Xbox One

[isiolia]

'Tis a joke, sir. At most, a minor observation that we went from Sega/Nintendo/Sony in 5th Gen to Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony in 6th. That and the Xbox controller bearing a striking similarity to the Dreamcast's. Even has the same button layout.

To be fair, Sega also put a number of games on the XBox - JSRF, Sega GT, Panzer Dragoon, Gunvalkyrie, etc that, along with the general difference in game selection on the thing, did kind of put the XBox in a similar position to the DC in that time period.

MS also continued Sega's push for online in consoles. Activator/Kinect too *cough*.

Maybe also an argument for trying things before the market is really ready for them. That's really the main issue the One has had - the policies in place make perfect sense for a pure digital platform, and that's likely what they were thinking of, with discs being a stopgap. Sony just took the route of trying to convince people to switch instead of giving no other option.

The reason Microsoft won't end up like Sega is because Microsoft is not in it for money or games.

They're all in it to make money. If you think otherwise, it's due to good marketing/PR. MS does want to use the XBox platform as their living room/entertainment platform, but that still comes back to making money in the long run.

[Ack]

Microsoft has always been bad for the console video game.

Actually I would say there is one reason why I am glad Microsoft is in the three top brands: the return of an American company to the big three.

Worldwide, video games have been dominated by Japanese-run corporations since the mid-1980s. I'm glad to see an American company return to form, even if they're not topping the market the way Atari used to. But I am also very glad to see some international competition against a monopoly held by a single country and culture. Now if only a European, Australian, South American, African, or Asian country could produce another major console developer, we could have an even more interesting clash of ideas and cultures.

[BurningDoom]

Microsoft has always been bad for the console video game.

And what was bad about the original XBox and the XBox 360 (not counting the 360's launch model, of course)?

Good systems, with a great library of games including some great exclusives, and lots of third-party support. Plus, they really popularized online gaming with console gamers. There was the Dreamcast before it, for online gaming, but let's be honest here, as cool as the Dreamcast was, it wasn't nearly as popular as the XBox brand has become.

[Erik_Twice]

And what was bad about the XBox 360 (not counting the 360's launch model, of course)?

Paying for a console and being advertised instead.

Also, paying for multiplayer. But the first one is enough for me to not give Microsoft a dime.

[isiolia]

Paying for a console and being advertised instead.

Also, paying for multiplayer. But the first one is enough for me to not give Microsoft a dime.

Most of that is really not exclusive to MS at all, especially if you consider media as a whole.

[wclem]

I am predicting this:

When Microsoft sees that people are not flocking back to them after the reversal they will price drop or offer freebies at the 499 price (something like a free year of live or an extra controller).

As for Sony sneaking in the paying for online multiplayer, they did sneak it by but it isnt anything Microsoft has not always charged for and with it you will get quality free games for your money also. Microsoft was literally shutting people out and finding ways to tear every last cent out of it. Just remember that next time you are spanking your monkey in front of your Xbox, they are watching you

[pierrot]

'Tis a joke, sir.

Yeah, sorry. I probably always knew that, but I just felt like overreacting to something, I suppose. I get very annoyed by even the insinuation that Microsoft is the second coming of Sega to the console space. Sega also published as much, or more (WAY more), for the Gamecube and the PS2 at the time, so I really think that's a moot point. Sega did not throw their weight behind Microsoft as people are want to portray. A key exception being the release of Shenmue II exclusively on the Xbox in the US. (Thanks a lot, Peter Moore; you turncoat bastard!) PS2 started to push online gaming pretty heavily at the time too. Again, I think it's a lot of projecting that leads to the idea that Sega was backing Microsoft. (At least from a company-wide standpoint: Moore, you prick.)

Actually I would say there is one reason why I am glad Microsoft is in the three top brands: the return of an American company to the big three.

While I don't disagree with this sentiment, in theory, in practice, I feel it's mostly given us an ingress of an obscene number of FPS in the console space. Clearly, I'm not a fan, but the genre also seems to be used as a default for western-style gameplay, with story and/or any attempts at creativity being laid over top. I think Microsoft has mostly done a disservice in their emphasis of what constitutes marketable gameplay for the console market, which is very clearly: first-person view with a reticule.

I don't think it's entirely correct to say that the inclusion of Microsoft suddenly aloud for proper Western development of console video games in the modern era. There wasn't an issue of well developed games from Western developers finding their way to market in the fifth generation, and in comparison to what Western developers did to the fourth generation, I think the strides were being made well before Microsoft was even an issue.

[RCBH928]

Microsoft has always been bad for the console video game.

Actually I would say there is one reason why I am glad Microsoft is in the three top brands: the return of an American company to the big three.

Worldwide, video games have been dominated by Japanese-run corporations since the mid-1980s. I'm glad to see an American company return to form, even if they're not topping the market the way Atari used to. But I am also very glad to see some international competition against a monopoly held by a single country and culture. Now if only a European, Australian, South American, African, or Asian country could produce another major console developer, we could have an even more interesting clash of ideas and cultures.

I would like to give my point of view as a foreigner on the Xbox . When it first came out I hated it because it was a PC in a small case , and thats not how consoles are supposed to be . Consoles are quite and simple with no online multiplayer , thats a PC thing . But I grew to love it , the games were unique and it was very different . It set a new tone in gaming and popularized FPS. This even grew even clearer with the launch of the 360 it really had a special taste with its online multiplayer , many people take this for granted today but I remember clearly back in late '06 the 360 bedazzled us when a friend brought it over and showed us how in Test Drive you can go online and compete with others while free roaming in a city, and how realistically amazing an upcoming game called Assassin's Creed was coming up, The HD, the first ever non-basic console menu(sliders) , we were sold . At that time, ps3 seemed like just playing catch up .

[Pulsar_t]

If MS and Sony wish to compete effectively against mobiles and tablets they had better slash prices pretty soon.

[RCBH928]

If MS and Sony wish to compete effectively against mobiles and tablets they had better slash prices pretty soon.

I dunno , how much of the price do you want them to slash? The graphics are already too good at a fair price of $400 (for ps4) . How much would a PC setup cost for the same performance?