Is it worth it to get a 360 now?

I know that the console has a few years left, but do you think that Microsoft will stop support on it as quickly as the original Xbox?

I remember they stopped supporting it the day the 360 came out, and I just dont want that to happen again. Given the huge online

market though, I don't think they would do that.

I know that the console has a few years left, but do you think that Microsoft will stop support on it as quickly as the original Xbox?

I remember they stopped supporting it the day the 360 came out, and I just dont want that to happen again. Given the huge online

market though, I don't think they would do that.

gamerdew64

All of the consoles are looking to have a lifespan to at least 2011 and more than likely until 2012, that is looking more and more likely with the way technology is advancing...I'd wait until September to see if the rumored price drop occurs, and then I'd pick up a 60GB for 299, which will be really a great value considering the system's library of games.

Of course it is. The 360 has too many games coming out to die. The wii won't last long and the PS3 is an endangered species at the moment. Get a 360

Personally, I wouldn't. PS3 is just about to hit its strideDollar75

So I've been told for 18 months. :P

Anyway, I hate recommendation threads because a system purchase is such a personal thing, but in my humble opinion, you'd be insane not to strongly consider a 360 if you're thinking about going with an HD system. There's actually a deal on Dell right now where you can get an Elite for $299 and it comes with Forza 2 and MArvel Ultimate Alliance. Considering the library, that's the best value on the market buck for buck of any system available.

for sure wait a month to see if price drops come. there is no reason to buy when one is imminent. i dont know if the consoles will make it to 2012 as some have suggested; i think microsoft really enjoyed being first to market this round and i dont know if they will let that advantage slip away next time either.

still, you should be able to get in at a relatively cheap price with an already established library.

Based on available content its more worth it to get one now than it was on day one when there was very little available to enjoy on it.

People have this misconception that a console loses value over time. With the library expanding and being occupied by more and more A grade titles the console if anything increases in worth as it gets older.

Personally, I wouldn't. PS3 is just about to hit its strideDollar75

I agree I have a 360, but if you havent bought a console of this generation yet, get a PS3, its starting to come together into what Sony had wanted sooner, but it would probably be the best choice for your money.

I know that the console has a few years left, but do you think that Microsoft will stop support on it as quickly as the original Xbox?

I remember they stopped supporting it the day the 360 came out, and I just dont want that to happen again. Given the huge online

market though, I don't think they would do that.

gamerdew64

Well, there seem to be two questions here so I'll answere them one at a time.

Q) Is it worth getting a 360 now?

A) Take a look at the games. Do the games out justify buying a new console? Are you excited about Gears of War 2, Fable 2 or Too Human? If you don't care about the game, it's not worth it at all. If you love the games and are willing to pay the price of the console and online fee to play them, sure.

Q) Will Xbox 360 die within 5 minutes of Xbox 720 coming out?

A) Probably. Sony is the only one who's consoles live long beyond the launch of their successor. I would be suprized if Xbox 360 continues to be a viable platform for new games the day after Xbox 720 is released.

[QUOTE="Dollar75"]Personally, I wouldn't. PS3 is just about to hit its strideSacif

I agree I have a 360, but if you havent bought a console of this generation yet, get a PS3, its starting to come together into what Sony had wanted sooner, but it would probably be the best choice for your money.

I agree, mainly because Sony continues to support their consoles for such a long time. Hell, PS2 is still getting new games. Not just any new games, but big new games like it's own version of Ghost Busters and it has a rather prominent position in every game retailer. Microsoft is going to be hell bent on releasing Xbox 720 as soon as possible meaning that Xbox 360's life span is going to be pretty short just like Xbox's life span was short (a meer 4 years). At this point I suspect PS3 has at least twice as much life left in it as Xbox 360.

[QUOTE="Sacif"]

[QUOTE="Dollar75"]Personally, I wouldn't. PS3 is just about to hit its stridetrakem

I agree I have a 360, but if you havent bought a console of this generation yet, get a PS3, its starting to come together into what Sony had wanted sooner, but it would probably be the best choice for your money.

I agree, mainly because Sony continues to support their consoles for such a long time. Hell, PS2 is still getting new games. Not just any new games, but big new games like it's own version of Ghost Busters and it has a rather prominent position in every game retailer. Microsoft is going to be hell bent on releasing Xbox 720 as soon as possible meaning that Xbox 360's life span is going to be pretty short just like Xbox's life span was short (a meer 4 years). At this point I suspect PS3 has at least twice as much life left in it as Xbox 360.

Microsoft has already said that one of their biggest regrets was cutting off the Xbox's lifespan as shortyl as it did, and Sony definitely has regrets that it supported the PS2 for so long that it ate into the PS3's sales...Don't expect the next generation to play out exactly as this one.

[QUOTE="trakem"][QUOTE="Sacif"]

[QUOTE="Dollar75"]Personally, I wouldn't. PS3 is just about to hit its strideHiResDes

I agree I have a 360, but if you havent bought a console of this generation yet, get a PS3, its starting to come together into what Sony had wanted sooner, but it would probably be the best choice for your money.

I agree, mainly because Sony continues to support their consoles for such a long time. Hell, PS2 is still getting new games. Not just any new games, but big new games like it's own version of Ghost Busters and it has a rather prominent position in every game retailer. Microsoft is going to be hell bent on releasing Xbox 720 as soon as possible meaning that Xbox 360's life span is going to be pretty short just like Xbox's life span was short (a meer 4 years). At this point I suspect PS3 has at least twice as much life left in it as Xbox 360.

Microsoft has already said that one of their biggest regrets was cutting off the Xbox's lifespan as shortyl as it did, and Sony definitely has regrets that it supported the PS2 for so long that it ate into the PS3's sales...Don't expect the next generation to play out exactly as this one.

Microsoft regrets making Xbox's life span so short? Quite the opposite. They figure that the Xbox's short life span is the main thing that made the Xbox 360 a success. The fact that the Xbox 360 came out so shortly after the Xbox and that Xbox died pretty much instantly is what allowed Xbox 360 to become as much of a success as it is and Microsoft wants to make sure the same thing happens with Xbox 360's life span. They've made it clear they want Xbox 720 to come out first which tells you what kind of a life span to expect of Xbox 360.

As for PS3's life span, it's not like PS2 was the first Sony console to outlive the launch of it's successor. Hell, the PS1 lived on for how long? It was completely rediculous. I would be supprized of Sony drops the PS3 as soon as PS4 comes out.

Microsoft regrets making Xbox's life span so short? Quite the opposite. They figure that the Xbox's short life span is the main thing that made the Xbox 360 a success. The fact that the Xbox 360 came out so shortly after the Xbox and that Xbox died pretty much instantly is what allowed Xbox 360 to become as much of a success as it is and Microsoft wants to make sure the same thing happens with Xbox 360's life span. They've made it clear they want Xbox 720 to come out first which tells you what kind of a life span to expect of Xbox 360.

As for PS3's life span, it's not like PS2 was the first Sony console to outlive the launch of it's successor. Hell, the PS1 lived on for how long? It was completely rediculous. I would be supprized of Sony drops the PS3 as soon as PS4 comes out.

trakem

I think they regret that they had to kill off a machine that they never made money on prematurely... definitely. Oddly enough, Sony finds themselves in a similar position this go around, with superior (allegedly) tech and it not seeming to make the difference they expected it to. Sony and its fans would be wise to study why Microsoft bailed out prematurely last generation and note similarities between the Xbox and the PS3.

As for your assertion that Sony consoles last long term, it'll be interesting to see how the PS3 fares in this regard. Both the PS1 and the PS2 were kings of their respective eras. It's very easy to make a long-term system when this is the case. The situation for the PS3 is vastly different. So far this generation, Sony has been reactive to other companies instead of setting the bar. They are trying to emulate the 360's online plan, while trying to emulate Nintendo's first-party dominance, and depending on how you view the sales numbers, may or may not be doing a very good job at either. Regardless, I don't think there's any way to paint Sony as a leader this generation in the purest sense of the word -- they're following paths others have forged, and while there's nothing wrong with that, it does pose the question that when Microsoft launches the next-generation Xbox whether or not Sony will have to counter with a system of their own, or be late to the party as they were this generation. If I was a betting man, I'd bet a few paychecks that Sony does everything in their power to launch a new system in the same calendar year as Microsoft does. They'd be stupid not to.

I'll end the post with this one question: Has there ever been a long-term second or third-place system?

[QUOTE="trakem"]

Microsoft regrets making Xbox's life span so short? Quite the opposite. They figure that the Xbox's short life span is the main thing that made the Xbox 360 a success. The fact that the Xbox 360 came out so shortly after the Xbox and that Xbox died pretty much instantly is what allowed Xbox 360 to become as much of a success as it is and Microsoft wants to make sure the same thing happens with Xbox 360's life span. They've made it clear they want Xbox 720 to come out first which tells you what kind of a life span to expect of Xbox 360.

As for PS3's life span, it's not like PS2 was the first Sony console to outlive the launch of it's successor. Hell, the PS1 lived on for how long? It was completely rediculous. I would be supprized of Sony drops the PS3 as soon as PS4 comes out.

Shame-usBlackley

I think they regret that they had to kill off a machine that they never made money on prematurely... definitely. Oddly enough, Sony finds themselves in a similar position this go around, with superior (allegedly) tech and it not seeming to make the difference they expected it to. Sony and its fans would be wise to study why Microsoft bailed out prematurely last generation and note similarities between the Xbox and the PS3.

As for your assertion that Sony consoles last long term, it'll be interesting to see how the PS3 fares in this regard. Both the PS1 and the PS2 were kings of their respective eras. It's very easy to make a long-term system when this is the case. The situation for the PS3 is vastly different. So far this generation, Sony has been reactive to other companies instead of setting the bar. They are trying to emulate the 360's online plan, while trying to emulate Nintendo's first-party dominance, and depending on how you view the sales numbers, may or may not be doing a very good job at either. Regardless, I don't think there's any way to paint Sony as a leader this generation in the purest sense of the word -- they're following paths others have forged, and while there's nothing wrong with that, it does pose the question that when Microsoft launches the next-generation Xbox whether or not Sony will have to counter with a system of their own, or be late to the party as they were this generation. If I was a betting man, I'd bet a few paychecks that Sony does everything in their power to launch a new system in the same calendar year as Microsoft does. They'd be stupid not to.

I'll end the post with this one question: Has there ever been a long-term second or third-place system?

As far as I know, Sony is the ONLY ones who have ever made their console last past the release of it's successor. SNES was the big console of it's day but it died instantly when the N64 came out. Same thing goes for the NES. Clearly, being in 1st place doesn't mean your console will live past the launch of the next one. Not even close. History repeates it's self, and so far the only console maker in history to make their platform outlast the launch of the successor is Sony and they've done it every time.

As for who is in the lead, Nintendo is clearly absolutely moping the floor with Sony and Microsoft. There is no question about this. Don't believe me? Look at the sales numbers. They speak for themselves. As far whether Microsoft or Sony will make 2nd place, hard to say. Right now, PS3 is outselling the Xbox 360 but that could change and Xbox 360 does have a lead right now. Hard to tell if they will lose that lead or not.

[QUOTE="trakem"]

Microsoft regrets making Xbox's life span so short? Quite the opposite. They figure that the Xbox's short life span is the main thing that made the Xbox 360 a success. The fact that the Xbox 360 came out so shortly after the Xbox and that Xbox died pretty much instantly is what allowed Xbox 360 to become as much of a success as it is and Microsoft wants to make sure the same thing happens with Xbox 360's life span. They've made it clear they want Xbox 720 to come out first which tells you what kind of a life span to expect of Xbox 360.

As for PS3's life span, it's not like PS2 was the first Sony console to outlive the launch of it's successor. Hell, the PS1 lived on for how long? It was completely rediculous. I would be supprized of Sony drops the PS3 as soon as PS4 comes out.

Shame-usBlackley

I think they regret that they had to kill off a machine that they never made money on prematurely... definitely. Oddly enough, Sony finds themselves in a similar position this go around, with superior (allegedly) tech and it not seeming to make the difference they expected it to. Sony and its fans would be wise to study why Microsoft bailed out prematurely last generation and note similarities between the Xbox and the PS3.

As for your assertion that Sony consoles last long term, it'll be interesting to see how the PS3 fares in this regard. Both the PS1 and the PS2 were kings of their respective eras. It's very easy to make a long-term system when this is the case. The situation for the PS3 is vastly different. So far this generation, Sony has been reactive to other companies instead of setting the bar. They are trying to emulate the 360's online plan, while trying to emulate Nintendo's first-party dominance, and depending on how you view the sales numbers, may or may not be doing a very good job at either. Regardless, I don't think there's any way to paint Sony as a leader this generation in the purest sense of the word -- they're following paths others have forged, and while there's nothing wrong with that, it does pose the question that when Microsoft launches the next-generation Xbox whether or not Sony will have to counter with a system of their own, or be late to the party as they were this generation. If I was a betting man, I'd bet a few paychecks that Sony does everything in their power to launch a new system in the same calendar year as Microsoft does. They'd be stupid not to.

The big problem with the XBox wasn't the sales, it was the fact that component costs were so high MS couldn't get to profitability. Sales got a lot stronger with time (at least in the US, the XBox was running neck and neck with the PS2 towards the end) but the only profitable quarter the Xbox saw was the one in which Halo 2 hit. Will the PS3 always lose money for Sony (yes, the PS3 will have always been a net money loser for Sony due to the massive initial loss, but will it continue to lose money on a quarterly/yearly basis?)? Time will tell.

I agree Sony is trying to emulate XBL, though I am grateful that A) they are big believers in dedicated servers B) not believers in charging me money to play online. Your claim that Sony is seeking to emulate Nintendo is bizarre. Since the PS1 days Sony has been a big believer in in-house talent. The fact that third parties are offering fewer exclusives makes Sony's in-house talent more important than ever though.

Also, Sony would be insane to launch a new system in the same calendar year as MS (given MS's Wii-envy, 2009 wouldn't shock me). As you yourself have acknowledged in other threads, the X360's sales have never been wildly impressive, so I don't think the PS3's modest sales can be blamed on the early launch of the X360 (if Sony had done everything the same but the PS3 hit at $400 it would have been fine vi a vi the X360). The best thing for Sony to do is continue to cut the price of the PS3 so it takes the 'mass market core system' slot the PS2 currently occupies and let MS launch a new system at a high price and recapture the same audience it did with the X360. Sony can afford to give MS a year's head start (2 might be pushing it) since time demonstrates its at least a year into a generation before most major developers have anything interesting to offer. Just make sure the system hits the ground running with a reasonable price ($300 has worked rather well) and a decent library.

As far as I know, Sony is the ONLY ones who have ever made their console last past the release of it's successor. SNES was the big console of it's day but it died instantly when the N64 came out. Same thing goes for the NES. Clearly, being in 1st place doesn't mean your console will live past the launch of the next one. Not even close. History repeates it's self, and so far the only console maker in history to make their platform outlast the launch of the successor is Sony and they've done it every time.

As for who is in the lead, Nintendo is clearly absolutely moping the floor with Sony and Microsoft. There is no question about this. Don't believe me? Look at the sales numbers. They speak for themselves. As far whether Microsoft or Sony will make 2nd place, hard to say. Right now, PS3 is outselling the Xbox 360 but that could change and Xbox 360 does have a lead right now. Hard to tell if they will lose that lead or not.

trakem

Both the NES and SNES lived well into the lifespan of their successors. The SNES ever moreso, because the N64 stumbled out of the gate late and with expensive games.

[QUOTE="trakem"]

As far as I know, Sony is the ONLY ones who have ever made their console last past the release of it's successor. SNES was the big console of it's day but it died instantly when the N64 came out. Same thing goes for the NES. Clearly, being in 1st place doesn't mean your console will live past the launch of the next one. Not even close. History repeates it's self, and so far the only console maker in history to make their platform outlast the launch of the successor is Sony and they've done it every time.

As for who is in the lead, Nintendo is clearly absolutely moping the floor with Sony and Microsoft. There is no question about this. Don't believe me? Look at the sales numbers. They speak for themselves. As far whether Microsoft or Sony will make 2nd place, hard to say. Right now, PS3 is outselling the Xbox 360 but that could change and Xbox 360 does have a lead right now. Hard to tell if they will lose that lead or not.

Shame-usBlackley

Both the NES and SNES lived well into the lifespan of their successors. The SNES ever moreso, because the N64 stumbled out of the gate late and with expensive games.

What games did they get after the launch of their successor?

The big problem with the XBox wasn't the sales, it was the fact that component costs were so high MS couldn't get to profitability. Sales got a lot stronger with time (at least in the US, the XBox was running neck and neck with the PS2 towards the end) but the only profitable quarter the Xbox saw was the one in which Halo 2 hit. Will the PS3 always lose money for Sony (yes, the PS3 will have always been a net money loser for Sony due to the massive initial loss, but will it continue to lose money on a quarterly/yearly basis?)? Time will tell.

I agree Sony is trying to emulate XBL, though I am grateful that A) they are big believers in dedicated servers B) not believers in charging me money to play online. Your claim that Sony is seeking to emulate Nintendo is bizarre. Since the PS1 days Sony has been a big believer in in-house talent. The fact that third parties are offering fewer exclusives makes Sony's in-house talent more important than ever though.

Also, Sony would be insane to launch a new system in the same calendar year as MS (given MS's Wii-envy, 2009 wouldn't shock me). As you yourself have acknowledged in other threads, the X360's sales have never been wildly impressive, so I don't think the PS3's modest sales can be blamed on the early launch of the X360 (if Sony had done everything the same but the PS3 hit at $400 it would have been fine vi a vi the X360). The best thing for Sony to do is continue to cut the price of the PS3 so it takes the 'mass market core system' slot the PS2 currently occupies and let MS launch a new system at a high price and recapture the same audience it did with the X360. Sony can afford to give MS a year's head start (2 might be pushing it) since time demonstrates its at least a year into a generation before most major developers have anything interesting to offer. Just make sure the system hits the ground running with a reasonable price ($300 has worked rather well) and a decent library.

CarnageHeart

Component costs were a factor, sure, but the system never stood a chance. It peaked at 25 million and was losing marketshare despite drastic price cutting. I attribute the price drops (which goes part and parcel with the component costs) as the culprit behind it more than just the cost of the components themselves. If Microsoft had ever gotten out from behind the 8 ball, they might not have had to drop the price of premium hardware to the levels of less powerful, older hardware to compete. This scenario sounds familiar, doesn't it? Save for the fact that Sony controls its components to a large degree.

Sony has become more and more first-party reliant. Jack Tretton has said as much in recent interviews. He's right, though. The third-party exclusive is a dying breed, so Sony has to make inroads to have something that differentiates them from the competition. I didn't say the first-parties weren't important, only that Sony is following a very first-party-centric plan, not unlike Nintendo's, while Microsoft seems to be heavily courting third-parties and netting good results from doing so (timed exclusives or just plain exclusives period, marketing support, development support).

I totally disagree on the last paragraph. Sony could afford to show up late once, the second time will land them on their ass. There has been a huge shift in how the Xbox is viewed (it's now a system that can replace Playstation product ownership entirely, where the first system was largely seen as a platform for exclusives the PS2 either couldn't run or somehow didn't get). Microsoft has managed to make huge inroads into the public eye as far as making the Xbox a household name, and that isn't a good thing for Sony no matter what.

As for your belief that PS2 fans are going to sit idly by for three or four or however many years it takes the PS3 to get to the "mass market core system" price, I'll believe that when I see it. Has any system's fortunes changed drastically after the three year mark? The second? The first? Finding stable benchmarks in the video game market isn't exactly, easy, but there are some historical trends that have never been bucked. This is one of them. Trying to compare what drew hundreds of millions of people to the PS2 in the same breath as the PS3 seems off to me, but whatever. The two systems couldn't be more different as far as I'm concerned, and that's covering from the way they launched all the way into the same points in their respective lives. At 19 months in, the PS2 owned the market. It wasn't even a contest. I see a much different landscape this time around.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

The big problem with the XBox wasn't the sales, it was the fact that component costs were so high MS couldn't get to profitability. Sales got a lot stronger with time (at least in the US, the XBox was running neck and neck with the PS2 towards the end) but the only profitable quarter the Xbox saw was the one in which Halo 2 hit. Will the PS3 always lose money for Sony (yes, the PS3 will have always been a net money loser for Sony due to the massive initial loss, but will it continue to lose money on a quarterly/yearly basis?)? Time will tell.

I agree Sony is trying to emulate XBL, though I am grateful that A) they are big believers in dedicated servers B) not believers in charging me money to play online. Your claim that Sony is seeking to emulate Nintendo is bizarre. Since the PS1 days Sony has been a big believer in in-house talent. The fact that third parties are offering fewer exclusives makes Sony's in-house talent more important than ever though.

Also, Sony would be insane to launch a new system in the same calendar year as MS (given MS's Wii-envy, 2009 wouldn't shock me). As you yourself have acknowledged in other threads, the X360's sales have never been wildly impressive, so I don't think the PS3's modest sales can be blamed on the early launch of the X360 (if Sony had done everything the same but the PS3 hit at $400 it would have been fine vi a vi the X360). The best thing for Sony to do is continue to cut the price of the PS3 so it takes the 'mass market core system' slot the PS2 currently occupies and let MS launch a new system at a high price and recapture the same audience it did with the X360. Sony can afford to give MS a year's head start (2 might be pushing it) since time demonstrates its at least a year into a generation before most major developers have anything interesting to offer. Just make sure the system hits the ground running with a reasonable price ($300 has worked rather well) and a decent library.

Shame-usBlackley

Component costs were a factor, sure, but the system never stood a chance. It peaked at 25 million and was losing marketshare despite drastic price cutting. I attribute the price drops (which goes part and parcel with the component costs) as the culprit behind it more than just the cost of the components themselves. If Microsoft had ever gotten out from behind the 8 ball, they might not have had to drop the price of premium hardware to the levels of less powerful, older hardware to compete. This scenario sounds familiar, doesn't it? Save for the fact that Sony controls its components to a large degree.

Sony has become more and more first-party reliant. Jack Tretton has said as much in recent interviews. He's right, though. The third-party exclusive is a dying breed, so Sony has to make inroads to have something that differentiates them from the competition. I didn't say the first-parties weren't important, only that Sony is following a very first-party-centric plan, not unlike Nintendo's, while Microsoft seems to be heavily courting third-parties and netting good results from doing so (timed exclusives or just plain exclusives period, marketing support, development support).

I totally disagree on the last paragraph. Sony could afford to show up late once, the second time will land them on their ass. There has been a huge shift in how the Xbox is viewed (it's now a system that can replace Playstation product ownership entirely, where the first system was largely seen as a platform for exclusives the PS2 either couldn't run or somehow didn't get). Microsoft has managed to make huge inroads into the public eye as far as making the Xbox a household name, and that isn't a good thing for Sony no matter what.

As for your belief that PS2 fans are going to sit idly by for three or four or however many years it takes the PS3 to get to the "mass market core system" price, I'll believe that when I see it. Has any system's fortunes changed drastically after the three year mark? The second? The first? Finding stable benchmarks in the video game market isn't exactly, easy, but there are some historical trends that have never been bucked. This is one of them. Trying to compare what drew hundreds of millions of people to the PS2 in the same breath as the PS3 seems off to me, but whatever. The two systems couldn't be more different as far as I'm concerned, and that's covering from the way they launched all the way into the same points in their respective lives. At 19 months in, the PS2 owned the market. It wasn't even a contest. I see a much different landscape this time around.

At the time MS axed the Xbox, the Xbox was weak in Europe, next to non-existent in Japan and strong in America. One generation later, the X360 is weak in Europe, next to non-existent in Japan and strong in America. MS's move didn't improve its position, its just that Sony worsened their position (largely through the initial price point, though that now vanished price point has repurcussions which are still being felt).

Also, I am not arguing the importance of first vs third parties (third parties are more important, at least for hardcore gamers). My point is Sony's strategy is very unlike Nintendo's. Nintendo as a hardcore game maker is risk adverse (after the first year, sequels and spinoffs were all one saw on the GC and sequels and spinoffs are all one has seen from them on the Wii) whereas Sony releases safe sequels but also has no problem with risk.

Last but not least the PS3 will never put up the numbers of the PS1 and PS2 is true, but that doesn't mean that Sony making the system more affordable (as opposed to rushing out new hardware) wouldn't increase sales and would be a much more sensible strategy than rushing out new hardware.

At the time MS axed the Xbox, the Xbox was weak in Europe, next to non-existent in Japan and strong in America. One generation later, the X360 is weak in Europe, next to non-existent in Japan and strong in America. MS's move didn't improve its position, its just that Sony worsened their position (largely through the initial price point, though that now vanished price point has repurcussions which are still being felt).

CarnageHeart

That won't hold up much longer. Perhaps Japan will never change, but the extra and unprecedented Japanese support and having taken the RPG genre away from Sony to go along with a lower price point, will pay more dividends for the X360 as this generation wears on. Brand loyalty has its limit. Blu-Ray being firmly established as the next gen media format is what will keep Sony afloat. Its quite possible neither side will blow the other out.

The biggest problem with the XB360 is hardware reliability. The Falcon's seem to run much cooler and offer better stability but regardless, the XB360 was a shoddy console in terms of design. It really is one of the most unreliable systems ever made.

That said, the XB360 gets just about everything else right as far as I'm concerned. It offers a vastly superior experience to either the PS3 or the Wii, both of which I own. It simply has the library and the features needed to be the dominant console.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

At the time MS axed the Xbox, the Xbox was weak in Europe, next to non-existent in Japan and strong in America. One generation later, the X360 is weak in Europe, next to non-existent in Japan and strong in America. MS's move didn't improve its position, its just that Sony worsened their position (largely through the initial price point, though that now vanished price point has repurcussions which are still being felt).

MarcusAntonius

That won't hold up much longer. Perhaps Japan will never change, but the extra and unprecedented Japanese support and having taken the RPG genre away from Sony to go along with a lower price point, will pay more dividends for the X360 as this generation wears on. Brand loyalty has its limit. Blu-Ray being firmly established as the next gen media format is what will keep Sony afloat. Its quite possible neither side will blow the other out.

Brand loyalty doesn't have much to do with the X360's predicament outside of Japan, and in Japan its impact is limited (hardcore gaming is dying in Japan).

In the last Gen,Microsoft weren´t as successful as they are today.They are making money now,so why should they.

Plus I smell many fanboys here.IMO the PS3 still have a hard time coming up with anything but nice announcements (did someone mention the word Paper Tiger?),but not egnough to make it worth the money and the Wii...well,paying 250 Bucks for a console which collects dust after 2 weeks because almost no serious games are out is not a option as "main-console" I think.Not forgetting the 3 Wii-ostes for your friends,plus Controller Add-on,plus the new Motion-Sensor...

The biggest problem with the XB360 is hardware reliability. The Falcon's seem to run much cooler and offer better stability but regardless, the XB360 was a shoddy console in terms of design. It really is one of the most unreliable systems ever made.

That said, the XB360 gets just about everything else right as far as I'm concerned. It offers a vastly superior experience to either the PS3 or the Wii, both of which I own. It simply has the library and the features needed to be the dominant console.

Grammaton-Cleric

That's pretty much spot-on as far as I'm concerned.

And while I'd say the 360 is quite a bit worse as far as reliability goes, the PS2 wasn't a sweetheart. Sony even had a class-action suit filed against them for the PS2 failure rate. The reason I point this out is that while the 360 is certainly no PS2, it's entirely possible for shoddy hardware to be unbelievably successful, while well-made systems (the Cube, the PSP) are met with indifference or mediocrity.

In the last Gen,Microsoft weren´t as successful as they are today.They are making money now,so why should they.

Plus I smell many fanboys here.IMO the PS3 still have a hard time coming up with anything but nice announcements (did someone mention the word Paper Tiger?),but not egnough to make it worth the money and the Wii...well,paying 250 Bucks for a console which collects dust after 2 weeks because almost no serious games are out is not a option as "main-console" I think.Not forgetting the 3 Wii-ostes for your friends,plus Controller Add-on,plus the new Motion-Sensor...

Ash2X

I would agree with you if it wasn't for MS's infatuation with the Wii. Heck, 80% of their E3 press conference was dedicated to MS's efforts to make the X360 more Wii-like. If you think that infatuation won't color their hardware strategy/release timing, well, I hope you are right, though that's a bet I wouldn't make.

At the time MS axed the Xbox, the Xbox was weak in Europe, next to non-existent in Japan and strong in America. One generation later, the X360 is weak in Europe, next to non-existent in Japan and strong in America. MS's move didn't improve its position, its just that Sony worsened their position (largely through the initial price point, though that now vanished price point has repurcussions which are still being felt).

Also, I am not arguing the importance of first vs third parties (third parties are more important, at least for hardcore gamers). My point is Sony's strategy is very unlike Nintendo's. Nintendo as a hardcore game maker is risk adverse (after the first year, sequels and spinoffs were all one saw on the GC and sequels and spinoffs are all one has seen from them on the Wii) whereas Sony releases safe sequels but also has no problem with risk.

Last but not least the PS3 will never put up the numbers of the PS1 and PS2 is true, but that doesn't mean that Sony making the system more affordable (as opposed to rushing out new hardware) wouldn't increase sales and would be a much more sensible strategy than rushing out new hardware.

CarnageHeart

The 360 this time is the dominant HD console in America, by millions of systems. There's a big difference there. And while the Netherlands and Italy may not be pro-360, the UK (the biggest territory for gaming in Europe) is. Even in Japan, the 360 has already outsold the original Xbox, in less than half the time. I'm not calling this "success," but it's clear upward momentum, even in spite of all of Microsoft's missteps.

And I'm all for Sony making the system more affordable. I hold Sony personally accountable for what's happening right now in the market with the Wii. I believe had Sony been a responsible heir apparent, they'd have brought out something less fantastical with the PS3 and kept the price reasonable (let's not forget Sony's first E3 conference against Sega, where all they did was walk on stage and say "$299" and walk off). Regardless of price-cutting, it's more about perception now. The perception is that the PS3 is expensive, which is true. The perception is that its exclusive lineup eroded, which is also true. They're now in the unenviable position of trying to sell a still too-expensive system on Sony exclusives, most of which haven't shown up yet (Killzone, God of War). But I think the main problem is that while Sony's first-party stuff is generally pretty good, that isn't what sold Playstations before. I knew far more people who bought a Playstation for Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, and other titles than people who bought one for Ico, Colossus, or even God of War. The good news for Sony is that while their exclusives have eroded, they haven't left entirely. Sony's system is STILL getting the games, so there's that. I also think that Sony has done a piss-poor job of selling the public on the system (the attitude at launch was one of "of course you want one -- it's a Playstation!") and now that that hasn't worked, they haven't really done much to pull people in. I almost never see ads for the system. When I watch the stupid shows on G4, I see things Xbox, not Playstation. I see Adam Pereira holding a 360 controller, not a Dual Shock. I see a horrible show on competitive gaming calling the stage the "Xbox Stadium."

I'm not saying the system is doomed or anything, but if their goal is to beat Microsoft, who is also on target to sell about 30-35 million systems this generation, then they've already admitted defeat. Microsoft can walk away chalking up to the generation as a victory -- one where they gained mindshare and support, went up against the goliath and not only didn't lose, but left him bloody and bruised. 30-35 million units with the above is a clear victory for Microsoft. 30-35 million units for Sony is an unmitigated disaster considering where they came from.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

At the time MS axed the Xbox, the Xbox was weak in Europe, next to non-existent in Japan and strong in America. One generation later, the X360 is weak in Europe, next to non-existent in Japan and strong in America. MS's move didn't improve its position, its just that Sony worsened their position (largely through the initial price point, though that now vanished price point has repurcussions which are still being felt).

Also, I am not arguing the importance of first vs third parties (third parties are more important, at least for hardcore gamers). My point is Sony's strategy is very unlike Nintendo's. Nintendo as a hardcore game maker is risk adverse (after the first year, sequels and spinoffs were all one saw on the GC and sequels and spinoffs are all one has seen from them on the Wii) whereas Sony releases safe sequels but also has no problem with risk.

Last but not least the PS3 will never put up the numbers of the PS1 and PS2 is true, but that doesn't mean that Sony making the system more affordable (as opposed to rushing out new hardware) wouldn't increase sales and would be a much more sensible strategy than rushing out new hardware.

Shame-usBlackley

The 360 this time is the dominant HD console in America, by millions of systems. There's a big difference there. And while the Netherlands and Italy may not be pro-360, the UK (the biggest territory for gaming in Europe) is. Even in Japan, the 360 has already outsold the original Xbox, in less than half the time. I'm not calling this "success," but it's clear upward momentum, even in spite of all of Microsoft's missteps.

And I'm all for Sony making the system more affordable. I hold Sony personally accountable for what's happening right now in the market with the Wii. I believe had Sony been a responsible heir apparent, they'd have brought out something less fantastical with the PS3 and kept the price reasonable (let's not forget Sony's first E3 conference against Sega, where all they did was walk on stage and say "$299" and walk off). Regardless of price-cutting, it's more about perception now. The perception is that the PS3 is expensive, which is true. The perception is that its exclusive lineup eroded, which is also true. They're now in the unenviable position of trying to sell a still too-expensive system on Sony exclusives, most of which haven't shown up yet (Killzone, God of War). But I think the main problem is that while Sony's first-party stuff is generally pretty good, that isn't what sold Playstations before. I knew far more people who bought a Playstation for Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, and other titles than people who bought one for Ico, Colossus, or even God of War. The good news for Sony is that while their exclusives have eroded, they haven't left entirely. Sony's system is STILL getting the games, so there's that. I also think that Sony has done a piss-poor job of selling the public on the system (the attitude at launch was one of "of course you want one -- it's a Playstation!") and now that that hasn't worked, they haven't really done much to pull people in. I almost never see ads for the system. When I watch the stupid shows on G4, I see things Xbox, not Playstation. I see Adam Pereira holding a 360 controller, not a Dual Shock. I see a horrible show on competitive gaming calling the stage the "Xbox Stadium."

I'm not saying the system is doomed or anything, but if their goal is to beat Microsoft, who is also on target to sell about 30-35 million systems this generation, then they've already admitted defeat. Microsoft can walk away chalking up to the generation as a victory -- one where they gained mindshare and support, went up against the goliath and not only didn't lose, but left him bloody and bruised. 30-35 million units with the above is a clear victory for Microsoft. 30-35 million units for Sony is an unmitigated disaster considering where they came from.

Thanks for the country by country breakdown, I was just going by the regional numbers

Yes, being reduced to trying to beat the low numbers of the X360 is quite the fall for Sony, but they would merely be compounding their error by following MS's strategy of rushing out hardware. As the highlighted section of your post indicates, timing hasn't had much to do with anything.

Its dominance on G4 notwithstanding, the X360 has been losing ground to the PS3 (5 million units worth of ground, according to MS itself) so I'd say that while perception is important, its still shaped by reality. MS's decision to let the PS3's price cut pass unanswered for a year was costly in terms of marketshare (though of course, it helped the Xbox division achieve its first full year of profitability).

Last but not least, I don't think anything could have headed off the Wii. Its got PS1 and PS2 type sales, but judging by its library/game sales, its appealing to a very different class of people than those who bought the PS1 and the PS2.

[QUOTE="Ash2X"]

In the last Gen,Microsoft weren´t as successful as they are today.They are making money now,so why should they.

Plus I smell many fanboys here.IMO the PS3 still have a hard time coming up with anything but nice announcements (did someone mention the word Paper Tiger?),but not egnough to make it worth the money and the Wii...well,paying 250 Bucks for a console which collects dust after 2 weeks because almost no serious games are out is not a option as "main-console" I think.Not forgetting the 3 Wii-ostes for your friends,plus Controller Add-on,plus the new Motion-Sensor...

CarnageHeart

I would agree with you if it wasn't for MS's infatuation with the Wii. Heck, 80% of their E3 press conference was dedicated to MS's efforts to make the X360 more Wii-like. If you think that infatuation won't color their hardware strategy/release timing, well, I hope you are right, though that's a bet I wouldn't make.

Of course they also want a pice of Nintendo´s cake.If it works out it´s great...if not I don´t care.Everybody copies the good-working stuff from the others.Look at Sony...I think this Gen is the worst ever in that case,but maybe it will make us happier as long as it´s not half-hearted.e can only wait for the results.In the end even a more Wii-like 360 won´t hurt me as long as I get the games I want and the games a lot other people want too.Overall I can say what I want,the 360 got the best Software-libary and the IMO best announced software right now.I don´t think that will change too soon.

I know that the console has a few years left, but do you think that Microsoft will stop support on it as quickly as the original Xbox?

I remember they stopped supporting it the day the 360 came out, and I just dont want that to happen again. Given the huge online

market though, I don't think they would do that.

gamerdew64

I would say yes it is worth it. If its not going to be your main console you can even get a refurb from gamestop for like $199 or just spend a little more and get the arcade.

I'm still torn about recommending the 360 to my friends.

It does have the best game library at the moment, and that may be the only factor in your decision.

The hardware quality is abyssmal, however... if you play it will any regularity it will break on you. Be prepared to invoke your warrantee and never, ever buy one used.

Also be aware that you'll be forced to buy XBL gold, so you'll be paying about $50/year for the rest of the life of your console.

Finally, be aware that it doesn't play Blu-ray discs, which is something most of my non-gamer friends just assume that a new console would do.

But again, it has the best game selection, and that might be the only thing you'll consider.

To be honest X360 is the best system atm and I wouldn't hesitate in recommending it to anyone interested in hardcore gaming.kc666

But in the end TC, if you want a 360, can aford one then get one. Though aren't MS releasing a 60 gig 360 or something soon? Might be better to wait for that, either way you will get 3 years out of it before MS jump gen so it would be worth it.