Poll and Discussion: Was the 360's one year head start worth anything?

In the 360's first year it had three major titles: Gears of War, Oblivion, and Dead Rising (none of which were launch titles and one of them was released right at the end of year one).

Am I missing something, or was the point of releasing the console a year ahead to put out as many quality games so that they'd be way ahead of the PS3 by the time it was released.

If Microsoft had released the 360 around the same time as Sony released the PS3 with Dead Rising, Oblivion, and Gears of war as launch titles, along with the cheaper price, they would have OBLITERATED the competition. Not to mention they would have had an extra to work out the kinks of the system that people have complained about.

The only positive thing I can see about the 360 being released a year earlier is that the public would be familiar with the system by the time the PS3 came out.

Your thoughts?

We'll find out, now won't we?

It's the sole reason Microsoft is in a position to dethrone Sony. They've had a full year to eat up Sony's 3rd party support, and are pretty much calling all the shots.

If it was my way it would have been delayed until Nov. 2006. It would have had the best launch and the most sales. It would have been more powerful and full DX10 capable.

Other than that, yea its worth a lot, 10 million worth.

In the 360's first year it had three major titles: Gears of War, Oblivion, and Dead Rising (none of which were launch titles and one of them was released right at the end of year one).

Am I missing something, or was the point of releasing the console a year ahead to put out as many quality games so that they'd be way ahead of the PS3 by the time it was released.

If Microsoft had released the 360 around the same time as Sony released the PS3 with Dead Rising, Oblivion, and Gears of war as launch titles, along with the cheaper price, they would have OBLITERATED the competition. Not to mention they would have had an extra to work out the kinks of the system that people have complained about.

The only positive thing I can see about the 360 being released a year earlier is that the public would be familiar with the system by the time the PS3 came out.

Your thoughts?

Awakening124

In the 360's first year it had three major titles: Gears of War, Oblivion, and Dead Rising (none of which were launch titles and one of them was released right at the end of year one).

Am I missing something, or was the point of releasing the console a year ahead to put out as many quality games so that they'd be way ahead of the PS3 by the time it was released.

If Microsoft had released the 360 around the same time as Sony released the PS3 with Dead Rising, Oblivion, and Gears of war as launch titles, along with the cheaper price, they would have OBLITERATED the competition. Not to mention they would have had an extra to work out the kinks of the system that people have complained about.

The only positive thing I can see about the 360 being released a year earlier is that the public would be familiar with the system by the time the PS3 came out.

Your thoughts?

Awakening124

I'd argue that none of the systems have a decent library of games at the moment, but then again I don't like playing sports, racing or (most) shooters.

As far as games that are coming, anything that comes out for both the PS3 and the 360 I'll get on the PS3 simply because it's a better machine. For the GameInformer readers out there: Remember how GI would compare the PS2 version to the XBOX version and if they weren't the same, the XBOX version would be better (shorter load times, tighter graphics, etc)? It's gonna be the same situation, only it'll be the Sony product that runs better instead of the Microsoft one. That's not to say one should buy a PS3 over a 360, someone who loves gaming should really have both, but this generation of gaming is shaping to be just like the last one, except with Microsoft on top and Sony just behind it. Why? The company with the best product goes on the biggest ego trip, thinking that their strong console will somehow sell itself. Microsoft did it with the XBOX, and now Sony is doing it with the PS3.

That got a little off track...but it's still a bit relevant.

Enlarging their fanbase before the competitors come out, yes!

Gamerankings.com has no more weight than any other site where you can rate games. I don't get why people use it as the end-all be-all game rating site.Awakening124

In the 360's first year it had three major titles: Gears of War, Oblivion, and Dead Rising (none of which were launch titles and one of them was released right at the end of year one).

Am I missing something, or was the point of releasing the console a year ahead to put out as many quality games so that they'd be way ahead of the PS3 by the time it was released.

If Microsoft had released the 360 around the same time as Sony released the PS3 with Dead Rising, Oblivion, and Gears of war as launch titles, along with the cheaper price, they would have OBLITERATED the competition. Not to mention they would have had an extra to work out the kinks of the system that people have complained about.

The only positive thing I can see about the 360 being released a year earlier is that the public would be familiar with the system by the time the PS3 came out.

Your thoughts?

Awakening124

You answered your own question... and yes it was well worth it.

Yeah, Msoft got their product out and let the people play it and buy it. It also has the advantage with casuals who only look at graphics, of being better looking because of the head-start. A casual would be more interested in Gears of War over Genji just from the graphics alone.Bansheesdie

In the 360's first year it had three major titles: Gears of War, Oblivion, and Dead Rising (none of which were launch titles and one of them was released right at the end of year one).

Am I missing something, or was the point of releasing the console a year ahead to put out as many quality games so that they'd be way ahead of the PS3 by the time it was released.

If Microsoft had released the 360 around the same time as Sony released the PS3 with Dead Rising, Oblivion, and Gears of war as launch titles, along with the cheaper price, they would have OBLITERATED the competition. Not to mention they would have had an extra to work out the kinks of the system that people have complained about.

The only positive thing I can see about the 360 being released a year earlier is that the public would be familiar with the system by the time the PS3 came out.

Your thoughts?

Awakening124

Of course it was worth it, since it has better graphics than the curretly released PS3 !!!!

So, it would only be bad, if PS3 was a bit better, now that it clearly is not, the head start just KILLS PS3 in gaming library

The 10 mil sales mark speaks for itself. Also im 100% positive that during the time when only the 360 was out, former sheep and cows converted into lemmingism because the wait was too long for them. Go figure.hungrycow

wii60FTW