Nobody lost in the 7th generation.

briany

It seems to me like every generation of consoles has had an also ran until now. Some have been by a little and some a lot but there's no way you could deem any console of the 7th gen. a failure. The Xbox and PS3 have been pretty much tied at near 80 million units and while the Wii looks like the winner on paper, it's been critically slated among some hardcore gamers for being underpowered and hosting it's share of shovelware. It seems like huge success all around to me and a noteworthy instance in the history of gaming. Is it a one off thing?

K.O.Kiki

Any "hardcore gamer" who slates the Wii doesn't deserve their self-imposed title.

Retr0gamer

Have to agree that the only people that say the Wii doesn't have any games don't really know much about games.

As for nobody losing this generation, Sony might fit the bill. Through sheer arrogance and stupid design and business decisions they lost a total stranglehold over the home console market. Really the XBox should not have been as successful as it was considering how terrible the original XBox was as a console, particularly as an alternative to the PS2. Sony letting the ball drop meant MS got the software support the PS3 lacked and really did a great job of getting a much bigger foothold in the market.

Mr.Saturn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Have to agree that the only people that say the Wii doesn't have any games don't really know much about games.

As for nobody losing this generation, Sony might fit the bill. Through sheer arrogance and stupid design and business decisions they lost a total stranglehold over the home console market. Really the XBox should not have been as successful as it was considering how terrible the original XBox was as a console, particularly as an alternative to the PS2. Sony letting the ball drop meant MS got the software support the PS3 lacked and really did a great job of getting a much bigger foothold in the market.

Microsoft's success this gen is made all the more noteworthy by the fact it survived the absolute disaster that was its launch. If that'd been Sega/Nintendo during the 16-bit era, with that high a failure-rate, it would've resulted in straight-out death for the platform.

It's why I wasn't quite ready to write-off the Xbox One when MS were doing their best to make sure everyone did; They've survived worse as a brand. Mind, I'm kinda baffled they didn't right-out win the HD-war, since, as you mentioned, Sony spent the first-half of the PS3's life writing a book on how not to launch a console. Sony did turn it around, but it's weird to see that MS have now spent 2 generations just creating market-share.

The Wii's been dead for just about 2 years, which has let the HD-platforms catch up in terms of sales, but last I checked, it was still 22,000,000 clear of its near competitor. Its nearest competitor tends to vary on a weekly basis, generally with a difference of about 100,000 consoles.

Downlinz

Mr.Saturn wrote: »

Microsoft's success this gen is made all the more noteworthy by the fact it survived the absolute disaster that was its launch. If that'd been Sega/Nintendo during the 16-bit era, with that high a failure-rate, it would've resulted in straight-out death for the platform.

It's why I wasn't quite ready to write-off the Xbox One when MS were doing their best to make sure everyone did; They've survived worse as a brand. Mind, I'm kinda baffled they didn't right-out win the HD-war, since, as you mentioned, Sony spent the first-half of the PS3's life writing a book on how not to launch a console. Sony did turn it around, but it's weird to see that MS have now spent 2 generations just creating market-share.

The Wii's been dead for just about 2 years, which has let the HD-platforms catch up in terms of sales, but last I checked, it was still 22,000,000 clear of its near competitor. Its nearest competitor tends to vary on a weekly basis, generally with a difference of about 100,000 consoles.

The 360 had no competition for a year so it could afford those hiccups and the PS3 was a very slow starter. Hardware failures are more tolerated at a time when your HD competition is fumbling about, it was really two different kinds of disasters facing off. They won't have that this time, I think their Xbox One situation will have done unrepairable damage for its first year at least, unless Sony do something stupid to turn people away.

They didn't outright win the HD-war because the PS3 outmuscled its library significantly in the second half of the generation. Microsoft had a drastic oversupply of FPS games and Kinect titles and an undersupply of everything else.
see: http://img.imgcake.com/versusjpgeq.jpg

Radiosonde

There was one loser, sort of: HD-DVD. Really should have been enabled on 360 out-of-the-box, might have helped.

richymcdermott

I dont agree there was no loser , as people already pointed out sony lost this generation , even if the console sold 80 million.

They achieved dominance 2 console generations and let xbox put a strong foothold in the gaming market with little to no effort.

Nintendo is the winner coming from their least selling console the gamecube had shot up to number 1 been the least powerful console on the market and made the wii name an established brand.

Getting people playing games who never did is a winner in my eyes.

Not to forget on top of the wii selling 100 million they also burried the handheld/ mobile market with the ds selling 150 million units.

Captain Chaos

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Have to agree that the only people that say the Wii doesn't have any games don't really know much about games.

As for nobody losing this generation, Sony might fit the bill. Through sheer arrogance and stupid design and business decisions they lost a total stranglehold over the home console market. Really the XBox should not have been as successful as it was considering how terrible the original XBox was as a console, particularly as an alternative to the PS2. Sony letting the ball drop meant MS got the software support the PS3 lacked and really did a great job of getting a much bigger foothold in the market.

To me the Xbox was a cracking console that arrived at a time when I was tired of the PS2 and there no PS2 games that appealed to me. The Xbox was late to the party but had some cracking games. Halo (at the time it was the best fps on a console and I still like it today) PGR, Munche's Odesey, Splinter Cell, Mech Assault then it brought on Xbox Live.

For me there were not many titles on the PS2 that I actually enjoyed overall. All I liked on it were the Ace Combat, MGS, GTA and the GT series of games.

Any games that were cross platform at the time I got on Xbox because of the superior controller and better graphics.

For this generation the PS3 had a woeful start while the 360 hit the ground running with a good launch line up and no competition for the first year. All that changed when MS tried to copy the Wii with the new interface and started shoving Kinect around, then Sony got a brain storm with PS+ and finally got it's exclusives together.

My love for the Xbox made me pre-order the 360 as soon as I could. Sony lost me with the PS2 and I couldn't get excited for the PS3 either while I loved the PS1 and it's games like Colony Wars and G-Police.

I got into PC gaming in 1999 and if it wasn't for the Xbox, the PS2 would have been my last console. I was that close to giving up on console gaming.

While I did own the N64, GC and Wii, I never took to them and they didn't have the magic for me that the NES and SNES had. The 3DSXL has me back with Nintendo now though.

Retr0gamer

Well to me the XBox was a terrible console because I had a PS2 and a gaming PC and there was very little on that machine that wasn't available on those two platforms already. It didn't have a few cracking exclusives but even as a secondary console to the PS2 is was way behind the Gamecube in that area.

Also on PC I was having a much better online experience without paying for it.

I think the only reason the PS3 survived this generation was the brand name. Over a year after launch the console was sitting in the store rooms of shops not selling. When it eventually came down in price the more casual gamers went for the brand name they recognised although by that time a lot were converted to the XBox.

briany

I wasn't talking about who won so much as there wouldn't be a member of the big three who could be overall dissatisfied with their performance. Yeah PS3 got off to a bad start but I think had you offered their ending position to them fairly early in the cycle, they would have settled for it. It wasn't PS2 sales but that was an anomaly in the scheme of things, a runaway success while everyone else fumbled.

Grumpypants

The weird thing is even though the Xbox undersold the PS2 dramatically it was a very solid console and I always felt it was actually better than the PS2 and really well built. I still have two of them and they are built to last. I would buy all my games on the xbox over the PS2 given the chance. Games ran better and looked better but it had a short life and the Duke was a big ass controller.

Going into this gen Sony had a huge lead with the PS2, but MS cut development for the Xbox early and really pushed hard to get the 360 out. Getting the head start was massive.

In the short term it looked as if Sony had made a slip up, they pushed new technology out and focused on HD content with the Blu Ray drive and HDMI as standard. It cost them early on as it took longer to get to market, ended up being much more expensive and further extended MS hold on the market.

But I don't think the PS3 is done yet. Around 2 years ago MS pulled the plug on the 360 and really started on the One, this has given Sony the time to build on the PS3 and I do think it will end up out selling the 360 over it's lifetime purely because Sony have a history of not ditching consoles. Just look at the standard of PS3 games this year with The Last of Us & Beyond two souls still to come. Compared to the Xbox which really only rolled out franchises.

Did either lose? Not really. MS got great market share, the Xbox One will sell by the bucket load as they have their base now.

Sony are no losers either they are going into the next gen looking very strong. The risk they took on Blu Ray has paid off, it was a short term loss for a long term gain. Blu Ray is now the industry standard, MS will even pay Sony a licence fee for every Xbox One unit sold because it has a Blu Ray drive in it.

PickledLime

Sony obviously lost their stranglehold at the start and undid a decade + of good work, Microsoft largely threw it away towards the end and left everyone scratching their heads as to what the hell they were doing. Nintendo made the leap from having one of the most marketable gimmicks that gaming has ever witnessed to an obtuse oddity that doesn't know which side of the fence it sits on itself.

So no one really 'won' it either.

PickledLime

Grumpypants wrote: »

Sony are no losers either they are going into the next gen looking very strong. The risk they took on Blu Ray has paid off, it was a short term loss for a long term gain. Blu Ray is now the industry standard, MS will even pay Sony a licence fee for every Xbox One unit sold because it has a Blu Ray drive in it.

Don't think it's as black and white as that - Sony are part of the Bluray consortium (there's about 18 member companies) whom Microsoft will licence the tech from.

shruikan2553

The wii did well console wise but for every good game there was 10 shovelware game and any multiplatform games were worse on it.

The PS3 had a bad start because of its price and few games but it picked up later in its life.

The xbox had a strong start but near the end it all became kinect kinect and more kinect. I cant remember the last exclusive it had that wasnt a sequel.

Each did very well and sony look like they have learnt from their mistakes. If they can keep it up for the PS4 until its end I could see them winning. MS will have catching up to do and dont expect much from wii u

Retr0gamer

I don't see why the amount of shovelware on a console makes it worse. You know if you're clever about it you can buy the good games and not buy the crap ones. In fact being clever about it is a gross exaggeration of the brain power required.

Mal-Adjusted

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I don't see why the amount of shovelware on a console makes it worse. You know if you're clever about it you can buy the good games and not buy the crap ones. In fact being clever about it is a gross exaggeration of the brain power required.

true. also, something to think about. As much as we hate shovelware, isn't the amount of it a testament to the popularity of the console?




(besides, we're only ever going to play Wii sport anyway)

Retr0gamer

True. The PS2 had far more shovelware than the Wii ever had imo.

super_furry

The only real losers were the people who bought an Xbox in the first four years of it's life. Then bought another, and another and another as they kept dying.

I'm on my fourth 360 at this stage.

NTMK

super_furry wrote: »

The only real losers were the people who bought an Xbox in the first four years of it's life. Then bought another, and another and another as they kept dying.

I'm on my fourth 360 at this stage.

meh i bought it at launch was never more than a month without use (which was the first dying being replaced in 2 weeks and being damaged in transit back to me which resulted in another 2 week turn around). ive found MS easy to deal with and they did extend their warranty on the console to 3 years (which they replaced one of mine for free outside of warranty)

they ****ed up no doubt but at least they owned up to it unlike sony who avoided dealing with YLOD almost completely

if it wasnt for the fact that MS pissed me off so much about the Xbone i wouldnt have an issue buying another ms console

C14N

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think the only reason the PS3 survived this generation was the brand name. Over a year after launch the console was sitting in the store rooms of shops not selling. When it eventually came down in price the more casual gamers went for the brand name they recognised although by that time a lot were converted to the XBox.

I disagree. I was a late PS3 adopter (got it in 2010, had been playing Wii and PC up to then) and the reason I was drawn to it had nothing to do with the brand name at all. I had zero interest in either the PS1 or PS2 (I preferred Nintendo's consoles both times) and the two things that swayed me were the games and the Blu-ray.

The Blu-ray player tripped it up early on when it caused the console to cost as much as both it's competitors combined but over time that was ironed out and I'm sure at least a few million of their sales were swayed by the prospect of a cheap way to play Blu-ray. A 360 would have been a bit cheaper but the big games seemed to be more centred around greyish shooters that I've never had much interest in. Sony also exited this race looking very strong which I think will bode well for them coming into next gen. If they sold 80 million this time after that dreadful start, I could easily see them pushing 100 million next time around and possibly coming out on top.

I sort of feel like Nintendo's insistence on using older hardware, while not hurting them much initially, did damage in the long run. It was just not possible to get the multiplatform games that came out on PS3/360/PC and while the limits imposed by the low power weren't even a problem at the start, they became more noticable over time as everything (and not just games) went to HD. Up to when I got the PS3, I was loving the Wii and had loads of good games to play on it but after that, there just wasn't much to keep me interested by itself. The only Wii game I can remember enjoying in the last two years was Skyward Sword, which felt like a step down from Twilight Princess itself.