The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Why are people so amazed that the Xbox is NOT £400??? Microsoft know just as much about the industry as Sony. FULLSTOP.
And the fact that Microsoft have a competitively priced console, good second party games (Microsoft BOUGHT bungie so that Halo will be on Xbox... what about Sony?) and a very well built console. On top, they have huge marketting and a good list of supporting developers.
Of course, Sony didn't enter the market with all of the above and kill the competition?
And the reply to this topic:
OH NO! But it's made my MS! Kill Bill and all that!
Sonic
And the fact that Microsoft have a competitively priced console, good second party games (Microsoft BOUGHT bungie so that Halo will be on Xbox... what about Sony?) and a very well built console. On top, they have huge marketting and a good list of supporting developers.
Of course, Sony didn't enter the market with all of the above and kill the competition?
And the reply to this topic:
OH NO! But it's made my MS! Kill Bill and all that!
Sonic
Page:
I wouldn't hate microsoft if they didn't try to control us!
I really do hate Microsoft...
It's a great shame that in a mass market era the increased commerce means that companies lose out due to lack on marketting, rather than having bad games.
Sonic
Sonic
SonicRav wrote:
This in itself is
> bias (no offense to Jimmy, who is one of the best posters
> here)
Why do you want a "true gaming company to
> succeed". Surely, a proper gamer wants:
a) as many companies
> as possible to succeed to raise competition
b) The
> "winner" of the console wars to be the one with best
> games... whether that be Nintendo OR Microsoft.
Sonic
Doesn't that make you biased if you want the 'BEST' to win?
This in itself is
> bias (no offense to Jimmy, who is one of the best posters
> here)
Why do you want a "true gaming company to
> succeed". Surely, a proper gamer wants:
a) as many companies
> as possible to succeed to raise competition
b) The
> "winner" of the console wars to be the one with best
> games... whether that be Nintendo OR Microsoft.
Sonic
Doesn't that make you biased if you want the 'BEST' to win?
I phrased that badly didnt I.
Ofcourse I would like healthy competition, who wouldnt. Except for the fact we all Microsoft doesnt live by the rules of healthy competition.
Segas Dreamcast was ultimately destroyed by Sonys Financial, and Advertising muscle. I dont particularly want Microsoft to use its financial muscle to destroy Nintendo, because Nintendo as Sega make great games.
I dont really mind who wins so long as its the company who make the best games (remember Sega made better games than Sony but it didnt save them!)
Ofcourse I would like healthy competition, who wouldnt. Except for the fact we all Microsoft doesnt live by the rules of healthy competition.
Segas Dreamcast was ultimately destroyed by Sonys Financial, and Advertising muscle. I dont particularly want Microsoft to use its financial muscle to destroy Nintendo, because Nintendo as Sega make great games.
I dont really mind who wins so long as its the company who make the best games (remember Sega made better games than Sony but it didnt save them!)
New Jimmy wrote:
> OK Ill admit it, I dont see much of a difference between Microsoft
> and Sony in terms of each company. Both have machines, both buy up
> other companies to make games for their machines. Sony are the
> monopolistic overlords of Gaming, and Microsoft the monopolistic
> overlords of the gaming world!
For that reason Ild rather see a
> true gaming company suceed, i.e. Nintendo, a company that actually
> supports its machines with its own products.
This in itself is bias (no offense to Jimmy, who is one of the best posters here)
Why do you want a "true gaming company to succeed". Surely, a proper gamer wants:
a) as many companies as possible to succeed to raise competition
b) The "winner" of the console wars to be the one with best games... whether that be Nintendo OR Microsoft.
Sonic
> OK Ill admit it, I dont see much of a difference between Microsoft
> and Sony in terms of each company. Both have machines, both buy up
> other companies to make games for their machines. Sony are the
> monopolistic overlords of Gaming, and Microsoft the monopolistic
> overlords of the gaming world!
For that reason Ild rather see a
> true gaming company suceed, i.e. Nintendo, a company that actually
> supports its machines with its own products.
This in itself is bias (no offense to Jimmy, who is one of the best posters here)
Why do you want a "true gaming company to succeed". Surely, a proper gamer wants:
a) as many companies as possible to succeed to raise competition
b) The "winner" of the console wars to be the one with best games... whether that be Nintendo OR Microsoft.
Sonic
OK Ill admit it, I dont see much of a difference between Microsoft and Sony in terms of each company. Both have machines, both buy up other companies to make games for their machines. Sony are the monopolistic overlords of Gaming, and Microsoft the monopolistic overlords of the gaming world!
For that reason Ild rather see a true gaming company suceed, i.e. Nintendo, a company that actually supports its machines with its own products.
For that reason Ild rather see a true gaming company suceed, i.e. Nintendo, a company that actually supports its machines with its own products.
I'm definately looking forward to the XBox, i'm almost certainly going to get one, unless the 'Cube is something REALLY special.
Page: