@i_p_daily said:
Coming third last gen has really hurt you cows :(
See @kingtito you people can't let go,and this thread isn't about who end 3rd..lol
@kingtito said:
Look at all the cows trying to make themselves feel and sleep better at night.
360 was a great console out the gate. Had games people wanted to play and an online infrastructure that dwarfed Sony's. Console online gaming became what it is today that's in large part to MS. It would have been a success regardless of what Sony did but with that being said the $600 PS3 price tag sure didn't hurt the 360.
This thread is just asking if the xbox 360 would have been as successful if the PS3 didn't have a bad launch.
You are grasping here, and projecting your usual insecurities.
No the 360 was a most have console when it was 1 year old,when it got Gears,on launch it was pretty much your average console with few games to play and many multiplatforms,games like Kameo,PDZ and other were not high rated games like Gears,and in fact the best game on launch was COD2 which was a multiplatform game.
During the course of the year it got Ghost recon and Oblivion but while high rated were multiplatforms as well,saints row,dead rising were late 2006 games and were not high score as gears.
The really first big game was gears in 2006,in 2007 the xbox 360 got several great games including Bioshock,mass effect,Halo 3,Forza 2 one of this greatest years for the xbox,this is part of the reason why i say the xbox one is a piece of shit compare to the 360,the 360 had a stream of exclusives games or time exclusives high rated no found on xbox one.
Most games people wanted to play were still been done for PS2 in 2005.
Please get your damn facts right you got a $50 dollar P2P network which in some games didn't even work well,like Gears which was a total mess,plague by lag,host advantage issues,meanwhile sony was running Resistance 20 vs 20 on huge maps smooth as butter,oh yeah sony was using this thing call dedicated servers,you know the thing you lemming hyped when this gen started.
PS3 games not only ran great because several exclusives ran on dedicated servers,but the PS3 had features like home,had cross play games and a more open network,in fact you could even share PSN games with up to 5 friends,i even shared with my friends COD map packs,something you could not do on xbox live.
Console online was here before MS even enter the arena man,stop thanking MS for things they didn't do,sure maybe we would have not had party chat,but voice chat was here on PS2 as well before live launched.
And in fact online play was far more popular on PS2 than on xbox.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2004/07/30/sony-claims-socom-ii-bragging-rights
Online gaming would become what it is today no matter what,but if MS wasn't freaking here probably we would still be playing it free of charge and will not have a gigantic microtransaction market that now even infest PC.
If the PS3 would have been $399 on 2006 the story would have been a very different one,even with the head start,the were many moms that simply went xbox 360 because the PS3 was to expensive for jr to have.
@HalcyonScarlet said:
The launch wasn't the issue, the CELL Broadband CPU was. It really slowed development and allowed Xbox to capitalise gaining support. The bad launch was just the icing.
It sure was that $600 price tag was double of the cheapest 360 model.
Log in to comment