How is a generation decided within 6 months?

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

Having less sales than the GBA is a good thing now?

Socrates88

You one of those people. The kind who doesn't see the big picture or see it and choice to ignore it. Worldwide PS3 is selling about the same as Xbox360 maybe Xbox360 with a slight bigger margin.

I ain't a Lem, so I don't know much about their sales. But I do know they're beating the crud out of the PS3 in the US and Europe. And the PS3 is dying in Japan.

We can't decide who won the console war just yet, but simply judging by this:

We can easily see that the Xbox 360 and PS3 flopped terribly during their first 6 months while the Wii had a blazing success. And its sales are only accelerating.

We can't decide who won the console war just yet, but simply judging by this:

We can easily see that the Xbox 360 and PS3 flopped terribly during their first 6 months while the Wii had a blazing success. And its sales are only accelerating.

TNT_Slug

Here's a clue. That little graph is based on NPD. NPD is just based on North America. Consoles are sold world-wide.

[QUOTE="TNT_Slug"]

We can't decide who won the console war just yet, but simply judging by this:

We can easily see that the Xbox 360 and PS3 flopped terribly during their first 6 months while the Wii had a blazing success. And its sales are only accelerating.

dubvisions

Here's a clue. That little graph is based on NPD. NPD is just based on North America. Consoles are sold world-wide.

What! You mean US is not the only country that plays games? I don't believe you.

We can't decide who won the console war just yet, but simply judging by this:

We can easily see that the Xbox 360 and PS3 flopped terribly during their first 6 months while the Wii had a blazing success. And its sales are only accelerating.

TNT_Slug

Well people like simple entertainment. Price and "innovation" also contribute. That's my take on the Wii's success.Just remember that the console that sells the most isn't necessarily the "greatest" or "best", if that is what you or the mindless posters here think.

Here's a clue. That little graph is based on NPD. NPD is just based on North America. Consoles are sold world-wide.

dubvisions

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

Having less sales than the GBA is a good thing now?

Socrates88

You one of those people. The kind who doesn't see the big picture or see it and choice to ignore it. Worldwide PS3 is selling about the same as Xbox360 maybe Xbox360 with a slight bigger margin.

that's really not a good thing though. that just assures 3rd place. I do agree it's too early to call the race but as of now the ps3 isn't on track to move out of 3rd for years.

Sheeps said so. Of course, they're know their system is a gimmick and will die off soon so they're trying to get as much glory as they can.NobuoMusicMaker

so i'm assuming you completely ignored the meaning behind this thread? wait a little, before you assume. :|

[QUOTE="TNT_Slug"]

We can't decide who won the console war just yet, but simply judging by this:

We can easily see that the Xbox 360 and PS3 flopped terribly during their first 6 months while the Wii had a blazing success. And its sales are only accelerating.

Toaster_Cell

Well people like simple entertainment. Price and "innovation" also contribute. That's my take on the Wii's success.Just remember that the console that sells the most isn't necessarily the "greatest" or "best", if that is what you or the mindless posters here think.

sure. but it is the winner by how sw's has always judged it.

[QUOTE="Eponique"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

Rome wasn't built in a day.Socrates88

Oh, and that phrase only works for Wii not PS3???

Brings me back to myfirst point "No console was crap in its first year and skyrocketed to first place at the end".

Well, no console this gen is "crap".

Bingo! Someone finally gets the point. Now we only need to wait the others to get the same idea. "There is no crap console this gen."

[QUOTE="wavebrid"]

anyways it depands on game taste. just beacuse you cant accpet the wii dosent mean they got bad games -towrds tc

dubvisions

I never said Wii had bad games. i was just saying that sales does not = best console, or even best games.

[QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"]

Your topic did not address the similarities between previous consoles and the PS3, but merely the opinion that a console's fate could not be decided within its first six months. Thus, the fact that Sega was already in financial trouble is irrelevant. Kestastrophe

How can it be irrelevant? A company's strength canplay a huge role in how their products perform. You don't think so? How do Xbox and playstation stay afloat when they lose money on each console? Company strength.

Its irrelevant because the topic of debate was the possibility of a console's fate being decided in its first six months, with yours being the opinion that a console's fate could not be decided in its first six months (For the record, I agree with your opinion).

Playing devil's advocate, I provided anecdotal evidence that a console's fate could be decided in its first six months (Dreamcast).

Obviously, those factors that you listed are completely relevant in determining a console's success, but it is not relevant to this debate.

I swear system wars would be the greatest place on earth if everyone could formulate well written and thought-out replies :) I seriously love reading such replies. Carry on.

Seriously, I don't get it. How can 5+ years of a generation be decided within 6 months of NA launch and 3 months of Euro launch?

Yes, 360 has sold a tremendous amount of consoles within its year and a half life. But couldn't Sony do the same sales within the same amount of time and catch up? How is that impossible?

You've got to consider that while a ton of consoles have been sold by Sony and MS, there are still even more out there left to decide. PS2 is the biggest selling console out there and not all of its owners have made the step into this gen.

Lemmings, and I know you've heard this before, if we did the same judging last gen Xbox would have never done a thing. It came out late, had less titles, and didn't do much to Sony at first. But it was the better console wasn;t it? Though it didn;t sell like the PS2, Xbox was the better console with better graphics and features.

So, tell me again how this long generation is over so quickly and how there's no way it could change.

dubvisions

Well, according to your bovine friends, it should have been over by now.

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"]

Your topic did not address the similarities between previous consoles and the PS3, but merely the opinion that a console's fate could not be decided within its first six months. Thus, the fact that Sega was already in financial trouble is irrelevant. Dups79

How can it be irrelevant? A company's strength canplay a huge role in how their products perform. You don't think so? How do Xbox and playstation stay afloat when they lose money on each console? Company strength.

Its irrelevant because the topic of debate was the possibility of a console's fate being decided in its first six months, with yours being the opinion that a console's fate could not be decided in its first six months (For the record, I agree with your opinion).

Playing devil's advocate, I provided anecdotal evidence that a console's fate could be decided in its first six months (Dreamcast).

Obviously, those factors that you listed are completely relevant in determining a console's success, but it is not relevant to this debate.

I swear system wars would be the greatest place on earth if everyone could formulate well written and thought-out replies :) I seriously love reading such replies. Carry on.

THanks man. Add me to your friends list, gamertag: Kestastrophe.

[QUOTE="Dups79"][QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"]

Your topic did not address the similarities between previous consoles and the PS3, but merely the opinion that a console's fate could not be decided within its first six months. Thus, the fact that Sega was already in financial trouble is irrelevant. Kestastrophe

How can it be irrelevant? A company's strength canplay a huge role in how their products perform. You don't think so? How do Xbox and playstation stay afloat when they lose money on each console? Company strength.

Its irrelevant because the topic of debate was the possibility of a console's fate being decided in its first six months, with yours being the opinion that a console's fate could not be decided in its first six months (For the record, I agree with your opinion).

Playing devil's advocate, I provided anecdotal evidence that a console's fate could be decided in its first six months (Dreamcast).

Obviously, those factors that you listed are completely relevant in determining a console's success, but it is not relevant to this debate.

I swear system wars would be the greatest place on earth if everyone could formulate well written and thought-out replies :) I seriously love reading such replies. Carry on.

THanks man. Add me to your friends list, gamertag: Kestastrophe.

Mind if I add yours as well?

[QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"]

Your topic did not address the similarities between previous consoles and the PS3, but merely the opinion that a console's fate could not be decided within its first six months. Thus, the fact that Sega was already in financial trouble is irrelevant. Kestastrophe

How can it be irrelevant? A company's strength canplay a huge role in how their products perform. You don't think so? How do Xbox and playstation stay afloat when they lose money on each console? Company strength.

Its irrelevant because the topic of debate was the possibility of a console's fate being decided in its first six months, with yours being the opinion that a console's fate could not be decided in its first six months (For the record, I agree with your opinion).

Playing devil's advocate, I provided anecdotal evidence that a console's fate could be decided in its first six months (Dreamcast).

Obviously, those factors that you listed are completely relevant in determining a console's success, but it is not relevant to this debate.

I'm sorry, I missed a couple of words. I guess I should of asked: How is a generation decide when a big company like Sony has only had their console out for six months? Is that better?

I think you missed the whole point. Yes, there have been consoles that have failed within 6 months. But Sony isnt Sega. And that point can;t be ignored when bringing Sega into the mix. you can;t simply call PS3 a dreamcast and have it totally make sense. there are a lot of factors that come into play. A few of which I posted earlier.

I totally agree with you!!

Before the PS3 was even launched I saw lots of topics of why it was going to fail blah blah blah............

Then after a few months of its release (and it wasn't even a world wide release!) lots of topics filled forums of how it already failed!!

By lemmings logic this consol race ends only in half a year and that a consol thats been out for 6 months should have a large library of games!!

TO ALL FANYBOYS: wait till this consol war is over to decide who comes in 1st, 2nd and 3rd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"]

Your topic did not address the similarities between previous consoles and the PS3, but merely the opinion that a console's fate could not be decided within its first six months. Thus, the fact that Sega was already in financial trouble is irrelevant. dubvisions

How can it be irrelevant? A company's strength canplay a huge role in how their products perform. You don't think so? How do Xbox and playstation stay afloat when they lose money on each console? Company strength.

Its irrelevant because the topic of debate was the possibility of a console's fate being decided in its first six months, with yours being the opinion that a console's fate could not be decided in its first six months (For the record, I agree with your opinion).

Playing devil's advocate, I provided anecdotal evidence that a console's fate could be decided in its first six months (Dreamcast).

Obviously, those factors that you listed are completely relevant in determining a console's success, but it is not relevant to this debate.

I'm sorry, I missed a couple of words. I guess I should of asked: How is a generation decide when a big company like Sony has only had their console out for six months? Is that better?

I think you missed the whole point. Yes, there have been consoles that have failed within 6 months. But Sony isnt Sega. And that point can;t be ignored when bringing Sega into the mix. you can;t simply call PS3 a dreamcast and have it totally make sense. there are a lot of factors that come into play. A few of which I posted earlier.

1. sony claimed it last gen at the 6 month mark. it's equitable for ms to do the same.

2. the 360 sales continue to outpace ps3 sales thru most of the world. the "just wait" theory has been proven full of holes from the ps3's launch.

3. the ps3 is more like the 3DO....overpriced and underdelivering....;)

4. the "factors" you listed are mostly opinions with some crystal ball sponsored predictions for flavor...:roll:

Let me educate you all on Dreamcast. Since it was thrown into the mix as a PS3 comparison:

Dreamcast's Competition

In April 1999, Sony announced its PlayStation 2. The actual release of the PS2 was not until March 2000 in Japan, and late-October 2000 in the United States. Sony's press release, despite being a year ahead of the launch of the PS2, was enough to divert a lot of attention from Sega. With the looming PS2 launch in Japan, Dreamcast was largely ignored in that territory. Dreamcast had great initial success in the United States, but had trouble maintaining this momentum after news of the PS2's release.

Dreamcast sales grew 156.5% from July 23, 2000 to September 30, 2000 putting Sega ahead of Nintendo 64 in that period. For the month of November 2000, Dreamcast passed the Nintendo 64 as the second best selling system. During that time, the PlayStation 2 was plagued by production shortages, with people often paying in excess of $1000 on eBay for Sony's next-generation console. However, Dreamcast's online capabilities through SegaNet (Sony would not bring the PlayStation 2 online until late 2002, well after Dreamcast's demise, though some games, through 3rd party devices, brought the competing machine online as early as Autumn 2001 through GameSpy), and a price cut around Autumn 2000 (which made it half the price of the PS2) did little to help sales once the PlayStation 2 was launched.

A key to Sony's relative ease for success with the PlayStation 2 was that they already enjoyed brand-name dominance over Sega after the huge success of the original PlayStation, while Sega's reputation had been hurt due to commercial failure of the Sega Saturn, Sega 32X, and Sega CD. In particular, Sega's attempt to quickly kill off the struggling Saturn (which lagged in North America and Europe) in favour of Dreamcast had angered many third-party developers in Japan, where the Saturn had still been able to hold its own.[4] While initial Dreamcast sales were strong, many prospective buyers and game developers were still skeptical of Sega and they held off from committing, possibly to see which console would prevail. By early 2001, game publishers abandoned Dreamcast development en masse in favour of the PlayStation 2 and cancelled many nearly completed projects (notably Half-Life).

PS2's main advantage over the Dreamcast was DVD-Video playback capability. While the Dreamcast lacked this, PS2 did have it, and cost less than the average DVD player at the time of its release. This fact alone was possibly the biggest factor contributing to the console's demise in Japan.

In 2000, the announcements of the Microsoft Xbox and Nintendo GameCube were widely regarded as the last straw for Dreamcast, which fueled speculation that Sega did not have the resources for a prolonged marketing campaign.

So, how did Dreamcast fail in the first six months, the first year?

1. sony claimed it last gen at the 6 month mark. it's equitable for ms to do the same.

So beacuse they were wrong then, you are wrong now. It doesn't make anything more true.

2. the 360 sales continue to outpace ps3 sales thru most of the world. the "just wait" theory has been proven full of holes from the ps3's launch.

As we all know PS3 hasn;t had any games. And there is a great line-up (don;t even deny this) coming this year, still. With that, a price cut, and a holiday season, Sony's numbers WILL change. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring the base of gamers still waiting to switch from last gen.

3. the ps3 is more like the 3DO....overpriced and underdelivering....;)

I actually contend that 360 is more like dreamcast. kicking butt in the first year, then falling on its face once the competition gets underway. Neither one us prove anything.

4. the "factors" you listed are mostly opinions with some crystal ball sponsored predictions for flavor...:roll:

What "factors" do you use for telling the future? You are guessing just as much as I.

tango90101

Let me educate you all on Dreamcast. Since it was thrown into the mix as a PS3 comparison:

Dreamcast's Competition

In April 1999, Sony announced its PlayStation 2. The actual release of the PS2 was not until March 2000 in Japan, and late-October 2000 in the United States. Sony's press release, despite being a year ahead of the launch of the PS2, was enough to divert a lot of attention from Sega. With the looming PS2 launch in Japan, Dreamcast was largely ignored in that territory. Dreamcast had great initial success in the United States, but had trouble maintaining this momentum after news of the PS2's release.

Dreamcast sales grew 156.5% from July 23, 2000 to September 30, 2000 putting Sega ahead of Nintendo 64 in that period. For the month of November 2000, Dreamcast passed the Nintendo 64 as the second best selling system. During that time, the PlayStation 2 was plagued by production shortages, with people often paying in excess of $1000 on eBay for Sony's next-generation console. However, Dreamcast's online capabilities through SegaNet (Sony would not bring the PlayStation 2 online until late 2002, well after Dreamcast's demise, though some games, through 3rd party devices, brought the competing machine online as early as Autumn 2001 through GameSpy), and a price cut around Autumn 2000 (which made it half the price of the PS2) did little to help sales once the PlayStation 2 was launched.

A key to Sony's relative ease for success with the PlayStation 2 was that they already enjoyed brand-name dominance over Sega after the huge success of the original PlayStation, while Sega's reputation had been hurt due to commercial failure of the Sega Saturn, Sega 32X, and Sega CD. In particular, Sega's attempt to quickly kill off the struggling Saturn (which lagged in North America and Europe) in favour of Dreamcast had angered many third-party developers in Japan, where the Saturn had still been able to hold its own.[4] While initial Dreamcast sales were strong, many prospective buyers and game developers were still skeptical of Sega and they held off from committing, possibly to see which console would prevail. By early 2001, game publishers abandoned Dreamcast development en masse in favour of the PlayStation 2 and cancelled many nearly completed projects (notably Half-Life).

PS2's main advantage over the Dreamcast was DVD-Video playback capability. While the Dreamcast lacked this, PS2 did have it, and cost less than the average DVD player at the time of its release. This fact alone was possibly the biggest factor contributing to the console's demise in Japan.

In 2000, the announcements of the Microsoft Xbox and Nintendo GameCube were widely regarded as the last straw for Dreamcast, which fueled speculation that Sega did not have the resources for a prolonged marketing campaign.

So, how did Dreamcast fail in the first six months, the first year?

dubvisions

Aren't we talking about when all the consoles are released? If not, the title should've been "How is a generation decided within 18 months?" There was no competition that time. By the time Gamecube and XBox were released, the Dreamcast was in a hospital bed, writing its will.

[QUOTE="tango90101"]

1. sony claimed it last gen at the 6 month mark. it's equitable for ms to do the same.

So beacuse they were wrong then, you are wrong now. It doesn't make anything more true.

2. the 360 sales continue to outpace ps3 sales thru most of the world. the "just wait" theory has been proven full of holes from the ps3's launch.

As we all know PS3 hasn;t had any games. And there is a great line-up (don;t even deny this) coming this year, still. With that, a price cut, and a holiday season, Sony's numbers WILL change. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring the base of gamers still waiting to switch from last gen.

3. the ps3 is more like the 3DO....overpriced and underdelivering....;)

I actually contend that 360 is more like dreamcast. kicking butt in the first year, then falling on its face once the competition gets underway. Neither one us prove anything.

4. the "factors" you listed are mostly opinions with some crystal ball sponsored predictions for flavor...:roll:

What "factors" do you use for telling the future? You are guessing just as much as I.

dubvisions

1. not ONE cow came out and said sony was wrong... yet now you do?

2. the "base of gamers" have apparently turned their backs on sony... 100 million to 3 million... hmmm..

3. the 360 is still outselling the ps3.. the "just wait" routine is getting old... face it; people don't want a $600 toy...nor a $500 toy... sony is sunk

4. the factors i consider are pricing, consumer interest, sales trends, developer support, online infrastructure, costs, and business execution. EVERY one of these factor where botched by sony..... while every one was almost flawlessly done with the 360...

face it; sony just got outclassed this gen... ;)

By lemmings logic this consol race ends only in half a year and that a consol thats been out for 6 months should have a large library of games!!

insomnia37

how is it lemming logic?

Aren't we talking about when all the consoles are released? If not, the title should've been "How is a generation decided within 18 months?" There was no competition that time. By the time Gamecube and XBox were released, the Dreamcast was in a hospital bed, writing its will.

Eponique

Thank you for making my point. First, this gen did not start until 360 had competition. And, yes, last gen did not start until Dreamcast had competition. But it was a year after PS2 release that Dreamcast was finally dumped. Dreamcast was launched on 9/1999. It wasn;t until early 2001 that devs jumped ship.

So, Dreamcast was out for a year before PS2 (sound familiar?), 1999 to 2000. Dreamcast and PS2 existed together for one year, 2000 to 2001. Doesn;t this sound a lot like this gen?????????

Man, you make some outrageous claims....

1. not ONE cow came out and said sony was wrong... yet now you do?

Not ONE cow?!?! yes, I'm the only one to admit to Sony faults.

2. the "base of gamers" have apparently turned their backs on sony... 100 million to 3 million... hmmm..

Right. All of the gamers from last gen have gone out and purchased their new console. No one is left out there waiting. Great point!!

3. the 360 is still outselling the ps3.. the "just wait" routine is getting old... face it; people don't want a $600 toy...nor a $500 toy... sony is sunk

Hmmm, Sony is selling right along 360's pace. And it is TOO expensive, no games, crappy online, and all of the other lemming promoted issues. And I just don;t see the stretch that $400 is so easy to swallow and $600 isn't. But that's awhole different thread I can own you in.

4. the factors i consider are pricing, consumer interest, sales trends, developer support, online infrastructure, costs, and business execution. EVERY one of these factor where botched by sony..... while every one was almost flawlessly done with the 360...

Again, all of these factors can change. You have no idea what the future holds. you use the past but you only take it back a few months. when we try to show you even further back, to prior generations, you seem to not understand or follow.

face it; sony just got outclassed this gen... ;)

Outclassed? You call a console with a bad fail rate and cheap design classy?

tango90101

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

Aren't we talking about when all the consoles are released? If not, the title should've been "How is a generation decided within 18 months?" There was no competition that time. By the time Gamecube and XBox were released, the Dreamcast was in a hospital bed, writing its will.

dubvisions

Thank you for making my point. First, this gen did not start until 360 had competition. And, yes, last gen did not start until Dreamcast had competition. But it was a year after PS2 release that Dreamcast was finally dumped. Dreamcast was launched on 9/1999. It wasn;t until early 2001 that devs jumped ship.

So, Dreamcast was out for a year before PS2 (sound familiar?), 1999 to 2000. Dreamcast and PS2 existed together for one year, 2000 to 2001. Doesn;t this sound a lot like this gen?????????

Who's side of the arguement are you on is the real question. O.o

I don't think the PS3 will catch up to the 360, yes the PS3 is doing just as well as the 360 on a worldwide scale. But the 1 year head start ensures that that doesn't matter, the PS3 is gonna have to do a lot better to get second place.

With the loomingWii launch in Japan,PS3 was largely ignored in that territory.PS3 had great initial success in the United States, but had trouble maintaining this momentum after news of the Wii's release.

PS3sales grew 156.5% from July 23, 2007 to September 30, 2007 puttingSony ahead ofXbox 360 in that period. For the month of November 2007,PS3 passed theXbox 360 as the second best selling system. During that time, theWii was plagued by production shortages, with people often paying in excess of $1000 on eBay for Nintendo's next-generation console. However, PS3s online capabilities throughPSN (Nintendo would not bring theWii online until late 2007, well after PS3's demise, though some games, through 3rd party devices, brought the competing machine online as early as Autumn 2007 ), and a price cut around Autumn 2007 (which made it half the price) did little to help sales once theWii was launched.

I found this funny. I am starting to see the similarities between ps3 and dreamcast.

Who's side of the arguement are you on is the real question. O.o

I don't think the PS3 will catch up to the 360, yes the PS3 is doing just as well as the 360 on a worldwide scale. But the 1 year head start ensures that that doesn't matter, the PS3 is gonna have to do a lot better to get second place.

Eponique

I think my side is pretty clear.

Read about Dreamcast and tell me about a year head start.

I found this funny. I am starting to see the similarities between ps3 and dreamcast.

teamchadrochill

Tell us. What similarities?

360 has been beating PS3 and i think that isnt gonna stop.

Well i replaced the word dreamcast with the PS3 in the "dreamcast's competition" thing. andreplaced ps2 with wii. and it actually showed similarities with what is happening today with the ps3. reread my post and you will see.teamchadrochill

I think its you who needs to read.

Dreamcast was out first, for one year. Ps2 came out and they existed together for one year. Dreamcast went bye, bye. I don;t see how Wii launching along side PS3 would compare to this? Also, I don't think Wii belongs in this conversation.

The dreamcast/PS2 situation relates to PS3/360 way better than anything else you want to throw in there.

360 has been beating PS3 and i think that isnt gonna stop.

JeffGenocideX

Wow. You just defeated me. I'm not sure how I could ever counter that intelligent post.

Why don;t you think it will change???

[QUOTE="JeffGenocideX"]

360 has been beating PS3 and i think that isnt gonna stop.

dubvisions

Wow. You just defeated me. I'm not sure how I could ever counter that intelligent post.

Why don;t you think it will change???

I dont think it will change cause MS knows what they are doing & they are have a huge lead on PS3. The X360 appeals to alot more people. MS are bring the games to the table.

[QUOTE="JeffGenocideX"]

360 has been beating PS3 and i think that isnt gonna stop.

dubvisions

Wow. You just defeated me. I'm not sure how I could ever counter that intelligent post.

Why don;t you think it will change???

Because history shows us it never had.

[QUOTE="teamchadrochill"]Well i replaced the word dreamcast with the PS3 in the "dreamcast's competition" thing. andreplaced ps2 with wii. and it actually showed similarities with what is happening today with the ps3. reread my post and you will see.dubvisions

I think its you who needs to read.

Dreamcast was out first, for one year. Ps2 came out and they existed together for one year. Dreamcast went bye, bye. I don;t see how Wii launching along side PS3 would compare to this? Also, I don't think Wii belongs in this conversation.

The dreamcast/PS2 situation relates to PS3/360 way better than anything else you want to throw in there.

I never said that it was exactly the same. I said it had similarities. If you get past the fact that the dreamcast came out before ps2 you will see that there are similarities. Example: the part where it talks about the dreamcast (ps3) being basically ignored in japan. The fact that dreamcast(ps3) already had online and thecompetition at that momment did not, Ps2(wii). And then it says that even a price cut did not help the dreamcast, so it brings up questions if this amazing price cut that will solve all problems,according to cows, will actually help the ps3.

[QUOTE="dubvisions"][QUOTE="JeffGenocideX"]

360 has been beating PS3 and i think that isnt gonna stop.

JeffGenocideX

Wow. You just defeated me. I'm not sure how I could ever counter that intelligent post.

Why don;t you think it will change???

I dont think it will change cause MS knows what they are doing & they are have a huge lead on PS3. The X360 appeals to alot more people. MS are bring the games to the table.

[QUOTE="dubvisions"][QUOTE="JeffGenocideX"]

360 has been beating PS3 and i think that isnt gonna stop.

Eponique

Wow. You just defeated me. I'm not sure how I could ever counter that intelligent post.

Why don;t you think it will change???

Because history shows us it never had.

[QUOTE="insomnia37"]

By lemmings logic this consol race ends only in half a year and that a consol thats been out for 6 months should have a large library of games!!

CaseyWegner

how is it lemming logic?

Majority of the posts claiming that the ps3 is or has already failed seems to come from die hard ms fans.

I never said that it was exactly the same. I said it had similarities. If you get past the fact that the dreamcast came out before ps2 you will see that there are similarities. Example: the part where it talks about the dreamcast (ps3) being basically ignored in japan. The fact that dreamcast(ps3) already had online and thecompetition at that momment did not, Ps2(wii). And then it says that even a price cut did not help the dreamcast, so it brings up questions if this amazing price cut that will solve all problems,according to cows, will actually help the ps3.

teamchadrochill

Again, I think your comparison is a stretch. You mention online but what relates? All system have online. You say Japan is ignoring PS3 but it is doing better than 360. And Japan is slow to the PS3 like most because of lack of titles. Not because of the console. And, again, that will change.

Here's the last thing that throws your argument off. The fact that SONY took out Dreamcast and we're talking about SONY now. Its a little odd using a company's power to show how it took over a console in the past as how it will fail now.