Xbox's Embarrasing History
alvinst...@hotmail.com
year even daring to go so far as to compare it to the disasteristic
Jaguar. Yet one only has to dig a little into history and reveal
Xbox's shockingly bad history.
Xbox debuts in 2001 with one of those worst game libraries in gaming
history. Anyone remember Bruce Lee? Nightcaster? Azurik ? The
console is pricey at $300 bucks.
Xbox is forced to drop their price a few months later
Xbox rapes users forcing them to pay big bucks for standard extras
such as a dvd remote and headset.
Xbox live debuts in 2002 with a mere handful of Live games. Gamers
have to wait almost a year before decent multiplayer titles come out.
Brute Force is hyped hugely as the next great Halo type game. The
game is a laughable failure with an extremely short game length.
Fable is a similiar experience.
The slogan "only on Xbox" becomes an industry joke as several of
Xbox's great exclusives are ported to other consoles. For example,
Splinter Cell found it's way on all other platforms, and even the
great Halo ended up on the PC with a superior version.
In 2005, Microsoft reveals that they literally lost billions on Xbox.
Microsoft decides to punish anyone who dares to mod their Xbox by
banning them from Live for life.
Just as Xbox was gathering momentum in 2005, Microsoft completely
drops all support in favor of Xbox 360. Xbox owners are forced to
update or brick their big black box.
Xbox 360 launches in 2005 with only one good game - Call of Duty 2, a
PC title. Xbox 360 would take almost a full year to release one
decent exclusive.
Despite a year head start, on September 12, 2007, it was reported by
the Financial Times that the Xbox 360 had been surpassed by the Wii in
terms of worldwide console sales.
Since 2005, Microsoft has yet to turn a profit with over 4 billion
lost. ¼ of this cost went to repairing Xbox's lousy hardware with
their extended warranty.
Man, and you think the PS3 is doing bad?
NiGHTS
alvinst...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Xbots love to rub it in about how poorly the PS3 has performed this
> year even daring to go so far as to compare it to the disasteristic
> Jaguar. Yet one only has to dig a little into history and reveal
> Xbox's shockingly bad history.
>
> Xbox debuts in 2001 with one of those worst game libraries in gaming
> history. Anyone remember Bruce Lee? Nightcaster? Azurik ? The
> console is pricey at $300 bucks.
>
Same price as the PS2 at launch, right?
> Xbox is forced to drop their price a few months later
>
And offered two games and a controller to early adopters in the UK at least.
> Xbox rapes users forcing them to pay big bucks for standard extras
> such as a dvd remote and headset.
>
Funny, I don't recall either of these being bundled with my PS2.
> Xbox live debuts in 2002 with a mere handful of Live games. Gamers
> have to wait almost a year before decent multiplayer titles come out.
>
> Brute Force is hyped hugely as the next great Halo type game. The
> game is a laughable failure with an extremely short game length.
> Fable is a similiar experience.
>
Dare I say Killzone?
> The slogan "only on Xbox" becomes an industry joke as several of
> Xbox's great exclusives are ported to other consoles. For example,
> Splinter Cell found it's way on all other platforms, and even the
> great Halo ended up on the PC with a superior version.
>
I'll concede that the PS2 port of the *first* Splinter Cell game was the
better version, but since when did anyone regard the pc version of Halo
as superior?
> In 2005, Microsoft reveals that they literally lost billions on Xbox.
>
Just as Sony are losing billions on the PS3...
> Microsoft decides to punish anyone who dares to mod their Xbox by
> banning them from Live for life.
>
http://www.us.playstation.com/DNAS/
Wait a minute... Sony did it too!?
> Just as Xbox was gathering momentum in 2005, Microsoft completely
> drops all support in favor of Xbox 360. Xbox owners are forced to
> update or brick their big black box.
>
> Xbox 360 launches in 2005 with only one good game - Call of Duty 2, a
> PC title. Xbox 360 would take almost a full year to release one
> decent exclusive.
>
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/xbox360launchgames.htm
A number of those did quite respectably.
>
> Despite a year head start, on September 12, 2007, it was reported by
> the Financial Times that the Xbox 360 had been surpassed by the Wii in
> terms of worldwide console sales.
>
And despite launching around the same time the Wii has outsold the PS3
nearly three times over. What was your point?
> Since 2005, Microsoft has yet to turn a profit with over 4 billion
> lost. ¼ of this cost went to repairing Xbox's lousy hardware with
> their extended warranty.
>
>
>
> Man, and you think the PS3 is doing bad?
>
Yes. Still do.
--
NiGHTS/Nightcrawler [mWo]
Fear Is The Mindkiller
"just a curtain jerking jobber here in RSPWland" -Lord Gow
"a laughably shitty shitbag" -The Teacher
"pretty pathetic" -rwa2play
"a sarcastic douchebag" -Cain
"NiGHTS is gay!!!" -Corey
terryfied
and in the process I've made lots of friends from all around the
world; and I don't regret a single minute.
A big thanks to Microsoft for making it all possible. :-)
boodybandit
"terryfied" <terryvi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194020822.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
If only you could have multiple friends list or a bigger capacity for
friends.
I think it would be neat to have them listed under the game you met them in.
Maybe have catergories. This way when you want to get rid free up some space
you will know where you met whom where.
The alMIGHTY N
This is going to be fun... it's these types of idiotic posts that get
me through the work day haha...
On Nov 2, 10:55 am, "alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com"
<alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Xbots love to rub it in about how poorly the PS3 has performed this
> year even daring to go so far as to compare it to the disasteristic
> Jaguar.
Actually, only one poster compared it to the Jaguar. It was an
interesting comparison because there were quite a few parallels.
> Yet one only has to dig a little into history and reveal
> Xbox's shockingly bad history.
Or your misinterpretation of it haha.
> Xbox debuts in 2001 with one of those worst game libraries in gaming
> history. Anyone remember Bruce Lee? Nightcaster? Azurik ?
LOL - None of those were launch titles. That crappy Bruce Lee game
didn't even come out until July of the following year. Azurik was
close - about 2 weeks after launch - but Nightcaster didn't come out
until late December.
The Xbox launch titles:
- Halo: Combat Evolved
- Project Gotham Racing
- Dead or Alive 3
- Oddworld: Munch's Oddyssee
- NFL Fever 2002
- Airforce Delta Storm
- Mad Dash Racing
- Cel Damage
- Arctic Thunder
- Fusion Frenzy
By the end of 2001, there were 37 Xbox games available for purchase.
That's about twice the number of Playstation 3 games available for
purchase at the end of 2006.
> The
> console is pricey at $300 bucks.
And the Playstation 3 at $600 isn't?
> Xbox is forced to drop their price a few months later
Microsoft dropped the price of the Xbox in May. Sony dropped the price
of the Playstation 3 in June and then again in October. The Xbox's
second price drop didn't come until almost exactly a year after the
first one.
> Xbox rapes users forcing them to pay big bucks for standard extras
> such as a dvd remote and headset.
The Playstation 2 didn't come with a headset or a DVD remote so I
guess all those PS2 fans were rape as well.
> Xbox live debuts in 2002 with a mere handful of Live games. Gamers
> have to wait almost a year before decent multiplayer titles come out.
And that's better than Playstation 2 owners not having any online
network at all and not being able to play online games for 3 years?
Not to mention that you had to purchase a pricey network adapter until
the later slim line model that incorporated it.
> Brute Force is hyped hugely as the next great Halo type game. The
> game is a laughable failure with an extremely short game length.
> Fable is a similiar experience.
I won't disagree with those statements. I had fun with Brute Force but
found it a disappointment nonetheless. I couldn't get through an hour
of Fable without giving up any hope of actually having fun.
> The slogan "only on Xbox" becomes an industry joke as several of
> Xbox's great exclusives are ported to other consoles. For example,
> Splinter Cell found it's way on all other platforms, and even the
> great Halo ended up on the PC with a superior version.
Man, you really are dumb. Splinter Cell was never touted as an Xbox
true exclusive. The Xbox was the target platform but everybody knew
that the game was coming out for the Playstation 2 and GameCube from
the get go.
That's a lot better than Sony touting Unreal Tournament 3 as a true
exclusive for a year and then having Epic announce there would be an
Xbox 360 version only a few months afterwards.
Further, a game ported to the PC is still an exclusive. When people
talk about video games being exclusives, they only consider
consoles... hell, people don't even say that they play video games on
PCs... those games are specifically called PC games.
> In 2005, Microsoft reveals that they literally lost billions on Xbox.
And?
> Microsoft decides to punish anyone who dares to mod their Xbox by
> banning them from Live for life.
Sony ran several companies out of business with the costs of lawsuits
for emulating PSOne games.
Microsoft did exactly what they should do - everybody knows that
people modded their Xbox systems for one reason... to be able to play
ripped games. Are you seriously going to defend people's "right" to
pirate games, dumbass?
> Just as Xbox was gathering momentum in 2005, Microsoft completely
> drops all support in favor of Xbox 360. Xbox owners are forced to
> update or brick their big black box.
Gathering momentum? What planet are you from? The Xbox was a lost
cause. Microsoft wasn't stupid - why keep making the console if you
have less than 10% market share?
And once again you ignore the fact that developers could have
continued to make Xbox games but chose not to because < 10% market
share translated to meager sales when they could be devoting resources
to making exclusives for the system with 90% market share.
You keep trying to validate this point and you still sound as stupid
as you did the first time you said it.
> Xbox 360 launches in 2005 with only one good game - Call of Duty 2, a
> PC title. Xbox 360 would take almost a full year to release one
> decent exclusive.
Just when we thought you couldn't make a dumber statement, you go
ahead and surprise us with this one.
Metacritic scores:
Call of Duty 2 - 90
Project Gotham Racing 3 - 88
Dead or Alive 4 - 85
Need For Speed: Most Wanted - 83
Condemned - 81
NBA 2K6 - 81
Perfect Dark Zero - 81
King Kong - 80
8 games 80+ (average score 83.625), 1 game 90+, 4 true exclusives
Let's look at the Playstation 3:
Resistance - 86
Fight Night - 83
Tiger Woods 07 - 81
NBA 2K7 - 80
Call of Duty 3 - 80
5 games 80+ (average score 82), 0 games 90+, 1 true exclusive
Further, if you consider scores of 88, 85, 83, 81, and 80 to be less
than decent, then you better revise your statements about Resistance
(86), Warhawk (84), Heavenly Sword (79), Eye of Judgment (76), and
Folklore (a horrendous 74).
> Despite a year head start, on September 12, 2007, it was reported by
> the Financial Times that the Xbox 360 had been surpassed by the Wii in
> terms of worldwide console sales.
How is this bad for the Xbox 360 when everyone here seems to think the
Wii isn't even next-generation and shouldn't be considered a
competitor? How is this bad even in general when Japan rejected Xbox
360 from day 1? Japan embraced the PS3 as best it could yet the Wii
blew it out of the water from the get go.
> Since 2005, Microsoft has yet to turn a profit with over 4 billion
> lost.
Actually, Microsoft has been turning a profit since well before that.
If you're talking about the Microsoft games division, you need to go
further back than that - 2001 or so.
> ??? of this cost went to repairing Xbox's lousy hardware with
> their extended warranty.
So you think it's a bad thing that Microsoft gave an extended warranty
to consumers that needed it?
> Man, and you think the PS3 is doing bad?
I don't need to *think* the Playstation 3 is doing badly. I just need
to look at the facts to see this. Sony now has a chance to gain some
headway with the release of the $400 PS3 to North American consumers
but don't discount the fact that they *do* need to gain a *lot* of
ground.
Tom
"NiGHTS" <nightsintodr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5p0v77F...@mid.individual.net...
> This is so amusing I'm compelled.
>
> alvinst...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Xbots love to rub it in about how poorly the PS3 has performed this
>> year even daring to go so far as to compare it to the disasteristic
>> Jaguar. Yet one only has to dig a little into history and reveal
>> Xbox's shockingly bad history.
>>
>> Xbox debuts in 2001 with one of those worst game libraries in gaming
>> history. Anyone remember Bruce Lee? Nightcaster? Azurik ? The
>> console is pricey at $300 bucks.
>>
>
> Same price as the PS2 at launch, right?
>
>> Xbox is forced to drop their price a few months later
>>
>
> And offered two games and a controller to early adopters in the UK at
> least.
>
>> Xbox rapes users forcing them to pay big bucks for standard extras
>> such as a dvd remote and headset.
>>
>
> Funny, I don't recall either of these being bundled with my PS2.
>
>> Xbox live debuts in 2002 with a mere handful of Live games. Gamers
>> have to wait almost a year before decent multiplayer titles come out.
>>
>> Brute Force is hyped hugely as the next great Halo type game. The
>> game is a laughable failure with an extremely short game length.
>> Fable is a similiar experience.
>>
>
> Dare I say Killzone?
Ghost Recon was the best release in 2002 (just a little after Live's debut),
and it showed great things for Live. Sony didnt really have a version of
online gaming, it wasn't anything. I think only a few games overall were
made to use online gaming for PS2 games, and even today there are not that
many. Even then, only the game developers provided for online play on 3rd
party servers, and most know how well that worked. Also, until the slimline
was released, folks had to pruchase a network adapter for the PS2 to do
online gaming
>
>> The slogan "only on Xbox" becomes an industry joke as several of
>> Xbox's great exclusives are ported to other consoles. For example,
>> Splinter Cell found it's way on all other platforms, and even the
>> great Halo ended up on the PC with a superior version.
>>
>
> I'll concede that the PS2 port of the *first* Splinter Cell game was the
> better version, but since when did anyone regard the pc version of Halo as
> superior?
PS2 version was better? It got much lower scores than the Xbox version
overall by the critics.
Tom
"boodybandit" <allabo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iaadna_iZNyZGLba...@comcast.com...
Would having a bigger list really work out into something beneficial? I only
ask from my experience with the 100 limit now. I have about 10 people I play
with consistently, then maybe 20+ casually if they are playing something the
same. Many on my list I haven't played with for months. Having more would
leave more there that acts as a list really. I have deleted and added newer
friends many times over and I am sure I have been deleted by others I
haven't played with in a long time also.
NiGHTS
>> the better version, but since when did anyone regard the pc version of
>> Halo as superior?
>
> PS2 version was better? It got much lower scores than the Xbox version
> overall by the critics.
>
Having owned both versions at one point I found the PS2 version,
although inferior from a technical standpoint, was general more
enjoyable because of the refined control scheme (items like the optic
cable and the lockpick mapped to the context menus rather than having to
equip them first). Sounds like a small change, but it made all the
difference for me.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
Not to interrupt, but as I stated in a different post, the Xbox market
share was much more than 10%.
http://www.news.com/Gates-considering-Xbox-clones/2100-1043_3-5770507.html
You need to stop using that "under 10%" figure, unless you can come
up with a better, contradictory cite.
Doug Jacobs
> Xbox debuts in 2001 with one of those worst game libraries in gaming
> history. Anyone remember Bruce Lee? Nightcaster? Azurik ? The
> console is pricey at $300 bucks.
At least Xbox launched with Halo, which was much better than anything the
PS3 had - and arguably STILL HAS, A YEAR LATER.
$300 is "pricey"? That's the same price the PS2 debuted at. $400 is
pricey. $500 and $600 is just insane.
> Xbox rapes users forcing them to pay big bucks for standard extras
> such as a dvd remote and headset.
Arguable. First, most bundle tossed the DVD remote in for free. I agree
that DVD playability should have been something the Xbox could do out of
the box, but honestly, by the time the Xbox came out, who DIDN'T have a
standalone DVD player already?
Also, what do you say about Sony's "raping" of users by forcing them to
buy things like component or HDMI cables - something that the 360
includes. Or, how about the Rumble controller? Everyone who owns a PS3
now can look forward to spending another $50/controller to get the
controller that should have been included in the system from day one.
It's funny you mention a headset...Sony doesn't include one of those
either, but the 360 does.
> Xbox live debuts in 2002 with a mere handful of Live games. Gamers
> have to wait almost a year before decent multiplayer titles come out.
As compared to Sony's last-minute scramble to get the PS2 online? How
many PS2 titles everntually supported online play, anyways? Now, how many
Xbox titles supported online play?
> Brute Force is hyped hugely as the next great Halo type game. The
> game is a laughable failure with an extremely short game length.
> Fable is a similiar experience.
Brute Force was overhyped. Sure.
Fable, however, did fairly well. Probably one of the better titles for
the Xbox, especially if you're an RPG fan.
> The slogan "only on Xbox" becomes an industry joke as several of
> Xbox's great exclusives are ported to other consoles. For example,
> Splinter Cell found it's way on all other platforms, and even the
> great Halo ended up on the PC with a superior version.
Oh come off it. Sure, Xbox had a lot of cross/multi-platform titles, but
it still had a lot of exclusives - that remained exclusive.
I'm not even sure you can count Halo, because by the time that came out,
the Xbox was moreorless on the way out with the 360 coming along and all
that.
> In 2005, Microsoft reveals that they literally lost billions on Xbox.
> Microsoft decides to punish anyone who dares to mod their Xbox by
> banning them from Live for life.
As opposed to what, letting cheaters onto Live?
> Just as Xbox was gathering momentum in 2005, Microsoft completely
> drops all support in favor of Xbox 360. Xbox owners are forced to
> update or brick their big black box.
My Xbox still works just fine thank you. No one bricked it, or forced me
to upgrade...
> Xbox 360 launches in 2005 with only one good game - Call of Duty 2, a
> PC title. Xbox 360 would take almost a full year to release one
> decent exclusive.
Oh come off it. There were other good games for the 360 at launch.
Kameo, for instance.
Also, didn't Oblivion show up a few months after launch? Granted, it's a
PC title too... Then there was DOA4, but I think the jury's out whether
that counts as a good game or not... It was popular in Japan though ;)
And Crackdown certainly didn't come "almost a full year" later.
> Despite a year head start, on September 12, 2007, it was reported by
> the Financial Times that the Xbox 360 had been surpassed by the Wii in
> terms of worldwide console sales.
Meanwhile your precious PS3 sits in 3rd place. A DISTANT, DISMAL,
DISASTEROUS THIRD PLACE.
> Man, and you think the PS3 is doing bad?
Yeah. In fact, if things don't turn around soon, the PS3 could very well
doom Blu-Ray, and put a huge hole in Sony's finances for years to come -
if not sink the company outright.
Their PS2 from SEVEN YEARS AGO was outselling the PS3 most months, and
even now, continues to keep pace with its sales.
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
Tom
Also, Perfect Dark Zero, (I liked it anyway, and it was a big seller)
PGR3, Condemned.
>
> Also, didn't Oblivion show up a few months after launch? Granted, it's a
> PC title too... Then there was DOA4, but I think the jury's out whether
> that counts as a good game or not... It was popular in Japan though ;)
>
> And Crackdown certainly didn't come "almost a full year" later.
Actually Crackdown came out way more than a full year later, it wasn't
released until Feb. 20 2007 in the US.
slaye...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> > The slogan "only on Xbox" becomes an industry joke as several of
> > Xbox's great exclusives are ported to other consoles. For example,
> > Splinter Cell found it's way on all other platforms, and even the
> > great Halo ended up on the PC with a superior version.
>
> I'll concede that the PS2 port of the *first* Splinter Cell game was the
> better version, but since when did anyone regard the pc version of Halo
> as superior?
It certainly was easier with mouse/keyboard (it can literally be
beaten on legendary difficulty without dying - in single
player(headshotheadshotheadshot)), but I certainly scoff at saying the
PC version was 'better'. It is pretty much exactly the same with
different controls, except if I am remembering correctly the PC
version has no co-op campaign, making it not worthwhile in the
slightest.
Tom
> On Nov 2, 8:48 am, NiGHTS <nightsintodreamsYOHOL...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > > The slogan "only on Xbox" becomes an industry joke as several of
> > > Xbox's great exclusives are ported to other consoles. For example,
> > > Splinter Cell found it's way on all other platforms, and even the
> > > great Halo ended up on the PC with a superior version.
>
> > I'll concede that the PS2 port of the *first* Splinter Cell game was the
> > better version, but since when did anyone regard the pc version of Halo
> > as superior?
> except if I am remembering correctly the PC
> version has no co-op campaign, making it not worthwhile in the
> slightest.
The Xbox/PS2 versions had no co-op either, they were both single
player only games.
Jordan
He's talking about co-op Halo not co-op Splinter Cell. The PC version
of Halo offered no co-op mode. My guess is because the console version
only had it locally via split screen and that would be almost
impossible to do on a PC monitor. Certainly impossible with a single
keyboard and mouse.
- Jordan
NiGHTS
Can't help seeing it in context either. I think Halo was superb as a
*console* FPS, but when you compare it against the high quality FPS
games already on PC by the time the port came out it seems rather mundane.
HidariMak
> > Microsoft decides to punish anyone who dares to mod their Xbox by
> > banning them from Live for life.
>
> Sony ran several companies out of business with the costs of lawsuits
> for emulating PSOne games.
>
> Microsoft did exactly what they should do - everybody knows that
> people modded their Xbox systems for one reason... to be able to play
> ripped games. Are you seriously going to defend people's "right" to
> pirate games, dumbass?
That would certainly be the case with the 360 and the Wii, but not as
much with the first Xbox. The homebrew titles Xbox Media Center
(XBMC) and Gentoox (Linux on the Xbox) were both the main reasons for
me to mod my own. I waited until those apps were released before
buying an Xbox, with full intentions on modding it, with 3 retail
games. And over two dozen legal commercial games were purchased in
the years afterwards -- the only games I really played on it.
The alMIGHTY N
I have never read a single review or a heard a single gamer say that
Halo was superior on the PC. The mouse/keyboard option is not an
aspect of the game itself so it's tough to say THAT'S a reason why the
game is superiod. The games are pretty much the same with the PC
version having a few extra multiplayer maps but also having
performance issues - unless you had the latest and greatest hardware
in your PC at the time, you had to turn down settings to sub-Xbox
levels.
The alMIGHTY N
> "boodybandit" <allaboutga...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:iaadna_iZNyZGLba...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > "terryfied" <terryvickers...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I'm in agreement with you on this one. I had a bunch of people on my
friends lists but most of the time I never saw them online again after
we first added each other. There were only a few core people I would
play over and over again with because they were worthwhile teammates
or opponents.
The alMIGHTY N
> On Nov 2, 2:24 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 10:55 am, "alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com"
>
> > > drops all support in favor of Xbox 360. Xbox owners are forced to
> > > update or brick their big black box.
>
> > Gathering momentum? What planet are you from? The Xbox was a lost
> > cause. Microsoft wasn't stupid - why keep making the console if you
> > have less than 10% market share?
>
> Not to interrupt, but as I stated in a different post, the Xbox market
> share was much more than 10%.
>
>
> You need to stop using that "under 10%" figure, unless you can come
> up with a better, contradictory cite.
You're right... just hyperbole on my part. The Xbox actually had 14.5%
(according to Wikipedia or 17.6% according to Sony's own shipment
numbers for June 2005) of the worldwide market, which while better
still isn't good enough to continue manufacturing when they were still
losing money on each system sold at that juncture.
The GameCube only had 13.1% (or 15.8% according to those same shipment
numbers) of the worldwide market but Nintendo could afford to continue
manufacturing the system because they actually made a decent amount of
money on each system sold at that juncture (and were profitable on
hardware since day 1).
The alMIGHTY N
You would be the exception to the rule. Sales of the mod chips boomed
because people could just rent a game from Blockbuster and rip it
instead of having to pay $50 at Best Buy.
I'm sure there were legitimate uses for the modchip, but piracy is
always going to be the main draw with this kind of technology.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
> On Nov 2, 5:55 pm, "Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 2:24 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 10:55 am, "alvinstraigh...@hotmail.com"
>
> > > > Just as Xbox was gathering momentum in 2005, Microsoft completely
> > > > drops all support in favor of Xbox 360. Xbox owners are forced to
> > > > update or brick their big black box.
>
> > > Gathering momentum? What planet are you from? The Xbox was a lost
> > > cause. Microsoft wasn't stupid - why keep making the console if you
> > > have less than 10% market share?
>
> > Not to interrupt, but as I stated in a different post, the Xbox market
> > share was much more than 10%.
>
> >http://www.news.com/Gates-considering-Xbox-clones/2100-1043_3-5770507...
>
> > You need to stop using that "under 10%" figure, unless you can come
> > up with a better, contradictory cite.
>
> You're right... just hyperbole on my part. The Xbox actually had 14.5%
> (according to Wikipedia or 17.6% according to Sony's own shipment
> numbers for June 2005) of the worldwide market,
I thought it was somewhere above the 20% mark, but that might just be
the US market.
>which while better
> still isn't good enough to continue manufacturing when they were still
> losing money on each system sold at that juncture.
To which I say that if their intent was to show that they were here to
stay, the losses were something MS needed to accept, and still soldier
on with it nonetheless. What's done is done- but if MS wants people
to ignore their dropping the Xbox early, they NEED to continue to work
on backwards compatibility for the original Xbox games. After all,
Sony is now dropping the ball as far as BC, and MS has a chance to
show that they're going to one-up Sony on the very issue Sony
originally was claiming they were strong on.
>
> The GameCube only had 13.1% (or 15.8% according to those same shipment
> numbers) of the worldwide market but Nintendo could afford to continue
> manufacturing the system because they actually made a decent amount of
> money on each system sold at that juncture (and were profitable on
> hardware since day 1).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The alMIGHTY N
They showed they were here to stay by pushing out the Xbox 360.
Microsoft did what made the most business sense.
> What's done is done- but if MS wants people
> to ignore their dropping the Xbox early, they NEED to continue to work
> on backwards compatibility for the original Xbox games.
The consumers made it clear that they had little interest in Xbox
games by not buying the Xbox so I don't see why Microsoft would be
motivated to continue with more backwards compatibility. That being
said, they have never indicated they would drop future work on adding
emulation.