ve seen, Japan is a secondary market for Xbox. Microsoft is treating America as their primary market, and I think that\'s a reasonable decision," he said. "Sales of 4.5 (million) to 6 million units in a year is not insurmountable, with the majority of that coming from American sales. And I think those kind of numbers are enough to make them a major player in the market.
>>>Link<<< (http://news.com.com/2009-1040-275784.html?legacy=cnet)
November 15th, 2001
There was a forecast for 4.5 to 6 million, in one year, before the launch of the Xbox.
___________________________________________________
Microsoft last week reported that it had sold 3.9 million Xbox units worldwide during its 2002 fiscal year, which ended June 30, at the high end of lowered estimates the company gave after the console\'s disappointing debuts in Japan and Europe. Sales continue to be minimal in Japan, with the latest figures from research firm Dengeki showing year-to-date Xbox sales there at about 236,000, compared with 2.08 million PlayStation 2 units. The PlayStation 2, which launched a year before Xbox, has sold more than 30 million units worldwide.
>>>Link<<< (http://news.com.com/Price+cuts+boost+game+machine+sales/2100-1040_3-945834.html)
July 23rd, 2002
The 4.5 to 6 million number was actually for the end of MS\'s fiscal year, June 30th, 2002. MS came in short of the forecast at 3.9 million units sold.
___________________________________________________
Mitch Koch, vice president of retail sales for Microsoft\'s games division, said the company has sold 8 million Xbox units to date. With the holiday sales season over, Microsoft expects to sell about a million more by the end of the company\'s fiscal year June 30.
"We expect to finish our fiscal year with just over 9 million units sold worldwide," Koch said.
That would bring lifetime sales in line with the lower end of Microsoft estimates, which forecast an installed base of 9 million to 11 million Xbox units worldwide by the end of the fiscal year.
By contrast, market leader Sony announced earlier this week that worldwide shipments for its PlayStation 2 console had surpassed 50 million units.
>>>Link<<< (http://news.com.com/Microsoft+says+Xbox+sales+on+track/2100-1040_3-981178.html)
January 17th, 2003
A full 15 months after they launch they have sold 8 million Xbox\'s and expect a million more by June 30th 2003, bringing the total to 9 million, the lower end of the 9-11 million forecasted. Meanwhile Sony has shipped 50 million playstations.
___________________________________________________
I\'d find more links but I don\'t think I need to. MS believed they would do better in Japan and Europe and obviously that didn\'t happen. Japan, if you ask me, was a waste of time. Europe was a mess because the Xbox launched higher than the competition.
Bobo, as far as I can tell MS has just barely kept on track of their sales forecast but nowhere did I see evidence of MS stating they would outsell PS2 on any front. In fact, one of the links has a MS rep clearly stating that it will take time for them to break in, that was before the US launch.
Concerning whether or not MS had plans for a second console...
John O\'Rourke, marketing director for Microsoft\'s games division, said the company will spend that much to build out the network for online Xbox gaming and to fund research and development for the next version of the console and support for game developers.
>>>Link<<< (http://news.com.com/2100-1040-918460.html)
May 20th, 2002
Seven months after the launch of the Xbox there is already confirmation they are thinking about the successor to the Xbox. Now, as far as launch dates go, I did find an article saying MS wanted to launch the Xbox 2 in 2006 however it has changed since and they are now aiming for the end of 2005.
-
Boom! And arguments to the contrary go to peices.
What do you think you are doing Ginko? Around here, concerning xbox, facts are to be ignored or replaced by conjecture and half-truths. I\'m not sure, but this has to be against the forum regulations.
-
xbox has sold roughly 15 million units to date.
fact.
that is pathetic and laughable.
fact.
everything else is moot
-
Boom! And arguments to the contrary go to peices.
What do you think you are doing Ginko? Around here, concerning xbox, facts are to be ignored or replaced by conjecture and half-truths. I\'m not sure, but this has to be against the forum regulations.
I\'m sorry, sorry that I can\'t conform to shoveling loads of BS.;)
xbox has sold roughly 15 million units to date.
fact.
It\'s 15.5 million if you want to throw around facts.
that is pathetic and laughable.
fact.
everything else is moot
Not a fact. You\'re confusing your opinion with truth, or even rational thought for that matter.
You know what I think is pathetic? You come in here trying to pass your opinion as fact on whatever it is you were getting at with Halo, which you still have yet to explain, and the fact that you accused me of changing subjects to avoid discussion, which I called you out on, and you have yet to prove it.
That, sir, is pathetic and laughable. I think it deserves one of these ----> :laughing: ...maybe even two --->:laughing:
-
feel free to change to subject
i guess "roughly" is a strange word to you, boz.
15.5, wait maybe it\'s 15,593,183 units sold, is pathetic any way you wanna spin it.
stomping your feet and crying does not make one thing into another.
-
You still have yet to prove I\'ve changed the subject on any front, so repeating a false accusation does nothing for you.
It very well could be 15,593,183 and I\'m sure it\'s higher than that considering the last sales figures were from June. You want to throw around facts then I\'m going to hold you too it rather than let you downplay a figure. BTW, it\'s most common to round up when you have a decimal figure of .5 or greater.
What am I supposed to think when you say it\'s pathetic? You\'re far from credible as far as facts go and your opinion is worth less than nothing as far as I\'m concerned. The only way you\'ll get out of this thread not looking like a complete ass is to provide some sort of arguement, at least then I\'ll know you have a spine. You haven\'t proven anything in this thread, just like the other threads you\'ve been shut down in, other than you\'re incapable of providing an argument.
Where did you plan to go with calling me boz? I know you\'re into dead end accusations but seriously, that was dumb even for you.
-
Look how well I\'m doing at proving points^^^^^
-
i really miss the old days of console debate.
this new wave of false comparisons and changing topics at every whim is disheartening. i guess when you have nothing left to bring, this is what it comes to.
you have proved nil. taking what i say, twisting it around, and throwing it back at me is pathetic.
you bore me
:(
-
I missed old debates too. Nothing like debates with a few subtle and often non subtle insults thrown in.
-
well, it\'s not the subtle insults i miss so much as people who had some sort of wit or charisma.
it\'s like pstwo cloned himself
-
well, i\'m right... Rock salt ownz table salt. No one proved otherwise... So yea!!
-
I bore you? What do you think I\'m getting out of this? All you do is throw one of your regurgitated asanine statements and I refute it. I hardly consider them debates since you offer nothing in the way of an opposing arguement backed by facts. If anything it is that you\'ve proven to be an unreliable source of information by exaggerating dates and numbers.
The end result of any thread you participate in has become all too predictable, you begin to avoid the topic once you start to realize you have, and have had, nowhere to go then we end up with posts much like the last few you have in this thread.
You\'re on your way out without having proven anything. Pathetic this is the case with all the threads you have in Console Discussion.
-
mm, about 7 times now someone has called you out on changing the subject to fit your needs. We ask for you to prove otherwise and you ignore, ignore, ignore. You\'re a sad boring man. Then for you to start some complaint about console debate naming that as an issue. Wow, I wish you realized how big of a fool you\'re making yourself out to be.
-
and still, the table salt vs rock salt goes un debated.... what a was of time this thread is...
-
The old debates used to get really heated. Had to love them. Especially in the first 3 years. All the noobs and the fanboyism etc.
So much fun...
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
I don\'t know much, but I know MS knows business and is a smart company. I doubt that they really expected to catch and beat Sony. I can\'t believe that they thought they could win when no one else in the industry nor any financial analyst gave them any chance at all to even succeed.
MS knew there\'d be growing pains and knew it was an investment. That statement that you mention BH, was more of a PR, rally the troops, please the stockholders type thing.
MS wouldn\'t be where they are (not only speaking of xbox) if they had such horrible expectations and market researchers. It doesn\'t make sense and just ain\'t true.
I assume you remember the statement. Seems like an odd thing to say though, does it not? Won\'t make the same mistake again by giving Sony a two year head start? At the very least it implies they (quietly) expected to do a lot better than they did, or had forecast.
You\'d have to pull some major quotage to have me believe that MS expected to start outselling PS2 from the get go or shortly after. It\'s a ridiculous thought when you compare what the Xbox had to offer in terms of games to what PS2 had and what was coming. I remember their projections being optimistic but hardly unbelievable and I think outselling the PS2 at the time was unbelievable.
Read above. Perhaps if you, the master of quoting, could find the quote I\'m thinking of, it could clear up confusion - one way or another. Point is, an M$ rep stated that they underestimated Sony, and won\'t make the same mistake (allowing Sony a 2 year head start) next time around.
but thanks for reiterating my point?
Well.. I\'ll lean both ways. Lack of games, and a lack of decent marketting, 50/50?
since the successor to the Xbox has been in development since the original released.
Are you sure about that? Actually in developement, or just a plan? Oh, just read further down your next post, they mentioned it. Not quite \'in developement\', but.. yah. :)
And before that the N64 was the most successful console launch in history, look what happened there.
My point was that it was not dead on arrival, and a lot of factors lead to it\'s eventual demise.
And as far as I know, the N64 was a very successful console? 30+million, no? I take it that you\'re implying that the XBox was dead on arrival as well? ;);)
Bobo, as far as I can tell MS has just barely kept on track of their sales forecast but nowhere did I see evidence of MS stating they would outsell PS2 on any front.
As I\'ve already said, they didn\'t state it directly, rather they implied it. But, it\'s a silly arguement. :)
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
Read above. Perhaps if you, the master of quoting, could find the quote I\'m thinking of, it could clear up confusion - one way or another. Point is, an M$ rep stated that they underestimated Sony, and won\'t make the same mistake (allowing Sony a 2 year head start) next time around.
I looked for a quote and haven\'t come up with one yet...I think I know what you\'re talking about though which is why I\'ll keep looking. I just don\'t recall them saying they underestimated Sony...
Well.. I\'ll lean both ways. Lack of games, and a lack of decent marketting, 50/50?
I thought their marketing rocked for the 64, the games they were marketing were just too far and few between...
Are you sure about that? Actually in developement, or just a plan? Oh, just read further down your next post, they mentioned it. Not quite \'in developement\', but.. yah. :)
Seeing as how there was already funding going towards research only seven months after Xbox I\'d say that\'s more than an idea, in fact I\'d say it\'s in development.
My point was that it was not dead on arrival, and a lot of factors lead to it\'s eventual demise.
The DC actually did quite well, and if you remember I was a Dreamcast supporter back then, but I just couldn\'t see how they were going to compete with the upcoming systems. Sega had so many things going against them such as trying to get out of debt(and they did, but slowly), developer support wasn\'t what it should have been, and the system was underpowered compared to the next gen systems...it didn\'t keep me from enjoying my DC but it had me doubting its\' future.
And as far as I know, the N64 was a very successful console? 30+million, no? I take it that you\'re implying that the XBox was dead on arrival as well? ;);)
In that regard it was a succesful console, I believe it actually sold closer to 40 million, but Nintendo happened to lose quite a bit of support from developers and lost customers to the Playstation and it\'s in that regard I believe Nintendo, and the N64, was unsuccessful. Too bad the trend continues with the GC...
MS has gained developers throughout the past three years. Like I mentioned before, momentum.
As I\'ve already said, they didn\'t state it directly, rather they implied it. But, it\'s a silly arguement. :)
Ah, I see. The sales forecast I pulled up says they didn\'t expect to outsell Sony\'s total numbers and their initial sales forecast, and those after, clearly didn\'t indicate numbers to outsell Sony on a monthly basis either.
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
I assume you remember the statement. Seems like an odd thing to say though, does it not? Won\'t make the same mistake again by giving Sony a two year head start? At the very least it implies they (quietly) expected to do a lot better than they did, or had forecast.
Read above. Perhaps if you, the master of quoting, could find the quote I\'m thinking of, it could clear up confusion - one way or another. Point is, an M$ rep stated that they underestimated Sony, and won\'t make the same mistake (allowing Sony a 2 year head start) next time around.
Well.. I\'ll lean both ways. Lack of games, and a lack of decent marketting, 50/50?
Are you sure about that? Actually in developement, or just a plan? Oh, just read further down your next post, they mentioned it. Not quite \'in developement\', but.. yah. :)
My point was that it was not dead on arrival, and a lot of factors lead to it\'s eventual demise.
And as far as I know, the N64 was a very successful console? 30+million, no? I take it that you\'re implying that the XBox was dead on arrival as well? ;);)
As I\'ve already said, they didn\'t state it directly, rather they implied it. But, it\'s a silly arguement. :)
We\'re both specualting (and yes I do remember the statement), but I always thought it was an excuse for getting their asses handed to them by Sony--something to tell the shareholders. They could say, through no fault of our own or the hardware\'s, we are beaten. Had the playin feild been level (ie. same released date) things would have been different.
MS had little else back then. Had it been as competitive as it is now, I doubt you\'d\'ve heard a statement like this. But like I said, it\'s tough to say with any certainty, exactly what was going thorugh their minds.
I just tend to think that MS is where they are in the marketplace because they are a smart company who know business and you just don\'t get to where MS is, by thinking so simply and foolisly.
-
One thing we learned that, and we\'ll promise, is that they won\'t get a head start next time. And I\'ll just leave it at that.
-J Allard
I found that in a forum and the link was dead. The thread was dated September 10th, 2002. I\'ve searched CNet, Yahoo, TeamXbox, and the TeamXbox forums with no other results however I\'ll keep looking for the full article.
Perhaps I\'ll search this forum, it\'s bound to be in here...
EDIT: Doesn\'t seem to be here. Maybe it was accidentally deleted along with Console Debating...
Anyway, seeing as how that quote was given in September of 2002 I think it\'s a response to missing their initial sales forecast. I think it\'s a far fetch to even assume MS meant they would outsell Sony, especially when you have MS reps clearly stating it will take time to break in, and mind you that was before the console launched. I suppose you could say they underestimated Sony\'s momentum and that attributed to the missed sales forecast but that still doesn\'t imply that MS expected to outsell the PS2.
The only concrete evidence we have are the sales figures I posted and those do not indicate the Xbox outselling PS2. The forecast would have had to have been doubled.
-
ps3 already has a head start
-
Originally posted by mm
ps3 already has a head start
Ermmm...okay. Do you care to elaborate on that thought?
-
you + common sense = answer
i can further extend that equation if required
-
Your logic has been in question by quite a few people so rather than assume what you mean I\'d rather you spell it out for me, wouldn\'t want to twist your words around.;)
-
He\'s talking about the name brand loyalty and Sony\'s mind share.
Xbox is picking up steam in that department, though. Nintendo is the one with more to gain next gen, in my opinion.
-Dan
-
I know what he was getting at, I was another attempt to drag a discussion out him.
oh well...
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
and still, the table salt vs rock salt goes un debated.... what a was of time this thread is...
I prefer table salt over rock salt...the taste is just clearly better.
Microsoft is losing money on every console they sell, so hopefully in this next coming generation, they\'ll do a lot better...although I\'m not fond of Microsoft, but I\'ll give em a try if their next console isn\'t freakin\' gargantuan ;) I\'ve always loved Nintendo since I was like...4, so I will always support them, and I\'m glad they\'ve decided to get out of the "kids only" state of mind with their games.
I\'ve read so many posts on so many things, that I\'m afraid to write anymore...so I\'m just going to stop here, as I might get beaten down with no mercy, but it\'s fun to read all these arguements.
Opinions are opinions, no matter how awful or incorrect they may be if there is absolutely no base or facts for them at all. mm is just being mm, although when I see all these things he\'s been saying, and the proof or whatever that you\'re asking of him, I see no point to it all to begin with. Reading of this has given me a headache, although it has been enjoyable at the same time.
^^^^ What the hell?...I thought I wasn\'t going to comment...oh well...
-
Originally posted by EviscerationX
Opinions are opinions, no matter how awful or incorrect they may be if there is absolutely no base or facts for them at all. mm is just being mm, although when I see all these things he\'s been saying, and the proof or whatever that you\'re asking of him, I see no point to it all to begin with. Reading of this has given me a headache, although it has been enjoyable at the same time.
There\'s absolutely nothing to refute if he had left it as his opinion. I already forget exactly what he said but it was something to the effect of "I like how none of you can prove me wrong" as if he had stated a fact. I\'ve been asking him, along with bozco, what that fact is. Then there are the false accusations he\'s thrown at me and that he can\'t prove.
meh
EDIT: Here\'s the actual quote
originaly posted by mm
nice to see people have to resort to bailing out and calling me names instead of proving something. i love it.
I haven\'t bailed out, I probably called you some names, but I\'m still waiting to hear what you proved that we were supposed to argue.
-
^^^^^
Yes, I kind of lost track of that as well throughout the reading...