Xbox 360 Launch: Success or Mess?

[Paco]

They're only trying so much... they are releasing Rare's games, but the rest of the market they've built up around the Xbox isn't really conductive to selling Rare games, while Nintendo's is perfect, so they aren't really succeeding... and going by sales, it doesn't look like anything has changed on those regards this generation. In short, Rare was stupid to want to leave Nintendo, as bad as their relationship may have been. :)

They've released an okay game to an established mature crowd, Grabbed by the Ghoulies, a remake, Conker. Now Perfect Dark Zero and Kameo are new beginnings on a new console. This generation has just begun, give them some time to stretch their legs and breath. If you remember, Jak & Daxter or Ratchet & Clank were not overnight successes. In fact, Sony was a bit disappointed with Jak's initial sales but was confident that more people would catch on sooner or later. Here we are, some 2 sequels and a racer later and it's a smash success. I think you're making the call way too quickly.

FYI, Rare says the two new games they will announce and show in a few months are more mature titles. They said they've been wanting to make more mature content but Nintendo wasn't very excited about it, and that's where the problems started. (Same thing happened to Silicone Knights, no?) Anyway, I'm still hoping for a new Banjo.

"Were" worried about their future? Sega hasn't exactly been doing well, quality-wise, since the DC died... there is a very distinct and noticable drop in quality and massive increase in porting. I mean, what have we gotten from Sega... a mountain of DC ports, a few sequels to DC games (some not that good), and only a few great original titles like the ones that the DC was known for...

Yes, I know, and I no longer care. However, I think they are starting to get back in the game. They have partnered with several developers in efforts to publish some great looking games. They also said they would start concentrating their efforts and do less porting in the future.

As for loyalty, maybe it doesn't make "sense", but that doesn't make it wrong. :) I mean, if I had the money I'd have all the consoles... but even then I'd likely often get the GC versions of games, just because I like Nintendo more...and anyway, the consoles are different, so it makes sense to compare them and choose a favorite. Oh yes, and becoming loyal to a company that makes great games is a quite natural, and probably good, thing... (and in my case I don't just mean Nintendo here; I am also extremely loyal to Blizzard, for example.)

It makes you look pretty pathetic when you blindly defend that company even when it's painfully obvious they've made a mistake. I'm not talking about you.

I'm loyal to developers. Nintendo, Rare, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Bungie, Square, and Sega games are what I like. I go where they go, and I don't care what console they are on. (It's rather unfortunate that they are on different consoles; it makes for an expensive habit) That doesn't mean I won't criticize them though.

And if you remember 1996, people had a lot of hope for the N64... skeptical about the cart decision possibly, but it was Nintendo, so it had to begreat and would probably win the generation, right? But the third parties abandoned Nintendo, and Sony's 'aim at an older market' campaign worked better than Sega or Nintendo expected... but yes, it wasn't an overnight victory. Well, it was an overnight victory over the Saturn (at least in Western markets), but less so for the N64...

This is why I always say that nothing is guaranteed. People assume that Sony will continue to be king of the hill, or Microsoft won't ever appeal to anyone but Halo fans. I just say all we can do is wait and see, and try to point out obvious efforts.;)

And I maintain my position (same thing I say when Stealth starts saying that portables don't count...) that portables definitely do count, since they are an integral part of the gaming market and are at worst a very closely related field to the major console market (and at best the same one, just in a different aspect). It is utterly senseless to cut out half of the market just because of the type of screen that the game is developed for... handhelds are a huge portion in the market, in Japan especially (DS has sold over 5 million units in Japan, versus 2.something million in the US (PSP is at 2.something, slightly behind DS I think, in the US, and farther back in Japan.)...)... but the DS is doing very well here too. PSP too, though to a bit lesser degree...

Anyway, I can understand the "it's a different format" argument. Even ignoring everything else, what invalidates that in my eyes is the fact that so many people who say it (like you) tie it to something that intimates 'and it'd make Nintendo look like it's winning when it's really not'... I don't think that counting handhelds (GBA and newer only) gives Nintendo first place overall... GBA+DS+GC isn't quite up to PS2+PSP I believe, because of that 100 million PS2s number (versus 19-20 million GCs, 8-10 million DSes, and 60-70 million various GBAs)... but either way, I definitely think that they count in the final anaysis. Sure, say that in the major console market MS is beating Nintendo (and it is, if not by much), but when looking at the overall picture, leaving out handhelds is just wrong.

I know what you are saying but I still don't agree. It's not that I don't want Nintendo to be number one, or that I do (I honestly, sincerely don't care who is in what place), but I just don't see the console and handheld as the same device, and I won't compare them.