Historically the first console to enter each generation has come out much worse than those that enter afterwards, Atari's Jaguar and Sega's Dreamcast being two notable examples.

While X-box 360 clearly isn't going to be a total flop, probably due to the sheer size of head-start Sony and Nintendo let it have, I'm still confident that in five years from now we'll remember it as the poor man of this console generation.

Microsoft would dearly love to be King of the consoles, but until they start concentrating on product rather than misguided business strategems, paupers they'll remain.

Now the price has dropped everyone I know is migrating over to the Playstation 3. It is a far superior machine with better games.

"poor man of this console generation"

Leave it out. Yeah it was released first just like the dreamcast, but you cannot even compare the two. It is completely different.

Microsoft will not crash and burn, they have won many things over sony, and vice versa.

The 3 current competitors, will stay. How you can say MS will fail is beyond my belief.

All 3 have a good solid fan base, please use your common sense, to say a console that has sold near 20m is going to be remembered as "poor" is ludicrous.

Sony, MS & Nintendo have done great jobs, and the gaming experience is better than ever.

Personally I think MS need to concerntrate on the next consoles reliability, and no doubt they will. I'd like the mentality to be "When it's ready" instead of "We'll be first" but we'll see. I look forward to the future.

To the first poster To the Sony fanboy "Pand" who claims that "Historically the first console to enter each generation has come out much worse than those that enter afterwards"
That is utter garbage. The PS2 came out before the Gamecube and XBOX and sold vastly more than the Gamecube and XBOX. Today, the 360 has sold vastly more than the PS3 in the US, even after the PS3 has had TWO price cuts of $100 each , to the 360's only one price cut of $50. Another thinbg, the 360 has been making profits for 3 straight quarters even as the PS3 continues to rack up huge losses. Microsoft has plenty of room to cut prices and still make prfits on the 360 while Sony does not.

@2 are you mad?

I'll not respond to 1 & 2 as Jimothy put it perfectly.

MS have made a strong statement and i hope they back this up as while i agree that i'd rather it was ready instead of just trying to get it out first i'm glad they have the balls to be the first if thats the way it happens instead of sitting on a machine waiting for someone else to take the first leap.

I just hope MS don't cut the Xbox 360 short with the release of their next console as they did with the Xbox.

The 360 is an amazing machine, with a great community, and incredible titles.

The PS3 is an amazing mahcine, with potential (but this potential relies on decent games, and a richer online experience)

The Wii is all about the fun.. not the gfx, not the online features (although this is catching up with the other two)

Surely the question still remains... whichever console you like, you'll play.

i have all three consoles.. an treat them as separates. Wii for a laugh, PS3 for blu ray on the occasional offline title. and my 360 for great games, and amazing online play.

Ahhh, not had a good PS3 Vs 360 Vs Wii argument for a couple of weeks now. Never remember the Megadrive Vs SNES or Amiga Vs ST getting heated like it does now.

:D :D :D

@9

Very true :)

Bare in mind the net wasn't about for members of the public to just say what the hell they want on forums/websites. Certainly not in the Amiga days.

@ Jimothy

True. But before the net I remember the likes of C&VG, Mean Machines Sega/Nintendo fanning the flames. Before that, the classroom in the eighties where the ST was considered the poor mans Amiga.

Those were the days. Less bloody complicated too.

"the 360 has been making profits for 3 straight quarters"

Really? I thought they were yet to make a profit on the machine since they released it? In fact I thought they still lost money on each one sold? Don't they keep coming out making projections for when they will be out of the black?

If they want to be first out, good for them. As long as they don't cut the 360 short and screw all the developers and consumers with so much invested in the machine and they don't rush the hardware this time they will have a good chance of success.

@Hnbeanz

Oh yeah I guess so. Generally it's ten times worse on the net, Yeah I have my agreements/disagreements with people at work or friends, But nothing to the extent of what some people will post on the net, as there is no "social wall" as such, people just say what they want, with no fear.

But yeah, I understand what your saying. It just wasn't like it back in the day, and as you said, less complicated.

True, they haven't made a profit on it yet (or atleast haven't announced it), their prediction was that sometime in 2008 they would start making money.

I'm pretty sure the plan is never to make money on the console itself ... instead the plan is for software and peripherals to make up the deficit and be the bread winner.

"Really? I thought they were yet to make a profit on the machine since they released it?"

Sadly you thought wrong:
http://xboxer.tv/2008/01/xbox_360_in_profit_at_last_whi.html" onclick="window.open ( this.href ); return false;" class="comment_url" >http://xboxer.tv/2....html
Q3 2007 - 157 million, Q4 350 million or so, can't find q1 2008 but thats because I'm in a hurry.

As for ms:
http://xboxer.tv/2008/01/record_breaking_year_for_micro.html" onclick="window.open ( this.href ); return false;" class="comment_url" >http://xboxer.tv/2....html
16.7 billon dollars profit, I wouldn't worry for them just yet.

As for releasing first.
One could argue that the Nes won out of the SMS and 7800 due to going first, kicking off the resurgence of consoles and tying up all the big licenses and titles, one could argue that the MD did very well through virtue of being early to market and making the opposition look very old if not coming out the winner in the end, the Saturn died on it's arse in the west but was winning for the first 18 months in Japan and the DC was up to about 8 million or so, it died because people swallowed that the PS2 would be so much better.

If anyone seriously believes that the 360's software library, right now is inferior to the ps3 they need their head checked, it's all about potential with the ps3 and will be until this xmas (mind you it was supposedly about last xmas), it's a great collection of technology but right now it's badly underperforming as a games machine.

In the 90's the advocacy debate was as bad, just slower, lots of tardy teenagers drawing piccies of sonic stabbing mario to death in C&VG and mean machines..

Engaget makes a big thing of sony gaming making a profit in Q4 2007:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/31/sonys-game-division-turns-a-profit/" onclick="window.open ( this.href ); return false;" class="comment_url" >http://www.engadge...ofit/

I'd be interested to know the amount it's lost over the last few quarters, especialy as the PS2 should be making them billions, MS by moving first effectivly forced Sonys hand and cost them quite a few quarters of profitability.

Course the winner in this is Nintendo, only company to make a profit at all times on all hardware, probably the biggest profits made out of gaming of anyone over the last 5,10,20 years whatever way you look at it.

Hi everyone!
Put it this way i'm lucky enough to have every console and i've given the PS3 away as it was just collecting dust apart from the odd blu-ray movie! I done the same with my PS2, as xbox/360 has always had far more to offer. So i'm clearly off the fence in this debate 360 all the way.

It says "Record breaking year for Microsoft" ... which means the company as a whole, not its gaming division MS Games Studios alone so you can't use that as an indication of how well the 360 console is doing.

And like i said when they count the success of their games division they include the software and peripherals along with the console. The console is made at a loss eg: they are selling it for less than it costs to produce. Sony do this with the PS3 as well. Its a fact. But the software brings them out of the red (or atleast thats the theory).

The machine has yet to make a profit. That is different from the games division or microsoft making a profit.

@ 9, 10, 11 & 13

Just a quick one on all the comments made about console wars back in the day, I think we're all forgetting one important thing.

Back in the day, it was only us gamers who cared about games.

fin.

@smithy

Firstly, I'm looking at an X-box 360 under my TV as a write, so labelling me as a Sony fanboy just goes to show how purile these interconsole wars can get in a very short space of time. Just because I think Microsoft is a monolithic company which has yet to properly appreciate the market into which it has entered, doesn't mean I go to sleep snuggled under a PS3 duvet.

Secondly PS2 wasn't first to market last generation, the Dreamcast was, and it died on it's backside despite being an utterly fab piece of hardware.

The logical theory I've put forward here is that the first to market loses the war, not that the last to market wins the war. Generally the increase in production spend and other costs associated with the generational jump we've seen in the last couple of cycles mean that the first console to market is poorly supported by third-party publishers, which tend to catch up by the time the second and third consoles arrive. Meaning the company that leaves the starting line first loses a heck of a lot of capital, without truly getting much separation from the competition.

The logical solution is to either release a console that's not too far removed from the last generation so publishers don't have to fork out big bucks just to make games for it, which is Nintendo's strategy, or to pay publishers to make games for your console in the hope that it'll bring gamers to it, which was Microsoft's strategy for 360, and only half worked. Sony have the benefit of 100 million PS2 owners out there, many of whom will jump for PS3 when the price falls closer to impulse levels.

Last point to make about the failure of 360 is Japan, while you might think it doesn't matter the 360 is a VERY poor third wheel out there, the difficulty of getting more Japanese publishers to make games for 360 cannot be underestimated, as video game culture is still largely lead by what happens out there.

random : "Really? I thought they were yet to make a profit on the machine since they released it?"

Oh stop talking nonsense, and stop being lazy. It wouldn't have taken you een one minute to check on Microsoft's financial statements for the last 3 quarters.
For your informnation, Microsoft has made to the tune of $600 million in profits on the XBOX 360 in the last 3 quarters alone, starting with the September 2007 quarter. In the December 2007 quarter alone, Microsoft made to the tune of $357 million on the BOX business. Please check your facts before you open your mouth.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/80929-Xbox-360-Turns-a-Profit

Will somebody please re-read what random said. He said the machine ... the MACHINE!!!!

"an operating income of $524 million" that does not mean profit and it doesn't mean the selling of 360 machines made that amount. It means in total including additional sales on top of the machines.

Companies only release the figures they want you to see, i could tell you i made 1 billion pounds last year ... but if i paid out 1.2 billion i'm hardly doing well, but if im smart i wouldn't tell you the second part.

@ Pandy "Secondly PS2 wasn't first to market last generation, the Dreamcast was, and it died on it's backside despite being an utterly fab piece of hardware"

# 1. The PS2 came to the maerket a year before the XBO and the Gamecube and won the last generation by a huge distance, same as the 360 came to the market a year befire the pS3 and the Wii.

#2. The Dreamcast had close to zero 3rd party support throughout it's lifespan. In fact, EA which was even more important at the time, made ZERO games for the Dreamcast. The 360 today, has more 3rd party support and the better games from 3rd partires than the PS3 and the Wii.

The dreamcast and the 360 are not even on the same planet. The 360 has already sold more in america than the Dreamcast sold in its entire lifetime.

@ ka0znrky : "an operating income of $524 million" that does not mean profit and it doesn't mean the selling of 360 machines made that amount"

Huh?
Will you excuse me while I luagh?
what do you know about progot and loss accounts and company financial statments?
Did you read the whole financial stament at all?

September quarter 2007:
Microsoft Corp. on Thurs. announced a profit in the first quarter ended Sept. 30 in the Entertainment and Devices division, which includes the Xbox game business.The company posted earnings of $165 million in the division compared to a loss of $142 million the year prior.

http://news.punchjump.com/article.php?id=5038" onclick="window.open ( this.href ); return false;" class="comment_url" >http://news.punchj...=5038

December 2007 quarter:

Microsoft Corp. on Thurs. posted a 79 percent increase in second-quarter profits on strong sales of the Xbox 360 video game console and Windows Vista.Profit for the quarter ending Dec. 31 increased to $4.71 billion.
The Entertainment and Devices division, which includes the Xbox and Zune business, increased three percent in revenue to $3.01 billion. It posted a profit of $358 million in the quarter from a loss of $302 million one year prior"

http://news.punchjump.com/article.php?id=5449

Sigh!

I acknowledged in my opening comment that the X-box 360 wasn't going be a flop like the Dreamcast, it's merely the case that many years from now it's going to be clear that Microsoft will have got X-box 360s into less homes than Sony did PS3s and Nintendo did Wiis, and that's the yard stick by which these things are measured.

Nobody in the gaming industry really cares whether Microsoft is turning a profit out of it's 360 arm, Microsoft itself doesn't really care. 360 for Microsoft is all about building the brand and getting MS systems integrated into peoples lives. It's a flagship product and the fact that it makes any money at all is down to Microsoft's business accumen, if they want to win any generation of the console-war cycle we find ourselves in, they'll have to capture the hearts of the gaming population at large, and they're a long long way from achieving that.

You are stating numbers for the division and not for the actual machine itself. The division made the profit. The console isn't being sold at a profit.
and like random said:
"random : "Really? I thought they were yet to make a profit on the machine since they released it?" "
which is true.

@ka0znrky Its only the division made a profit? Pray, tell me, what business in that division accounts for over 90% of the revenues and the profits if that division?
Answer: The XBOX 360 business.
Remember, the Zune only sold just over 1 million units in the entire first year, that will give you just $250 million for the whole year, making just $62 million in revenues for a quarter, out of which Microsoft would be luckly to be making even $5 million in profits per quarter. Given that the division made t the tune of $358 million in the December quarter alone, its obvious that over 90% of those profits came from the XBOX business.

Profits are not on the actual machine itself?
How do you know that?
As long ago as November 2006, iSuppli came out with estimated cost of of the XBOX 360, and declared that Microsoft was already making profits on the hardware..and that was even before the lower cost Falcon motherboards. iSupply, November 23, 2006:

"According to a report by iSuppli, which recently noted a $300 loss per machine for Sony on PS3 components, Microsoft's HDD-enabled version of the Xbox 360 is now profitable, when factoring in component costs alone.

iSuppli, which has updated its original report to include its calculations on the Xbox 360, reveals: "The HDD-equipped Xbox 360 has a manufacturing and materials total of $323.30, based on an updated estimate using costs in the fourth quarter of 2006. This total is $75.70 less than the $399 suggested retail price of the Xbox 360."

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11833" onclick="window.open ( this.href ); return false;" class="comment_url" >http://www.gamasut...11833

You are WRONG yet again. Getting desperate aren't you?

@ Pandy : "that many years from now it's going to be clear that Microsoft will have got X-box 360s into less homes than Sony did PS3s and Nintendo did Wiis, "

How do you know that?
After TWO price cuts of $100 each in les than a year, as compared to only a single $50 price cut by the 360 in over 2 years, the PS3 has only manged to outsell the 360 in America(the world's largest home console market by far), in only 2 months, with the 360 being far ahead of the pS3 in installed base. The 360 continues to have a far better and oigger games library than the PS3, and that iis just not going to change.

Pandy : "Nobody in the gaming industry really cares whether Microsoft is turning a profit out of it's 360 arm, Microsoft itself doesn't really care"

Oh yes they do. Every top executive at Microsoft , from Steve Ballmer to Robbie Bach have made profitability of the XBOX business their # 1 priority. Just last week, Robbie Bach re-iterated Microsoft's strong determination to make sure that the XBOX business remains profitable, after 3 profitable quarters already.
In fact, its because Microsioft wanted to turn a profit on the 360, that's why the 360 never had a price cut till 22 months after launch, which is longer than it took the PS2, Gamecube, the original XBOX to get price cuts after launch, and of course far longer than it took the PS3 to get a prce cut(less than a year). In fact Microsft could have sold a heck of a lot more 360's if they had cut the price in the first year like the PS3 did. They didn't because they were detrmined to make the 360 a profitable business, and they have.

@26 (Smithy)

God you're sad... Seriously, take a look at what you read... Do you really care so much for a global corporation like MS that has shafted everyone of its customers ever since it has begun, and is soon to do so again when it releases a new XBox?! (oh I own a 360 so dont call me a sony fanboy please). I'm glad you care so much for their figures (which as correctly pointed out above don't tell the whole story and don't break down what actual amount is from 360 sales only) because believe me, MS don't care anywhere near as much about you as you do them.

The point of this whole topic should be about how disgraceful MS is being by already talking about another console. To me that's admitting that they consider that the 360 has no future now and is being caught up (or passed in the Wii's case) by the competition, and rather than being able to build on the current product and shout about how much better it is than the competition at the moment, they are prepared to throw in the towel and just release yet another console in order to win back some of the market share. Well I'm sorry MS, I invested enough in your 360 and I expect it to last a good few more years thank you and I am not prepared to bend over and get shafted into buying another console made by you just so you can boast about winning the next generation war.

@ whatever your name is:

"God you're sad"

Naaah.
You are sad. Yet another one of the knee-jerk "attack this company because it's American", Euro-nut.

"Do you really care so much for a global corporation like MS that has shafted everyone of its customers ever since it has begun, and is soon to do so again when it releases a new XBox?!"

Microsoft "shatfted" everyone did they?
Is that why Microsoft took heavy losses on the XBOX bussiness over a period of over 5 years untill only recently when they started making profits, even while Sony and Nintendo continued to rake in huge profits from their video games business in the last generation? yup. That's "shatfting" alright. /sarcasm.
Just try and make some sense will you?
You wanna talk about shafting, maybe you'd better take a loook at Nintendo, which continues to sell a cheap 2000 technology trinket, the Wii, for to the tune of $250, even while costing them les than $150 to make?

Point 1: I don't know it.
I'm making a prediction on the basis that the Wii is clearly going to outsell 360 for various reasons. That only leaves the question of the PS3, which, in my opinion, has enough stored up PS2 loyalty, room for further price reduction and potential to exploit the success of Blu-Ray to put it well ahead. In so far as I'm aware Microsoft really don't have any aces left up their sleeves, this article is the strongest statement I've heard from them in a while, and it's talk about the next generation of consoles not this one.
I freely admit that I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

Point 2: Microsoft didn't cut their prices early as they had zero direct competition for most of those months, and relied on the same misguided logic Mr. Bach is defending in this article.
I'm not suggesting nobody in Microsoft cares, obviously the people who's job it is to look after costs care, and they have to talk tough on costs as they have shareholders to please who'd be happy to dump X-box altogether. The fact remains that Microsoft don't think of X-box as a "real" business, it's a prestige product and nothing more.

@ Pandy :"that the Wii is clearly going to outsell 360 for various reasons. That only leaves the question of the PS3, which, in my opinion, has enough stored up PS2 loyalty, room for further price reduction and potential to exploit the success of Blu-Ray to put it well ahead"

while the wii is on the drivers seat right now, I m not even prepared to declare anyone the winer in this round right now. The Wii sells for much lower than the 360/PS3 right now. Both the 360($350) and PS3($400) are selling for higher than the PS2 did when it first came out($300). The PS2 had pretty low sales when it came out at $300. It wasn't till the price fell that PS2 sales really took off to make it the highset selling console in history. You cannot expect 360 or PS3 sales to be high, when they are selling for higher than the PS2 launch price.
As for the PS3, the Microsift will always be able to sell the 360 at a loower price than the PS3.
why?
Because the 360 is already very profitable right now, while the PS3 has been taking heavy losses. Ergo, Microsoft is in a much better position, and has much more room to cut prices on the 360, than Sony is on the PS3. For every PS3 price cut, Microsft will respond with a 360 price cut, and still make a profit on the 360 after the price cut, while price cuts on the PS3, will plunge the PS3 further ito the red than they already are.
The 360 will soon hit the mass market orice of under $200, where over 90% of PS2 sales were made, and then accelerate sales, and further widen the already big gap between the 360 and PS3 in America.

@Pandy : " Microsoft didn't cut their prices early as they had zero direct competition for most of those months,"

Correct. But then Microsoft had consistently stated their determination to make sure that the next version of the XBOX(after the heavy losses on the original XBOX) was profitable.
In fact if Microsoft had started cutting 360 prices early, like they did for the original XBOX(which had a price cut of as much as $100, as early as 7 months after luanch), the 360 business would still be making losses up to today. That is something shareholders were not going to tolerate for much longer. It was vital that the 360 started to make a prifit, and quickly. If Microsoft had not launched a year before the PS3 and Wii, they'd have been forced to do a hasty price cut to remain competitive, just like they did for the orginal XBOX, and be taking heavy losses by now, just like the PS3 is. In fact the 360 and the PS3 have exchanged palces from last generation, where the PS2 made huge profits, and and the XBOX made huge losses.

You paint a very pretty economic picture Smithy, but the issue goes well beyond simple price comparisons.

Who's going to buy these cheap 360s and why?

As you've very neatly pointed out yourself in a comment above, Nintendo already have the lowest common denominator covered and can easily win any war on prices and will most likely account for the vast majority of "new" sales, that is, sales to homes that have never had a console before.

Microsoft will probably do a good job of undercutting Sony, and take up a decent percentage of PS2 only households, but not enough to win outright.
For the same reason that PS2 did so well in breaking new ground, ie "it's a games console AND a DVD player Dad, can we get one?", so people will stand in Walmart and decide that they'd rather fork out for a machine that can play Blu-Ray disks than a machine that only the kids will get any use out of.

It's called socio-economics, and it's something that if Microsoft was a bit more delicate about it could have killed off both Apple and Nintendo in the last decade.
Yet it hasn't.

@Smithy - Seriously do you work for MS?! I've never heard such a sad devoted fanboi in all my life as you. Do you not think you got shafted by MS not backing HD-DVD properly? Many people bought the drive and a lot of disks in the hope that it would one day lead to better and bigger games due with uncompressed graphics and sound. But MS's failure to take the innovative risk (like Sony did with the PS3) has meant the death of the format. But MS couldn't care either way. They've not suffered, but the customers have. Shafted by having to pay for a decent online service when the competition pays squat. Shafted by releasing a console too early without proper testing meaning that 40% of consoles suffered the RRoD.

MS attitude has always been if the product doesn't work, build a new one and the mugs will pay again. Look at Windows, Office, the original XBox and now the 360.

As Pandy correctly pointed out, if MS reduce the price further who is there to buy a cheap 360? Where's the untapped market? As far as I can tell, the number of 360 sales has gone into a massive decline recently. And I think that is down to the PS3. There is a MASSIVE number of PS2 owners in the world that have yet to upgrade to current gen machines. But do you really think they'll take the 360 path? I don't, the natural upgrade path would be the PS3. Where else can MS find a big untapped market? Can you really see MS making a big dent in Japanese console sales? I can't.

I don't know how you could possibly accuse Nintendo of shafting its customers just because it makes a profit on its Wii. It's still as cheap as chips to the consumer and worth every penny.

I've said my bit, clearly you have your opinion and you're not going to listen. Also you think you have all the facts. But we shall see. Lets just say that in a couple more years when the new XBox is released I won't be heading the queue to get one. I don't think many other people will this time around either. Arguing with you Smithy is futile, I've no idea why you are getting so angry and defensive over a corporate giant like Microsoft.

I only read the first three comments as it made me laugh so much I had to write my bit. I as many of my friends have had a PS3, and we all have one thing in common. We all sold it to get our xbox360 back. PS3 hasnt got better games. They made a joke out of F1 Grand prix, and from what I hear xbox will have the next one (thank god) PS3 has about two two average games ( not including GTA as its on the xbox360 also). xbox360 has a huge library of games which are mostly better then any PS3 game. Plus the PS3 is the size of a small country.....where are you meant to put it. Its online gaming is pants and all round a poor machine. The WII is xbox360's competition, not Sony. Sony over hype all there products like blue ray for example. Its only sold as much as it has because its built into all the PS3's not because of their blueray dvd players. And like all sony consoles its highly over priced. The xbox360 was priced fairly, as was the nintendo wii. Plus, doesnt the playstation just copy the wii's technology? I mean come on....if you are charging rediculouse prices come up with something new people.

@ 35

£300 for a next-generation games console, an excellent blu-ray player, a grat multi-media hub and, although not as good as LIVE, a free online service.

Yeah, total rip off.

/roll eyes.

Still, as an independent retailer I've nothing to grumble about, fanboys keep my tills ringing.

Also, just wanted to point out that the PS3 fan a couple above really doesnt know what hes talking about. If its broken, make a new one and they will pay again??? Thats not true at all. Microsoft extended there warrenty another year, paid postal and very quick return of the console. So if charge again means not pay a penny then you are right.

And if I remember correctly....my PS2 had that problem, of being a dud. And I did not get the free treatment like xbox are offering. In fact come to think of it.....my PS2 dvd player stopped working after a few years.....oh oh, not good for the blue ray fans out there if ( and I think will) happens to PS3. Lets face it, the PS1 only did so well coz it was a nintendo machine that they didnt want. The ps2 only did so well coz nintendo didnt offer competition and the psp was terrible, it crippled your fingers trying to play the thing and PS3 has next to no games.....and its been out a while now. XBOX is doing well and i wouldnt trade mine for the world. I dont own a wii but nintendo show time and time again that when they want to win they will. And I will be getting the next xbox too!!! dont wanna wait for a year to get PSPOOR

Nick, you're quite the rabid fanboy aren't you. Funny stuff.

Firstly MS didn't back the HD-DVD with a built in player like sony because they didn't want to make their customers pay over £500 for the machine when it launched. They made a business decision that made the machine affordable from the outset. And Sony did their fair share of shafting the UK owners as well.

The decline in sales is not because of the PS3, its because the majority of people who wanted an xbox have bought it by now. So of course the sales have slowed, the same thing will happen to the PS3 and the Wii simply because there is a finite number of buyers in the world.

And smithy is right to criticise nintendo, they are shafting their loyal fans. You really think the lack of consoles and software is an accident? The machine was launched last december and in that time, with all the money they have made they have conviently not been able to find some way to produce more? Its funny how it happens with every new model of DS that comes out and every big game that is launched.

"All these PS2 owner just waiting for the PS3 to drop in price"

Do you really believe this? a 1:1 conversion rate?

Who the hell do you think has been buying the Wii?

. . . The same casual gamers that bought the PS2. No, not the early adopters here on this forum, but the same people who bought the PS2 when the price dropped to mass market level.

Can we all just get on with our work now? Please.

"And smithy is right to criticise nintendo, they are shafting their loyal fans. You really think the lack of consoles and software is an accident? The machine was launched last december and in that time, with all the money they have made they have conviently not been able to find some way to produce more? Its funny how it happens with every new model of DS that comes out and every big game that is launched."

If you read the talk around the time of the Wiis launch, it's clear that Ninty had built and pitched a machine that would enable them to sell their popular franchises to their existing fanbase - their original estimation (from memory) was something between 6-8 million in the first year, they had manufacturing capacity for 10million. The machine took off in a way even they didn't expect - they ended up making and selling 17million. Clearly they were very conservative with their estimations but then Nintendo is a well run, conservative company with a veneer of originality and risk taking.

If there an issue with Nintendo then its that they generally have held the UK in contempt as well as Europe as we've either not clicked with them going back to the 80's or they see Germany/mainland europe as the real market. The European office , back when a mate worked for the official magazine was useless and suffered from total control freakery - incompetance if you like. Thats the issue, that and the Uk has fallen for the Ds and Wii in a massive way.
They should get more in the shops but I spent 6 weeks in the US last year and didn't see one Wii in the US - they were selling more than any other console but they sold out immediatly

and ka0znrky - how do you think Sony present their profit and loss? - it's the gaming division as a whole thats presented, it's why the gaming division rather than the others made a profit and propped the company up as a while. Reporting as a business unit is the way things are done - MS has the Xbox and Zune unit, for them to report a largeish profit when the Zunes taken a tanking must mean they're doing pretty well. The attachment rate means that even a small loss on hardware is insignificant when people buy so many games with the console and you follow a razors and blades business model.
What else do they sell in that division that would make a profit for them apart from Xboxes and Zunes and hide any 360's failures?

Finally as for the HD-DVD, I'm fine with it - £5 films, and still more on it than I want to watch on Blu-ray...but then I love laserdisc.

"What else do they sell in that division that would make a profit for them apart from the xboxes and zunes and hide any 360's failures?"

They sell the parts that go along with them, for example with the xbox theres controllers, cables, remotes, bags, PnC kits, network adaptor etc and there's all the games. My point was that the machines are sold for less than it costs to make one. But when someone buys an extra controller and a battery pack and the games that makes up the deficit.

You just repeated the point i was making, i never said that the division was making a loss, i said the machine was and still is. It will continue to until they can make the parts cheaper than their selling price.

Xbox 360 has BY FAR the BIGGEST and BEST library of software this generation.

Playstation 3 is a very distant third place for many reasons:

* PS3 costs the most, simply because of the Blur-ray
* Blu-ray on PS3 outputs video at disappointing 60hz
* PS3 is not as developer-friendly as Xbox 360
* Xbox 360 is far more powerful than PS3
* Xbox 360 has more impressive videogame specs than PS3
* Xbox Live offers far greater performance than PSN
* Playstation 3 has the LEAST amount of third-party support
* PS3 still has ZERO games in certain genres!

Let me explain what I'm referring to.

Xbox 360 has only two games that use more than one DVD. This literally means less than one percent of games require more than one DVD disc. Clearly, Blu-ray discs are NOT needed for gaming.

If you want to look at things from a "You pay for what you get" point of view, if you removed the Blu-ray player from the PS3, the Xbox 360 would cost quite a bit more than the Playstation 3, because the Xbox 360 uses much more advanced technology, especially with the GPU based on Unified Shaders.

PS3 ended up with a design that is very different than what Sony originally wanted. Originally Sony wanted to have two Cell CPU processors, but no GPU. But when Sony saw the Xbox 360, they were forced to redesign the PS3 within a very short time period, just like Sega was with the Saturn after Sega saw the Playstation.

Sony was forced to remove one of the 3.2 Ghz Cell CPU processors from the PS3, because they realized they needed a GPU to compete with the Xbox 360. This was a STUPID move, because the PS3 uses a parallel processing design similar to the Saturn. It meant the PS3 CPU has only 2 Threads (arms) to send instructions to the 6 SPE subprocessors (balls). It is like trying to juggle six balls with only two arms...it can't be done consistently; that is why PS3 games have such unsteady framerates.

Xbox 360 is the EXACT opposite, and is FAR ahead of its time. At the time Xbox 360 was released, high-end PCs used dual-core CPU architecture. Xbox 360 uses the tri-core CPU design with three 3.2Ghz processors dedicated to controlling the GPU and CPU functions. This means the Xbox 360 has 6 CPU Threads (arms) to send signals with, and it only needs to worry about the CPU and GPU (2 balls). Juggling 2 balls with six arms is very easy! That's why Xbox 360 games are so much more consistent than PS3 games.

For crying out loud, Microsoft has released TWO Gears of War games BEFORE Sony has been able to release ONE Killzone game...and the sad thing for Sony is that Killzone 2 is a sequel to a game that was rated very poorly by reliable sources such as IGN and Gamespot.

The PS3 GPU from Nvidia was based on generic non-unified shader technology that was four years old. The Xbox 360 GPU was based on revolutionary new Unified-Shader technology that wasn't seen in PC graphics cards until February of 2007 when Vista was released!!! That just goes to show how much ahead of its time the Xbox 360 GPU was!

Also, consider that the Xbox 360 Operating System is MUCH more efficient than the PS3 OS. The Xbox 360 OS uses only 32MB of RAM, while the PS3 OS wastes 96MB of RAM. That means the Xbox 360 CPU has a lot more RAM to use. Also, the Xbox 360 has 10MB of eDRAM, and that is something that PCs won't even use until the successor of Vista is released in 2010! That is FAR ahead of its time!

Playstation 3 may be the "cheapest" Blu-ray player, but the PS3 is actually the WORST Blu-ray player. PS3 outputs video at 60hz, rather than 24hz like other Blu-ray players. Outputting video at 24hz is very important, because that is what movies were filmed at.

And "winning" the format war vs HD-DVD didn't help Sony at all. The sales of Blu-ray players haven't improved at all. Blu-ray is not doing well at retail in any way. Consumers don't want to pay $35 for 25MB discs using the same outdated MPEG-2 technology that standard DVD discs use. That's why standard DVD discs look virtually identical to Blu-ray discs when the DVDs are upconverted to 1080p, since they both use MPEG-2 technology.

Some DVD discs even look BETTER than their Blu-ray counterparts that are filled with high-resolution video-noise. Example: The Last Samurai. And if you compare DVD movies such as Terminator 2 or any of the Star Wars movies to 90% of available Blu-ray movies, you will see that those high-end DVD discs look BETTER than Blu-ray movies.

It's a shame HD-DVD didn't "win" the format war, because HD-DVD was the superior technology; that's why HD-DVD was officially selected as the successor to the DVD format. HD-DVD discs were 30GB in size, compared to 25GB for Blu-ray discs. And 100% of HD-DVD used the new VC-1 video technology, which looks much better than MPEG-2. Compare that new Superman movie on HD-DVD and Blu-ray. They were both exactly the same, except the HD-DVD disc had 5GB of extra space, which allowed an extra sound format to be put on the disc...

It's a shame that the Sony fanboys were stupid enough to fall for ANOTHER one of Sony's lies when Sony said Blu-ray discs had 50GB in size. The fact is, over 99% of Blu-ray discs are 25GB in size, while over 99% of HD-DVD discs are 30GB in size.

Xbox 360 is far more powerful than the Playstation 3. Consider that the Xbox 360 can display 500,000,000 polygons per second compared to only 275,000,000 for the Playstation 3. There are multi-platform games on the Xbox 360 that run at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, while the Playstation 3 version runs at only 30 frames per second at 720p. What's worse is that the PS3 versions of the games have unsteady framerates at 30 frames per second, while the Xbox 360 versions stay smooth at 60 frames per second.

The only specification area that PS3 outperforms the Xbox 360 is the mathematical FLOPS. Unfortunately, this has NO VALUE in the area of videogame graphics. As a result, the PS3 is more popular as a device used for math calculations by low-budget hospitals and military research center than as a videogame system.

Xbox Live is VASTLY superior to the Playstation 3 in virtually every way conceivable. Being able to talk to people while playing games on Xbox Live is AWESOME. Playstation 3 games don't let that happen, though. Even the small number of PS3 games that do include that feature end up causing you to realize that you will have a difficult time talking with anyone, because the PS3 does NOT come with a headset, so very few people have the ability to chat online. The Xbox 360 comes with a headset in every system.

And Sony has already confirmed to their shareholders that they will charge money for the HOME service, which STILL will NOT be as good as Xbox Live.

Xbox 360 has FAR more third-party support than Playstation 3. Even Japanese companies have more games in development for the Xbox 360 than the Playstation 3.

In terms of multi-platform games, 98% of the multi-platform games are either "noticably" or "signficantly" better on the Xbox 360.

Gamespot has an annual Graphics Comparison between the Xbox 360 and the PS3. For the third year in a row--2006,07,08--the Xbox 360 easily beat the Playstation 3. And some of the games, such as Rainbow Six Vegas 2, look like they are running on hardware from different generations, because the Xbox 360 version is so much better.

Playstation 3 has been available for 1.5 YEARS and it STILL has absolutely ZERO games available in certain genres. For example, Playstation 3 has ZERO games available in the Real-Time Strategy genre. What's worse is that the ONE and ONLY RTS game in development for the PS3 was recently cancelled...although, it is still being released for Xbox 360 and PC.

Xbox 360 has games available in EVERY genre. Even genres such as Real-Time Strategy, Puzzle, Party, Dance, RPG, and Platform!

No doubt about it, the Xbox 360 is FAR superior to the Playstation 3!

http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-xanax-no-rx - xanax http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-tramadol-no-rx - tramadol http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-valium-online - valium http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=buy-ambien-online-without-prescription-buy-ambien-10mg-5mg - ambien http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=buy-xanax-online-buy-xanax-2mg-1mg - xanax http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=buy-fioricet-online-without-prescription-buy-fioricet-cod - fioricet http://connections.blackboard.com/people/50273d6fc2 - tamiflu http://tapestry.formos.com/wiki/display/~buy-tamiflu-winthout-prescription - tamiflu http://boinc.vanderbilt.edu/CSB/view_profile.php?userid=5324 - ambien http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~ativan4r5r - ativan http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-ambien-without-prescription - ambien
dyspepsia reagentsn unvarying durable delegations wholes enclosures