sony or nintendo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roto13-ness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathKnight

The one who NEEDS to get the heck outt'a here is Microsoft.

---

Why? The only weakness the X-Box has is RPGs.

---

Microsoft lost $4 billion US on the X-Box, so they must be doing something wrong.

---

It's a future investment. If there's anything MS knows, it's business. I really doubt they'll drop their console, and I think their developer support will increase even more for the current console than the last.
And to be honest, I would change to 360 in a heartbeat if S-E suddenly decided to go multiplatform. I also strongly believe that S-E would change to 360 as their main console the second they gain a bigger market share in the areas they develop and sell games. And that would mean RPGs games and in Japan. However, Japan is MS' weakest market, so it'll be some time till that happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roto13-ness

Microsoft lost $4 billion US on the X-Box, so they must be doing something wrong.

---

Considering the fact that it was their first console, they had little experience, and that they were up against Sony, the market leader by a huge amount, and Nintendo, the name most associated with videogames, I'd say they actually didn't do too bad. Now that they've been in the business for coming on five years, they seem to be taking much smarter steps, such as getting Japanese developers to create RPG's for the 360 and enhancing their main advantage, Xbox LIVE. I don't really see what's wrong with what they're doing.

My only argument with Microsoft (other than the horrible lack of RPGs) is that fact that it really looks like the only reason they are in the videogame market is to gain controll of another market. I mean, they actually lose money for every 360 they make, so they aren't in it for the cash.

Sony loses money for each PS2 they make too, and will do the same with the PS3. It's called subsiding. They'll get the money back by other means. And trust me, Sony does its best to control the marked too. Not only when it comes to consoles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxico

Sega

---

PC plz.

70 Nintendo 30 Sony. The only reason i have a ps is to play FF and a few other titles. Nintendo has a lot of things that i grew up with.

Sony needs to get the smurf out of the handheld business because they're smurfing up with the PSP what the smurf were they thinking challenging Nintendo on the handheld market!?:rolleyes2 Even Microsoft has enough common sense NOT to challenge Nintendo on the handheld...Or DO they???Always in motion is the future.LOL!!!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roto13-ness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathKnight

The one who NEEDS to get the heck outt'a here is Microsoft.

---

Why? The only weakness the X-Box has is RPGs.

---

Microsoft lost $4 billion US on the X-Box, so they must be doing something wrong.

---

Well then it was smart of them to cut their losses and step back down from the console market.

Oh, wait...

Somehow, I think a loss of US$4,000,000,000 would make anyone think twice. Seeing as they have, in fact, released a new console, I suspect that A) the figure is not that cut-and-dried and B) Microsoft knows what they're doing.

sony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yami_Yuffie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yami_Yuffie

Sony PlayStation/PlayStation 2. why?

- Final Fantasy
- Tenchu
- Silent Hill
- Dark Cloud
- Tekken
- Kingdom Hearts
- Xenosaga
- Resident Evil

yes, some of the games are on Nintendo, but i would never have enjoyed Silent Hill, Dark Cloud, or Final Fantasy to the fullest extent - had they not been on the best console. i lean more onNintendo with GameBoy Advance/SP games and ROMs. Sony is my number 1 choice, though i admit to missing out on many great Nintendo titles like the Legend of Zelda and Mario Bros...

---

You do realize that the Gamecube is technically better than the PS2, right? That's a fact. The thing that makes the PS2 more attractive is all the games it has, not that it's better. No one in their right mind would buy a PS2 if the GC had the same games.

---

technical, as in better graphics? ...which is said to not always to be the sole ingredient to a game's success.

i was simply pointing out games i really enjoyed on the PS2 (though they are well-known). i first bought the games, simply not knowing whether i'd like them or not.

ok, narrow it down for instance, Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (PSX):

graphics - ooh, i wasn't impressed, though it didn't bother me at all.
story - great plot, IMO. it's what kept me going on the game.
music - the music accompanies the tempo of the game = well done.
lasting appeal - definitely not a waste to play it again on my watch.

i haven't a thought of flushing money down the drain, just to have it on GameCube. simply, not a decision based all on graphics. i hope i made my point there :mad: .

---

if this helps...http://www.xbreporter.com/xbox_vs_ps2_vs_gamecube.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yami_Yuffie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yami_Yuffie

Sony PlayStation/PlayStation 2. why?

- Final Fantasy
- Tenchu
- Silent Hill
- Dark Cloud
- Tekken
- Kingdom Hearts
- Xenosaga
- Resident Evil

yes, some of the games are on Nintendo, but i would never have enjoyed Silent Hill, Dark Cloud, or Final Fantasy to the fullest extent - had they not been on the best console. i lean more onNintendo with GameBoy Advance/SP games and ROMs. Sony is my number 1 choice, though i admit to missing out on many great Nintendo titles like the Legend of Zelda and Mario Bros...

---

You do realize that the Gamecube is technically better than the PS2, right? That's a fact. The thing that makes the PS2 more attractive is all the games it has, not that it's better. No one in their right mind would buy a PS2 if the GC had the same games.

---

technical, as in better graphics? ...which is said to not always to be the sole ingredient to a game's success.

i was simply pointing out games i really enjoyed on the PS2 (though they are well-known). i first bought the games, simply not knowing whether i'd like them or not.

ok, narrow it down for instance, Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (PSX):

graphics - ooh, i wasn't impressed, though it didn't bother me at all.
story - great plot, IMO. it's what kept me going on the game.
music - the music accompanies the tempo of the game = well done.
lasting appeal - definitely not a waste to play it again on my watch.

i haven't a thought of flushing money down the drain, just to have it on GameCube. simply, not a decision based all on graphics. i hope i made my point there :mad: .

---

You completely missed my point there. You say you wouldn't have enjoyed "those games" had they not been on the best console. You define "the best console" as the console with the best games, so obviously you could have thought the GC would have been the best console if it had had all those games.
The fact is that those games are not on the best console.
There is a big difference between "the console with the best games" and "the best console".

Ofcourse, had the question been "What is your favourite console", it would have been a completely different thing. Strictly speaking, the question wasn't even which console is the best, but which company is the best.

And yes, I know this reply came a bit late.

Linguistically the 'best console' can either mean the console that is technically superior or the console that is the best to own.


For example, the Game Gear may have been technically superior to the Game Boy. But nobody would argue that the Game Gear was a better console (Even me, who wuvved his Game Gear).

Keep in mind that the size is also part of the technical stuff. No one would have preferred the Gameboy had it been twice as big as the game gear :p.
I disagree with that statement anyway, and would rather say that it's definitely the most popular and best selling, but that's not because it's better.

If a company is rich enough, they could even make an inferior console on purpose, spend a gazillion on advertising and propaganda, buy the biggest game manufacturers, (or bribe them), and get the biggest marketshare. In the past, people would look at that inferior console as "better" because it had the most games and most sales.
This could sound a bit like Microsoft, except they actually have the best console, the console that is the easiest to program for, and the best online support. So yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

If a company is rich enough, they could even make an inferior console on purpose, spend a gazillion on advertising and propaganda, buy the biggest game manufacturers, (or bribe them), and get the biggest marketshare. In the past, people would look at that inferior console as "better" because it had the most games and most sales.

---

Biography of the Playstation.