Rockinawsome wrote:

Microsoft generally speaking has higher quality games than Sony's PS1 or PS2 line up. This is because the playstation was the model T of game consoles.

Gads your history is lacking. The Atari 2600 was the Model T of game consoles. The PS1 would likely be considered more of a Cadillac or a Thunderbird.

Also, comparing the PS1 and Xbox are kind of pointless, since the XBox came quite a bit later. PS2 and Xbox make a fairer comparison, since they're the same generation, although the Xbox still came later.

While the quality is (or will be) there, volume is pretty important to justify the price of the console itself, and the difference in quality isn't that huge a leap. The completely new direction the PS3 has taken Sony in is right down the toilet. That's not to say it's a bad machine, but the decisions on pricing were so horrifically bad as to cause the company serious long-term harm, and they're still making bad decisions (and bad press releases) due to their inability to grasp the seriousness of their earlier missteps. Sony is hemorrhaging money. They lose over $200 per console on the PS3 for every unit they actually sell; they've sold far fewer than they've shipped.

The only company taking truly new directions is Nintendo, since they chose to target a largely untapped market--and so far it's paying off bigtime.

About the only good news Sony has is that Microsoft is as oblivious to as they are. Microsoft has had several huge opportunities to crush Sony by making certain strategic moves, and they've just blown it at every turn. The one thing Microsoft did right before E3 was announce they would be extending all warranties on 360s for the "red ring of death" (which some analysts speculate caused up to a 30% failure rate) to 3 years. This put attention back on the games instead of on reliability. Problem is, Microsoft failed to take the obvious followup and really show much from those games at E3, choosing instead to rely on all their titles later in the year to apparently sell themselves without the benefit of E3 hype. Had they hammered home the message that by the end of the year, the 360's armada of games will far outclass the PS3's, they could have hurt Sony badly.

The only company taking truly new directions is Nintendo, since they chose to target a largely untapped market--and so far it's paying off bigtime.

Sony's latest version of the playstation out-performs Microsoft's latest version of the XBOX: I'd call that a new direction.

I kind of wonder though if the heads of microsoft actually want to break sony. I mean, it's good for buisness (at least in the short-run), but maybe there's actually some comradery among console makers. Heck, if I was Bill Gates I wouldn't want people pissed at me because I drove Sony out of the game industry. It's just a thought.

Mecha Destroyer JD wrote:

Meh, people keep saying the Gamecube was a failure as if they just stopped making games for it. It was a financial failure, but not a failure to the fans. They had games coming out for it up until the Wii came out, a true failure wouldn't last that long. I would say the Gamecube still has games coming out for it, but I don't know how true that is...0_0

The Gamecube was never a finical failure. Nintendo knows how to build systems and they know how to do it cheaply as well. Even when the Nintendo Gamecube first came out, it was making money, not loosing it, like so many other companies tend to do. It wasn't until the Gamecube price dropped to about $50 did Nintendo ever even begin to loose money on that system.

I'm so sad that no one ever mentions hunter the reckoning! I can't remember how many countless hours me and my roomates spent playing that game when we were in college.

Power means a number of things:

1. More fun and action-packed games.2. More realistic games for people who like them.3. Shorter load times.