Which console won the last gen war?

Wii, PS3 or XBOX 360?

And please keep in mind stuff like "Wii because it sold the most, that's a fact so 2+2 = 4 = 9000> 8000 - (-1x-1)xdffd3d && 2+- 4i" does not count. Sales numbers are one way to define it and if you want that that is fine but it does not make it automatically the winner by universal standards that are more important than the others. I think this is a very personal thing where you can decide to make it count by sales of consoles and/or games and/or hardware and/or exclusives. It does not have to be exactly this one element.

And before you wonder what this weird post is about, I just googled "who won the console war" so I wrote this as preparation.

And of course some people here lost the game because they went against the context of this thread. Good job.

Well, ya see, it was a 3 way, yo. 1 beat 2 who went on to beat 3.

I do not know what that means but I know I am scared.

Wii for me. The only one I had, it also had some of the best RPGs of the generations - and even what I consider the best RPG of all time.

Also, you wanna go universal or personal? because there's a lot of subjective reasons and people won't reach a consensus. The numbers are really the only area in which you could semi-objectively decide which "won".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynn

Wii for me. The only one I had, it also had some of the best RPGs of the generations - and even what I consider the best RPG of all time.

Also, you wanna go universal or personal? because there's a lot of subjective reasons and people won't reach a consensus. The numbers are really the only area in which you could semi-objectively decide which "won".

---

I would like a mix of both. People can use the numbers but not be like "well sales of consoles: ... and that is the only relevant one". There are many people for example who say the Wii sold the most so it is the winner but while it is a fact that it sold the most I think it is only "possibly" a way to call it the winner. Only in a certain context. Which context is the more important one for the poster and yes, if you want to be even more personal of course you can also bring in the element of which console you liked. I just think "Wii under all circumstances won because 1000>999 and this context has priority over all the others" is no good way as it does not necessarily need to be defined like that. It can but does not need to be. I for example know now that by console sale numbers the Wii would be called the winner but I think the PS3 for example is the winner because even though it does not have the highest sales numbers and games it has a lot of highly popular exclusives, it has great graphical potential, plays Blu-Rays, I like it the most, et cetera. So yes, a mix.

I don't really consider it a three way war as the Wii went for a totally different audience and it paid off dividends. If you do want to throw it in then yup, it won.

PS3 and 360 went head to head and the 360 won that. I think in sales the PS3 just about outstripped the 360 in the end (mostly due to Japan hating Microsoft) but I still think you can chalk it up as a 360 win. In the console market, brand loyalty is insane. People are absolutely ridiculous about their loyalty to big faceless corporations. If you want an example of that, just wait for the responses I'll get here for saying the 360 won :p Don't worry everyone, I'm a Sony fanboy if anything, I promise!

The lead the PS2 had over the Xbox in terms of sales was ridiculous. It wasn't anywhere near close. The 360 absolutely chewed that up and put them on an equal footing for large parts of that generation and I think it was a phenomenal achievement. Of course Microsoft has gone and thrown that all away with its awful Xbox One launch and as such the PS4 has re-established the brand's dominance.

It's also reflected in my own console choices as I had a PS1, PS2, a 360 and now a PS4. I also did get a second hand PS3 late in the console's lifespan and in my own subjective experience I do think the 360 was the superior machine in both accessibility and games.

Accessibility? How so?

Wii easily won it. Sales are all that matter when determining this. It's why the 3DS curb stomped the Vita, despite Vita having vastly superior hardware.

The infrastructure of the console. So your profile, friends, achievements, storefronts, additional apps, info on games and indeed the Xbox live service. It's all implemented in a sleeker and more accessible way than it was on the PS3. Call it ease of use, I guess.

If I'm honest I think the 360 actually beats out the PS4 on this too, although some of the new functions for this generation such as capturing screenshots and footage make the gap smaller. I have no idea if the Xbox One does as I've never used one for any great length of time but given it was originally based around Kinect which doesn't interest me I never had high hopes for it.

Ah, this accessibility. I thought you meant for some reason the XBOX was easier to get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bright Shield

Wii easily won it. Sales are all that matter when determining this. It's why the 3DS curb stomped the Vita, despite Vita having vastly superior hardware.

---

I think it's more a matter of the Vita being dead in Japan (where handhels rule) and very little developers actually wanting to make stuff for it - SE seems to have abandoned Vita completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ah, this accessibility. I thought you meant for some reason the XBOX was easier to get.

---

For a long time it was the cheaper option, so in some ways... not completely incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shauna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ah, this accessibility. I thought you meant for some reason the XBOX was easier to get.

---

For a long time it was the cheaper option, so in some ways... not completely incorrect.

---

Yes but I thought Psychotic meant that in some locations it was like the XBOX was sold and the PS3 wasn't. Not because of money but because they did not have it in stores. For some reason. That is why I wondered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

The infrastructure of the console. So your profile, friends, achievements, storefronts, additional apps, info on games and indeed the Xbox live service. It's all implemented in a sleeker and more accessible way than it was on the PS3. Call it ease of use, I guess.

---

Based on every time I've used the Xbox dashboard and Xbox Live on the 360, I'm not sure ease of use is the term I'd use for something so infested with ads and which has, at various points in it's life of updates, gone out of it's way to try and actually obfuscate certain types of developers and make it harder to buy from them in the marketplace. Don't get me wrong, the playstation store was not a UI marvel before and it's utter trout on PS3 since the PS4 was released and they updated it to something that barely runs on the hardware, but the crossmedia bar was basically about as good as I can imagine a dashboard interface ever being in terms of ease of use and ease of finding what you're looking for. It's just a better way to organize information, especially when your input device is a smurfing controller.

Anyway, who won? While considering these consoles began the trend of doing absolutely nothing to differentiate themselves from PC's I'd say the PC won.

If pressed, PS3 had the better exclusives and all of the best multiplatform games that I cared about anyway so there you go. I liked it more. Would like to get a 360 cheap someday to have a go at Forza though. Had the better controller by far as well. The 360 controller was all right, but the face buttons are too hard and uncomfortable and the d-pad might as well not even be there it's such a worthless piece of trout. Luckily Microsoft redeemed themselves by... oh wait, they made it worse with the XBone controller. Never mind.

I owned both the 360 and the PS3 for a long time, still have 'em both. On a personal level, the PS3 slaughtered the 360 in terms of games. The 360 had top shooters and (I understand) some great driving games, but for everything else it was meh. The likes of Flower and Journey were, for me, rather mind-blowingly amazing. Uncharted ranks among my all time favourite games, too. L4D series and Mass Effect were easily my fave experiences on 360 and both can be experienced on other systems so it's not as big a draw card for me (although I did stick with the 360 for save-carry-across stuff on the ME series). Lost Odyssey had potential for the 360 but I never finished it, for whatever reason. Wipeout HD remains my absolute favourite cart/racing game. I also just prefer the PS3 controller to the 360 controller, especially when it comes to charging them.

In terms of sales, PS3 beat the 360 in the long run.

So for me it's a no-brainer. If I was the kind of person who played multiplayer first person shooters all day every day then I'd probably prefer the 360, but I don't, so... yeah.

EDIT: As for the operating system's UI, I can't say I enjoyed the 360's interface at all, but PS3's wasn't too much better. I think both take a little learning and in the end it becomes a matter of what you are used to.

im too biased for the Xbox....


but wii had TP and playstation..... uh... allowed me to play FF7 & 8.

yeah those are games available for older consoles.

i just say 360 cos it was my primary console

I actually have both a PS3 and an XBOX 360. I brought the PS3. Mr. Carny contributed the XBOX 360. I'd give the edge overall to the PS3. I prefer the PS3 controller marginally over the 360 controller, although both were pretty good. In terms of games, my library has a majority of PS3 games, although Mass Effect, two of the Dragon Age games and Borderlands 2 are my favourites from the XBOX collection. On the other hand, there was Uncharted, Final Fantasy and Tales of Xillia, among others. Some of them probably aren't exclusives, but the entire concept of exclusivity is just strange.

The interface on both needs works. the PS3's 'single row' menu is strange, to say the least. I'm used to it, but it isn't great. The XBOX interface is also odd. On the surface, it looks more lively and interesting, but half of the options are just advertising or asking you to take Gold. I'm not an on-line fan, so that's pretty useless to me.

Honestly, the PS4 main menu is also pretty rubbish as well. Both consoles aren't excelling at making clear menus that you can customise to your liking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Formalhaut

I actually have both a PS3 and an XBOX 360. I brought the PS3. Mr. Carny contributed the XBOX 360. I'd give the edge overall to the PS3. I prefer the PS3 controller marginally over the 360 controller, although both were pretty good. In terms of games, my library has a majority of PS3 games, although Mass Effect, two of the Dragon Age games and Borderlands 2 are my favourites from the XBOX collection. On the other hand, there was Uncharted, Final Fantasy and Tales of Xillia, among others. Some of them probably aren't exclusives, but the entire concept of exclusivity is just strange.

The interface on both needs works. the PS3's 'single row' menu is strange, to say the least. I'm used to it, but it isn't great. The XBOX interface is also odd. On the surface, it looks more lively and interesting, but half of the options are just advertising or asking you to take Gold. I'm not an on-line fan, so that's pretty useless to me.

Honestly, the PS4 main menu is also pretty rubbish as well. Both consoles aren't excelling at making clear menus that you can customise to your liking.

---

Im not sure if ps3 did this.
but 360 had 3 different menus during its cycle iirc. im glad of the last one. the other 2 were... i didnt like them.

PC, last gen was one of the weakest console generations and I've had more gaming friends turn to PC and now ignoring this current console generation, that I'm starting to wonder if the current crop will even do well as time goes on.

For me personally? The Wii was probably my favorite, if incredibly short-lived, system of last Gen and I certainly have more fond memories of the games I played for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

PC, last gen was one of the weakest console generations and I've had more gaming friends turn to PC and now ignoring this current console generation, that I'm starting to wonder if the current crop will even do well as time goes on.

---

If honestly say if there was one defining trait of this generation it was the breakdown of the imaginary wall that always kept console multiplatform titles off of PC. Aside from console exclusives there's really not much that doesn't get a PC release these days. Even Japanese developers like Squenix are getting into that market these days for more than MMO's and if you'd asked me ten years ago or more I'd wonder if they even knew how to develop for PC.

Mind you, we still have companies completely bitching PC releases like Arkham Origins and AC: Unity, but there's still a fair few good ports out there.

It was less of a war and more of a fight on the playground monkeybars for all the difference it made. Console wars meant more when the actual consoles were significantly different.

For me the PS3 won due to just having more games that I wanted to play. I sold/traded away my 360 at least twice during the generation. I have had the same PS3 throughout the whole run.

I owned all three systems, but the Wii was the party system, the 360 was the Halo/Misc machine, and the PS3 is where I did all of my serious gaming.


If we included the hand helds (that I've seen mentioned), the 3DS won me just by the sheer volume of great games, but I played the Vita more just due to PS1 Classics and rereleases of Disgaea games.

For me personally the most games I liked were on PS3. In terms of overall popularity and success, Wii hands down. In terms of the 'hardcore gamer' cred, probably 360. So it really depends on perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

I don't really consider it a three way war as the Wii went for a totally different audience and it paid off dividends. If you do want to throw it in then yup, it won.

PS3 and 360 went head to head and the 360 won that. I think in sales the PS3 just about outstripped the 360 in the end (mostly due to Japan hating Microsoft) but I still think you can chalk it up as a 360 win. In the console market, brand loyalty is insane. People are absolutely ridiculous about their loyalty to big faceless corporations. If you want an example of that, just wait for the responses I'll get here for saying the 360 won :p Don't worry everyone, I'm a Sony fanboy if anything, I promise!

---

A portion of the 360s lead can probably be attributed to the console releasing almost a year ahead of PS3. Year for year, PS3 caught up sooner than at the "end" of the generation (if you count the release of PS4 as the end of it). Also, if you're racing someone, you don't win by being ahead 90% of the time, you need to reach the finish line first to win :p.

However, I don't think install base is the only relevant metric for a console's success. The total profitability from the console's eco system matters too. If Sony sold more games per console, you could argue that they won in profitability even if they didn't win in install base. That only helps to a certain extent, however. The WiiU also has a lot of games sold per console, but their install base is so low that it's unlikely that they are making anywhere near as much money as even the XB1 from it.

To be fair, it's still too early to say who "won" or not, especially since I feel the defining impact is not so much sales as it is overall impact to future game generations. I mean in the Genesis vs. SNES, Sega pretty much won that in terms of sales, but I would argue the library of the SNES had the greater impact and has been remembered far better than what Sega had to offer.

In a similar fashion, while X-Box had Halo and Nintendo had their flagship franchises, I feel it is safe to say the PS2 had the more memorable and impactful gaming library. As usual, the software determines the winner, not the hardware.

I'm biased because I never owned a 360, but I'm saying PS3 because there were never any games that made me want to buy a 360. The Last of Us alone tips the scales heavily in the PS3's favour for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

I mean in the Genesis vs. SNES, Sega pretty much won that in terms of sales

---

Huh? I was certain the SNES outsold the Genesis and a quick trip to Wikipedia confirms a sales lead of more than 15 million units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

I mean in the Genesis vs. SNES, Sega pretty much won that in terms of sales

---

Huh? I was certain the SNES outsold the Genesis and a quick trip to Wikipedia confirms a sales lead of more than 15 million units.

---

Go figure, last time I checked a sales between the two it was Sega who won, course they may have added peripherals sales into the mix like the 32X and what not, so maybe my numbers were wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

I don't really consider it a three way war as the Wii went for a totally different audience and it paid off dividends. If you do want to throw it in then yup, it won.

PS3 and 360 went head to head and the 360 won that. I think in sales the PS3 just about outstripped the 360 in the end (mostly due to Japan hating Microsoft) but I still think you can chalk it up as a 360 win. In the console market, brand loyalty is insane. People are absolutely ridiculous about their loyalty to big faceless corporations. If you want an example of that, just wait for the responses I'll get here for saying the 360 won :p Don't worry everyone, I'm a Sony fanboy if anything, I promise!

---

A portion of the 360s lead can probably be attributed to the console releasing almost a year ahead of PS3. Year for year, PS3 caught up sooner than at the "end" of the generation (if you count the release of PS4 as the end of it). Also, if you're racing someone, you don't win by being ahead 90% of the time, you need to reach the finish line first to win :p.

---

I probably didn't explain my point well enough. You are completely right that it matters where you finish, although the difference is actually all but negligible.

I think the response of consumers is a great way to gauge the quality of a product. Not perfect, no, and I'm sure others attribute more weight to other metrics such as the one you mentioned, profitability. I'm a consumer and not a shareholder or accountant of these companies though so I'm more interested in this.

When I say the Xbox 360 ate into the PS3, perhaps a better way is to show these stats from VGChartz (so if anyone has better please feel free to post them)

6th Generation
PS2 (157m sales)
Xbox (25m sales)

7th Generation
PS3 (86m sales)
Xbox 360 (85m sales)

As stated, consoles enjoy real brand loyalty and this is the key part of my argument. The 7th Console Wars or whatever was not an even race to begin with. After they had such a huge headstart based on how the 6th generation went, to finish all but level is poor from Sony and great from Microsoft. I also genuinely think that if the Xbox and PS2's positions were reversed, the 360 would've absolutely stomped the PS3 in terms of, yes, this purely sales perspective. That was my point so I hope I've put that across better.

For point of interest:

8th Generation (as it stands)
PS4 (41m sales)
Xbox One (21m sales)

Microsoft have undone all of their good work from the last generation. I'll throw in a "yes, it's early days yet" disclaimer but so far it ain't looking good. Consumers simply haven't responded to their product in the way that they have to Sony's.

You could definitely argue that Xbox 360 won because it managed to come from an underdog position and then ending up practically tied with the previous market leader. The surge in popularity is most likely considered a victory for MS. Their paid online service probably also lead to them making more money per console, but then you might also have to count the losses from console replacements following the rrod situation.

In a way, what I take from all these statistics is that whenever a manufacturer hits the nail on its head in one gen, they get overambitious and/or overconfident and smurf up in the next gen :p. We might see a good next gen from MS, while Sony will be the one to struggle.

The race analogy was meant as a bit of a joke :p, the so-called "console war" is a bit more complex than a simple race to the finish line.

I'd go with the XBOX 360 to be honest. XBOX Live became a very robust service that Sony spent much of the last generation trying to catch-up with.

Given the huge brand loyalty Sony had from the PS2 generation, it's staggering that the 360 managed to end up on fairly even footing with Sony, and was even ahead of Sony at times, for most of the last generation.

XBLA also really forced Sony to review the way it treated independent and smaller developers as well as apps.

The 360 really caught Sony off-guard. At the beginning of the generation it really felt like Sony just assumed that "better hardware" and the "PlayStation logo" would ship consoles.

For me, as much as I've owned each PlayStation console - I actually even bought a XBOX 360, which is telling considering during the PS2 era I thought XBOX was scum on earth and Microsoft cashing in on a market where they weren't wanted. So I have to say it was the 360.

The tables really flipped with PS4/XBone though.

Although in terms of opening up the market and diversifying it: Wii hands down.

I don't think it's give the Wii much credit for opening up and diversifying the market considering the market they tapped doesn't buy consoles anymore (hello smartphones and tablets) and they barely bought games for the thing. It was very much a fad that had no staying power. It couldn't even keep its massive sales going until the WiiU came out.

All they showed is that someone who's typically a non-gamer will occasionally buy simpler games to play occasionally in their spare time, but considering that was pop cap games entire business model for years before the Wii came out it didn't even prove that i suppose.

The Wii really is just an anomaly. It unintentionally made the right moves at the right time to provide something novel and bring in non console gamers before smartphones and tablets usurped it as the casual game platform of choice. It really hasn't had a lasting impact on the console market at all (unless you count the introduction of motion controls which are largely terrible for anything but casual games and have gone back to being a complete afterthought), and i doubt Nintendo even fully understands why it did as well as it did.

The PC won and will continue to win and every console will continue its march to PC-hood.

That's about as relevant as bringing up formula 1 in a "car of the year" discussion.

I guess? Consoles and PCs are direct game platform competitors which anyone can buy.