But it really says alot for Microsoft when they just completely dump the original xbox and its 20 million+ fan base. I mean, how's that supposed to look? "Yeah we dropped it because we believe its a great product. People invested wisely in the xbox. Our abondoning our 20 million fans represents the continued efforts to give our fans the best value for money possible."

And so unlike sony who was now trying to support 2 systems plus introduce 2 more on the way, they could FULLY concentrate on their next-generation console.....and they designed it like ABSOLUTE crap.

DVD drive? Yeah boi!

Uh what other great harware features does it have...nothing! Yeah boi!

Does the console last long enough til your next hair-cut? No! Yeah boi!

How long does the Xbox 360 have to wait till its first AAA title considering Xbox 360 was the ONLY thing microsoft had to focus on? 1 year! Yeah boi!

Its a bit of a gamble really, what's gonna fail first: Your console or Microsoft's support for your console?

PS3 has experienced the same game drought every new console experiences, and thats now coming to an end. And who's left with the better console?

Console design is the most important thing. Online facilities, games and so forth can all be improved but the console itself is the groundwork and thats where the ps3 wins straight out. You can tell i wouldn't touch an xbox product with a barge pole. Sony's proved its worth to me over 2 systems already, and Microsoft seems to fail at...everything. So why should i doubt Sony with ps3?

i always hated the way the treated the owners of the original Xbox.

i never owned one but i had three buddies that were totally against the Xbox but decided to go ahead and buy one, only to be told 3 months later, the Xbox would be discontinued and all support was going towards the 360. i hate to think they would do it again but you never know.

I've been saying exactly this on forums and elsewhere.

Sony's strategy is solid at present. The combined sales of the PSP, PS2 and PS3 make them the number 1, even though the Wii is outselling the Xbox 360 and PS3 when you just compare 'next gen'.

At best, the original Xbox still sells approximately 4 to 11 units across the US each week (yes, you can still get it in places) whereas the PS2 outsells the Xbox on it's own.

When any percentage of the 170 million PS2 owners eventually 'upgrade' to the PS3, that will be a serious force to be reckoned with and the PS3 will likely overtake the Xbox 360.

Currently, sales of the PS3 **when you line up the launch dates** are tracking the growth pattern of the Xbox 360 almost exactly, so the PS3 can't possibly be deemed a failure in any pro-X360 gamer's eyes...

BAD HARDWARE

This is not news once so ever. This site should be renamed to CrappyNews4Gamers.com

1- MS was losing more money on each old XBOX they sold than they did on the first 360's
2- Everybody who was going to buy an XBOX pretty much had bought one
3- Just because MS stopped making XBOXes didn't stop games from being made or the hardware from being supported; nobody has been left in the lurch.
4- The old XBOX architecture did not scale down so a hypothetical redseign was impossible; at a minimum MS would have had to buy Via and Nvidia to gain the ability to cost-reduce the XBOX
5- Launching 360 in 2005 was mandatory because MS had no way of knowing Sony had blown two years of PS3 development trying to do graphics without a GPU
6- Launching in 2005 gave them a whole year's lead on Sony. On top of that, they didn't have to cut prices until 18 months into the cycle because of Sony's price-point. So they have the edge on Sony in installed base and price and they have the edge on Nintendo in performance and online services. And the extra year's lead not only means that each wave of 360 games is more polished than their PS3 counterparts, but also they have had time to establish their secondary features (Arcade, Video Marketplace, IPTV) as money-makers in their own right. If a real price war arrives, next year, they'll have enough money coming in from those high-margin sidelines to cut prices even deeper than the otherwise would.

Microsoft zigged while Sony zagged.
Time will tell who was right.
Wait for it.

Microsoft realised years ago that sh1t is worth more than gold, and as long as there is a thriving sh1t market they will trade it.
Basically MS dont give a sh1t.

;p

A big mistake? No, but an unexperienced leap into gaming..it was. You gotta start somewhere. I believe M$ always took on the original Xbox as learning process, gettin' their feet wet. They abandoned the original early to get the jump on Sony n' because, quite frankly, I think they realized they'd sold just about as many as they were going to. It's like your first time drawing and you mess you; you'll quickly ball up your first try but take a little more time on the second, n' with pockets as deep as theirs, one can afford to throw things and money away. That's just my opinion tho.

Boy, I can't wait for the "So they fk'd folks over the first time 'round and after they supposedly knew what they were doing STILL did it the 2nd time 'round, dumb xbots lol" aka asdfastgh;a < that's all that sounds like to me anyway..

I've never been 'round any community (online or off) where it was so difficult to strike up some half decent conversations or debates.

appart of the Faulty Hardware
No vision for the long life of the console if it survived the failure.
The xbox 360 had many upgrade.
1: 1080i to 1080p when they release their HD DVD player. Hey Guys, it's a next gen. The next gen movies are 1080p. Even they say 720p it's enough to play.
2: No HDMI output. Now upgrade with HDMI output. The HD TV input supposed to go on HDMI more and more. They said it was useless, no need.
3: No data have to write on HD for the game. Now If you have a core system, You have to read the game box to be sure you can play it on your machine.

there is 4 different versions of xbox and a 5th one is coming (HD DVD player embedded).

On my opinion it's look like a console in beta version with the final version coming soon. No offense.

the only reason they dumped the xbox was to help boost xbox360 sales so there could get as many sold as possible before the ps3 was released! also it was selling no where near as much as the ps2, bit like the 360...

edit: oops double post sorry

the only reason they dumped the xbox was to help boost xbox360 sales so there could get as many sold as possible before the ps3 was released! also it was selling no where near as much as the ps2, bit like the 360...

Yes, It's called the 360.....AAHAHHAhAHAHHAA

I purchased my first PS2 in January of 2006! I bought the console with Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, and Gran Turismo 4. I was dissapointed with the gamecubes kiddie selection of games (had nintendo products since the NES, skipped the N64 and the PS1). We had a gamecube and xbox 1 (never played the xbox, it was my bro's) in the house. I fell in love with Sony's games. I loved the controller and the graphics (at least first party) have realism not found on other consoles. Shadow, God of War, and Gran Turismo are in my top 5 games of all time! Of course I purchased a dozen more games, fell in love with Final Fantasy. In 2006 Sony sold 14 million PS2's, they plan on selling 13 million this year. Sony has made 2 to 3 new fans, for every 360 sold since the end of 2005. They know how to keep the console fresh and new. I purchased my PS3 May of this year. Everyone who bought a PS2 in 2006 and 2007 knew what they wanted despite the 360's presence. The adoption rate to the PS3 should be about 90% of those people. Don't even get me started about the love I have for PS3! 115-118 million PS2's is crazy! And still selling! The trifecta of products...PS2, PSP (the new slim), and the PS3 will keep Sony alive for decades to come.

A very similar article was shot down and this gets posted...

http://www.n4g.com/NewsPend...

We are in the future now and the Original Xbox is dead. Just like the other article Sony is trying to make sh!t better...

Where did MS go wrong?..Where did Sony go wrong?

The fact is Both are here now, the strategies have not totally flopped yet, it's a long term deal. I can post exactly why MS did what they did, but it's no use, when the news on here is being censored.

If MS manages to steal a big share of Sony's market, that it will never gets back, then obviously, MS is doing something right, even if part of the strategy was to cut the xbox early.

If Sony looses Mass Market-Share, then obviously, something is wrong with their strategy, whether its to keep the PS2 a live or go with the Ps3 and its architecture. They are not gaining from what they had before.

To early to tell, but we see some of the mishaps by both parties. The big ones have been, Ms 360 hardware failures, which has hurt them in the short-run and also PS3's architecture, which have done the same.

The strategies both took, is a WAR of "Market-Share" not which game has more more textures.(that's the fanboy war).Sony is trying to keep what it has and MS thinks there is room for 3 in this moth@fuka.

and they wanted to move on to the future. Sony always had the old system selling like hot cakes when the new system arrived, so why stop making something that is still selling?

what you said makes no sense because the 360 last time I check(I have a 360 by the way its being shipped back you know the red ring lol)gets updates too and what venum is saying is true, its does seem like the 360 is a beta system simply because it has so many models out on the market. MS releases them so that they can keep up with the competition and each one improves from the last one.

I agree that sonys psone and the ps2 have long lives ahead of them. Comparing the old xbox, that never ever made a dime in its day, to the psone and the ps2 is the big mistake. Typically, when a product comes along to replace an older one, the older one goes away unless market demand keeps it alive. Microsoft did not have that demand with the xbox.

well yeah if the xbox was still around ppl would buy it .. becuz its cheaper than the 360 ... however more ppl would buy the 360 (w/ titles like halo 3, gears, bioshock, etc) which is y they stopped production of the xbox... so its not a "BIG" mistake... but theyd make more money with still having xbox on the shelves

we should all start calling this site NEWS BY GAMERS

This article seems poorly researched and presented. There are a lot more factors at play than just dropping the Xbox too early. Microsoft was new to the game and had to work a LOT harder than Sony did to get third parties to stay on the platform. The 360 completely cannibalized the hardcore Xbox crowd and trying to get developers to support both consoles would probably have been more expensive in the long run than it has proven to be for the 360. The 360 is approaching 2 years old now and I suspect by 5 years of age the next Xbox iteration will be known. Who knows but the thinking in this article regardless of any allegiance to a particular console, is weak at best.

The article itself wasnt that great, hardly newsworthy.

However, it does bring up some interesting issues. But, MS does have their reasons for what they do. I believe their vision of Xbox Live, etc.. could not be achieved with the original system. To make Xbox Live in it's current setup, the entire original Xbox interface, gui, and hardware would have to be re-done. What better way than to just make a new system, and add a few features.

It's kind of like a new car in a way... each year something is changed, but the price is jacked up by tons. Also though, the original Xbox was merely MS testing out the waters of the console market, and getting their foot in the door. Just think about it... if MS didnt make a console, then we wouldnt have all the great games that we do (Halo, KotOR, etc..).

And before you say anything about Halo, I do understand that it was going to be PC based and more of an MMORPG.

not having access to their market analyses, i can't say the decision was wise or unwise. i do know that for at least half of my gamer friends the 360 price tag is still too steep, particularly older gamers with families. more than a handful have picked up used xbox systems rather than spring for the 360. had the xbox remained in production at a lower price point, they would've bought them new.

i don't think pulling them from production was a dastardly scheme by microsoft. i don't think any sane company would turn down the opportunity to make money off something they can easily produce for a reasonable profit. besides, xbox loyalty should, in theory, lead to 360 interest. most likely, it just wasn't profitable for them to keep it in production (whether cost of production or low sales).

MS's lack of worldwide support, its 4-5 year life cycle, its lack of 1st party studios, and its faulty hardware= 30 million consoles at best.

When it comes time for people to switch from last gen gaming in '08 what are they gonna pick? A console that is reaching its twilight or a console thats just begining to see its dawn? The next gen has hardly even begun yet and MS is floating down the same path as it did with the original xbox. 25 million sold and a 4 year life cycle.

the 360's arrival is proving to be a little too early for next gen gaming. People havent begun to migrate from last gen and there is no way the 360 lasts past 5 yrs. This coupled with the notion that MS just drops its products people will be weary of getting the 360 next year.

I actually ended up selling my Xbox simply because Halo 2 had been the only game I had really been playing for 3 years; I was kind of hoping that Microsoft would put out more compelling exclusives, but my PS2 won out by a big margin. Microsoft ditched the Xbox platform in order to run away from the mounting costs of their old system only to run into bigger costs for the new system. Losing $4 Billion on Xbox was bad enough, but dealing with another $3 Billion in losses for the 360?

They built the Xbox Live service as a way to offset their losses on the hardware, and have been desperately trying to milk out every last cent. Instead of using dedicated servers for online multiplayer, they rely on P2P networking, something that was exposed with Xbox Connect (a free service that works identically to Microsoft’s service). What this means is that customers are essentially spending $50~70 a year to use their own internet connections for online gameplay, and P2P isn’t exactly known for its amazingly high performance. Just look at Gears of War or Halo for example. Gears of War only supports 8 players, while Halo 3 supports just 16. For comparison’s sake, Warhawk supports 32 players and Resistance supports up to 40 per game. Why? Sony knows that dedicated servers are the only way to support such massive online matches that millions of gamers demand.

So what are Xbox Live Gold users currently paying for? Well, the dedicated servers that are there are on a closed network (supposedly for security purposes, but we all know that hasn’t worked out) are used to supply users with downloadable content. I know Microsoft has a massive amount of debt, but cheating their customers every step of the way doesn’t seem like a reliable way of conducting business. If Epic wants to release Gears of War maps for free, they should be allowed to do so. Hell, if Sony lets developers release free content on PSN, why can’t Microsoft do the same?

I brought my XBOX 3 or 6 months after launch and I felt somehow "ripped off" when they bumped the system after a lifespan of 4 years. That's why I fear the samething for the 360.

srry but when ps3 drops the price by christmas all the ps2 owners will buy ps3, srry its the truth

These sort of articles really annoy me and just goes to show how some people are so blind from "fan boy ism".

Just because Sony have a different life cycle strategy doesn't mean automatically that everyone else is wrong. I wont pretend to know the reasons why they have a different life cycle but to me the obvious one from a technological standpoint is WHY buy old technology? They want to encourage people to buy the latest and greatest surely. a 5 year cycle in technological terms is like 100 years.

MS screwed the pooch by completely drying up support for Xbox 1. But at the same time, I've not been impressed with PS2 offerings as of late.

is it with droids posting blogs? Im getting sick of this sh*t, how the f*ck is it even getting approved?

The PS3 like the PS2 will be selling for the next 5-6 years or longer! All you ppl that say the PS2 is hurting the PS3 are silly.

Go look it up

The PS3 is selling at about the same rate as the 360 did in its first 9 months and both systems had a problem with getting the games out there. And if u add in the 360 didnt have compation in its first year u can see will this all leads.

You add in the sales of PS2's are still better then both the 360 and the PS3 and you see why Sony can hold on in this so called WAR while the 360 is going to be treading in deep water come Dec08.

Plus u have 120+ games on the PS2 that u can play on a PS3!!!!

Sony loves you!!

lol

peace

Do u really think the 360 will even sell 30 million? I dont see it. They have been out almost 2 years and they have 10.4million units sold.

I can see maybe 20! Maybe

I think the PS3 will top out at about 30-40 million but maybe in 7 years i will be proved wrong on both accounts.

Im still waiting on a solid 360 that wont break on me and if they told us all they have done it, the 360 will run all day, that would just mean 98% of those 360 already sold are just crap waiting to drop into the toilet. Plus a fixxed up 360 will cost over 400bucks easy!

time will tell

peace

ADD ON: The guy under me. You know its where he likes his guys! ON TOP

Did i not say i could be proven wrong and time will tell! Yea i did! Calling ppl f@gg@t or ni@@er proves you just a bitter little kid with no life and if your a grown man i bet you wouldnt have the balls to say anything like that to someones face. Go back and play your daddys 360 while it last!

should look into that crystal ball and see what a dumbass you are.

EDIT: Yeah your hilarious, so I guess you can magically predict sales numbers too huh? Get back to waiting beyond f@ggot.

dont rash because your 360 broke

IMO Microsoft took something from every XBox owner, the same with Nintendo. Sony may be accused of a console having too long of a shelf-life, but with games such as Shadow Of Collosus, God Of War II & Final Fantasy XII all coming out within the last year, what do you think could have been achieved on the XBox with another year? No-one says that they should have held back on the 360, but they could have given the XBox a proper send off.

at least wii still have the courtesy for giving wii zelda to Gamecube owner. Microsoft just totally kick previous XBOX owner in the nuts but you knows some ppl just enjoy getting kick.

As a XBOX, PS2, Gamecube owner. XBOX was my favourite mostly HALO 2 but as soon as XBOX 360 out. XBOX became just a big paper weight. That sucks.

I'm really not gonna play my 360 for ten years, maybe 7 at the most. The fact is, a console should last around 5-6 years on average and 7 years at the max, also the PC has surpassed the 360 and PS3 ages ago, a dual core processor outperforms the 360 and PS3. Wait until either next year or 2009 when 32 core processors come out for the PC.

They will drop the XB360 like the XBox. The PS2 games work on the PS3 - which means will be able to get some good budget titles - compared to more expensive PS3 titles when I feel like it. All my old titles - around 40 of them also work on the PS3. I would say at the moment my kids play around 65% of the time their old PS2 titles - only one in the house who appreciate the 720p graphics on my video projector is myself. The kids still like Ratchet & Clank and Jak & Daxter more than R:FOM, Motorstorm etc.

So - I get the best of both worlds. I play new games, they could not care less - and have a large library of games that I can still buy - and the platinum PS2 titles at very low price. Heck - last weekend I had to get Yo Gi Oh for the kids - and they are enjoying it.

MS's big mistake is that they are throwing money in the water. With the repair issues, they loose more money on the XB360 than Sony on the PS3. And also they lose credibility. MS will drop the XB360 like the XBox - in order to get rid of the problem, and introduce the XB720. The software support will drop for the XB360, and the whole cycle will repeat itself.

I will get the PS4 - and still be able to enjoy the PS2 and PS3 library of games. I prefer Sony's strategy. I win all the way.

READ MY USERNAME AND GO TO THE FRONT
~ http://www.freepowerboards....

READ MY USERNAME AND GO TO THE FRONT
~ http://www.freepowerboards....

they usually end up doing both... driving up credit thier credit card debt because they lack the discipline to live within their means.

people buy the ps2 because thats how broke people play games.

M$ needed software to spearhead it's forray into the next gen console areana, ..

it would have been a mistake to tie up resources on old hardware,...

the only choice for M$ against an entrenched sony market was to LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY...

M$ CHOSE TO LEAD,.. by placing it's billion dollar footprint into sony's backside.

as a result it's got the best games,.. and the greatest attatch rate...

while sony's left scrambling for a decent piece of the pie.

in light of the facts',.. have to say I strongly agreen.

Interesting. This is already common knowledge, but I think it helps fortify the theory, that MS has no problem at all phasing out their current machines once they have a new one. We all know, based on trends and behaviors, what MS will do once this supposed XBox 3 in development is released. Bye-Bye 360. Personally, while the XBox didn't have the graphical muscle of the 360, I can attest that it was certainly a more stable machine-never gave me RROD's. And it certainly had more life left to it. Playing Mech Assault and Halo 2 on Live was a blast(The offline library was incredible, as well). I do not like MS's business practices, and I don't trust them as a consumer (if it wasn't for fear of an impending class action lawsuit, they would never have had Peter Moore come out and admit the problems with the 360 <how much longer would they have let the problem drag out...slapping our collective faces in the process?>). I feel much more security with the Sony business plan, while, if it may (longevity of consoles)be based on maximizing profit, and not necessarily to keep our consoles alive for our benefit- in the end it works better for the gamer, and is a testament to the integrity of the Playstation hardware (I doubt there is one manufactured 360 on the planet that can function for 10 years...Hmmmm).

Technology is developing faster than ever and will continue to do so. There is no room for 10 year old consoles in near future. MS has not done any mistakes related to this. ok, I agree that first xbox did not have very long life, but we all know it was the first ever MS console. 360 is second and there will be next one. Thinking of having PS3 the next 10 years...*shivers*

i kinda agree about a 10 year life span is a bit long for a system to stay up with advancements but these advancements wont be affordable for a long time. Look at the best pc gaming conseles. Those things go for 4000-5000 bucks!

I think Sony has made a machine that can stay with the curve for atleast 5-6 years and after that they will start to work on a PS4 if they havent already started with there own form of ThinkHouses to try and see where the next technolgy is going to lead.

All the 360 boys are all mad.

You guys honestly don't believe a console can last 10 years?

Go look up PS1 sales when the ps2 launched, they were great, just as the ps2 is now.

You see, there are actually people who can't afford some $300+ consoles, therefore why not get the cheapest one for the best offer, a PS2, with a whole bunch of games, and only $100!

How the hell am I a fanboy when I went out got myself a 360 waaaaaay before I got my PS3(just got the PS3 last week monday) and I never said anything negative about the 360 except the fact that it breaks down on people(and thats why I went out and got me a PS3 because my 360 just died on me last sunday). You know who's the fanboy you are, so grow up and get your head out your ass, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a fanboy.

Microsoft pay huge amount of money to game developers so they can make games and rush it out to the market. That's is why xbox 360 failures rates is so hella high.

Microsoft don't really care about fans/gamers. Microsoft just care about making more money.

Microsoft abandon xbox 1 because they don't care about it or the fanbases.

Microsoft is losing more money than they make for the game divisions. It's going to take 1 or 2 years before Microsoft make profits in the game divisions.

Microsoft have to pay huge HUGE HUGE/TONS of tons of money just for some exclusives title for xbox 1 or xbox 360.

Do you know why xbox got more games because.....BECAUSE....??

....Microsoft pay huge/tons of money to game developers and force them to make the games out fast to the market.?!!

...

..At the end!!! Sony Playstation 3 will own/overtake xbox 360 for good indeed.

....

I agree that technologies is changing fast as we speaking right now, 10 years is kind of long for PS3 but remember what happen to PS2.

...Playstation 2 still own.......HAHAHA.......

.....I just can't wait to get my hands on Sony Playstation 4.

Sony Playstation 4 vs xbox 720

....

Sony Playstation 4 own for future life.....

done deal!!

....

I still have lotta to say but.....for now!!!

its funny how these xbox fanboys just say "i'll be playing bioshock, or, btw, i just picked up bioshock". ok. you want ps3 people to feel bad now. Its stupid. Go play then. They don't care. they are still happy with their purchase. It must kill the guys who say things like that.

First and more the post above me is a opion. Not a fact. It will never be a fact.
Second. All you people who are saying "360 fanboys suczs" Do you notice in this entire arctile theres been 4 360 Fanboys. And aleast 34 PS3 Fanboys. Funny eh? Also to the comment above from Ortiz83 Do you notice when The PS3 Fanboys ask "All games on 360 suck my ass" and the 360 fanboy Replys "Bioshock" do you notice the next comment 100% is "BIOSHOCK SUCKS MY ASS IT SUCKS MYORE THEN HALO 3 MGS4 FOR LIFE PS3 KICKS YOUR ASS LOL!". Funny eh? You do relize by next year the 360 and ps3 will be selling the same amount Yet both supporters will just keep doing this war. It will never stop. Also "Mirosoft Dosent care About these customors?" Think about thaT comment. THESE ARE MILLONDARE COMPANINES THE SAME WITH SONY. Sony Dosent care either. They release a PS5 Right now They still make millons and suddenly all you ps3 Fanboys say "PS5 ROCKS! Mirosoft released a 460 you go "PS5 ROCKS ASS 460 SUCKS MY BALLS GO TO HELL YOU MIROSOFT LOVERS" Dont Deney it.

The last thing Is Why is it Most 360 fanboys can say "Wow MGS4 Looks Sweet" but not 1 NOT 1 NOT 1 NOT 1 NOT 1 PS3 FANBOY could ever say anything about halo 3 besides "Its over rated looks like crap and will suck"

(((NOT TO METION SONY EDITING HALO 3 WIKIPEDIA STATEING "Althorough it won't look any better then halo 2")))

I've play Halo 1 on my pc fully built. I've beat the whole game.

People be saying that Halo is so awesome all that and this.

After I've beat it, thinking to myself that Halo does suck...

...there's nothing special about Halo...

I like painkiller and far cry on PC better with KB/mouse.

..

I prefer Far Cry, PainKiller, and Doom on pc over halo. After I've beat Halo 1 on pc I've never ever play it again..

After I've play and beat Far Cry, Painkiller, and Doom I go back and play it again.

Halo is just crappy.

Microsoft spend tons tons huge amount of money just to advertise halo so people will get involve.

Halo is crappy and boring.

end of my points!!!!

If MS actually made money from the xbox then believe me that they would have stuck with the xbox longer and the 360 wouldn't have been released so soon. Sony made money and that's why they stuck with both PS1 and PS2.

Microsoft, Sony, and NINTENDO are all very good companies with interesting strategies.
Sony is bizarre because it keeps supporting its systems and customers. Honestly I think they just keep giving you titles long after most people have moved onto the next generation addition to their product line. The reason is the brand trust, and we tend to trust Sony... Anyone who was living before Xbox likely had a Playstation, N64, or Saturn. Microsoft's 360 is becoming somewhat a trendy system, but as fortunate as that sounds, that also could mean that, as trends pass, the 360s butt will find itself in the closet after folks grab the next iteration on Microsofts line, and Microsoft ceases production of the last generation. Hopefully this isn't the case, because the box is a nice American foray into the console biz. Nintendo is the runaway freak, having released the wii after drowning the gamecube with the 12 or so titles they released after 2006. The Wii is hilariously enough the closest thing of the next generation to be called a "insert console here 1.5" However, I do believe they are spending more on R&D right now to figure ways of manufacturing a nice next generation system with a risk-taking interface and cool online packages for 2010. Sony and Microsoft are different in that Sony has technology so unusually sophisticated not a whole lot of people know what it is capable of. The 360 has a lot of bells and whistles, but you'll see next generation drives and a multi-multi core processing complex in their next system. Sony is clearly, to most common consumers, the technological centerpiece of this "generation." People aren't buying it yet because they don't understand the SPU lingo. The 360 is a beast, mind you, but when people say DVD consumers know what that means, and the cheaper price tag and core model sans-hardrive means its the bargain next gen experience.

Start from the ground up, an move forwards!

a few years later. we'll get PS3 Slim. and then PS3 Slimmer..... Xbox and Nintendo can always come out with all kinds of new sh*t that I may never want.

that is terrible. Why is there a fanboy war in the approval system?

Microsoft can't even build a console that lasts more then 6 months without overheating, so how do you expect them to keep their old machines in productions. I remember the same thing happenning in the last generation with the xbox freezing all the time. Gates is spending so much money repairing these damn things, that I doubt he is making any money on them. Thank god he has Vista going for him. Folks, sorry for all this sarcasim, but it is the truth. I only hope my new elite lasts over 2 years, yet alone into the next generation of consoles. My original crapped out in 6 months and all I want to say is thanks Bill for all my inconviences. Maybe your next console will last alittle longer, but I am not holding my breath.

Back "On-Topic" - While many of you won't bother reading this, (as it requires reading jk btw) it does explain why MS dropped the 1st-gen Xbox as they did, and can be substanciated by the two books mentioned below. I submitted this to the guys blog above . . .

While many have very valid and thoughtful comments, and I don’t disagree with many of them, however, one thing has been forgotten, well actually, several.

If you check the books by renouwned New York Times writer and now Mercury Times writer, Dean Tackahashi, you see the true idea behind the discontiuation of the 1st-gen Xbox.

As early as 2003 the Xbox 360 was in the pipelines of developement, even though the 1st-gen xbox had only been on the shelves for less than 6 months, which was released in Nov 2002.

At the time, it was seen that the 1st-gen xbox was “simply a move into the market place, not aimed at being a long-term placeholder”. It was MS’s way of getting a “foot-in-the-door” as they say. It was always scheduled for a short life-span from day one. And there were working with a seven year plan, which included the release of it’s succesor in late ‘05, which was being worked on only weeks after the release of the 1st-gen xbox.

They had estimated that by the end of the seventh financial year, coming up soon, the platform “might” just break even, if the 1st-gen console was farmed out, to allow developers to concentrate on new-gen titles, rather than split their already floundering studios resources.

They had “estimated” it could loose as much as $US9.3 billion should things NOT go right for them, as a worse case senario. This figure was known to them on the outset of the 1st-gen Xbox, and even Bill Gates and Robbie Bach signed off on that figure, reluctantly at first, but it was shown that in the long term, it would pay off.

Ed Fries worked closely with all the developers on both the 1st-gen and the early stages of the 360’s life. Ensuring they (Dev) had tools and services that they could rely on, without to much fuss, and to a level they (dev) wanted. MS Xbox-Div, via Ed Fries, worked closely with the developers to ensure they (Dev) got what they wanted. It was the developers more than anything else that wanted clear patterns of work loads, so they could concentrate solely on one acrhitecture, rather than two which were completely different to each other.

This is why the two games, Perfect Dark Zero, and Kameo were ditched as 1st-gen games, even though PDz was almost fully complete, and Kameo had but months to go before being completed. Their (MS Xbox-Div) choice to then ditch all the code and begin again, promted them to move Halo 2 to a later release date in ‘04, and Ed Fries actually tried to get that extended a further 9 - 12 months, but was only given a repreve from April ‘04 to Nov ‘04 for its completion and release. This was to be followed up with Halo 3 some time later, well into the 360’s life-span. Which is a complete story in itself.

If the developers had two different platforms to develope for, their tasks would be multiplied at least 3 fold, as working with a new style of architecture, is like doubling your workload, if not more.

The 1st-gen Xbox had a finite life-span, it was on schedule to be “retired” at the time it did, and was supported by MS until they knew it was no longer a viable thing for both developers, publishers and themseves as a manafacture.

Additionally, they didn’t own the rights to the 1st-gens hardware, this possed probelms for them, so when they asked for tenders for both the CPU and GPU, one of their stipulations was that they (MS Xbox-Div) wanted to own the rights to the components. Something the ealier CPU manafactures did NOT want to do, but ATI and IBM were willing to do.

This gave them control over how and where the items could be built, and a level of costing to bring the initial price down on manafacturing, and reduce the time between initial launch prices, and the first level of price reductions due to continual redesigning of the components. Which, as we all know, is common with all hardware being built these days.

Their aim was to break even, or at least have a “component costing” below their inital figures by early or mid ‘07. Which btw they succeded in doing by early in ‘07, with a surplus of $US75 in the costing of parts. This didn’t include production however, so they still ran/run at a loss once that factor was taken into account.

To do this, they needed to concentrate on just one line of product, and thus allow all manner of accessories to be made for it, where they are able to make a greate rprofit margin btw, by both 1st and 3rd party companies. To have both consoles would mean developers, manafactures etc would need to concentrate on two platforms for MS, as well as other major companies, such as Sony and Nintendo. Stretching their already stretched facilities and resources.

Many of which were showing negative readings in their annual reports, and having their stock shares dropping and the companies were running at a loss. Carrying that over into yet another platform, as well as a previous/current one, would only take them further into debt. Something MS and the 3rd parties didn’t want. They (MS Xbox-Div) wanted the dev etc to concentrate soley on the 360, which they have done, and in doing so, now have a listing of over 370 games coming out on the platform over the next 18 months, not including any games yet to be announced during that time. A listing that far exceed any other single console platform currently available.

I have compiled a list of in excess of 340 Xbox 360 Retail disc based games already, NOT including any XBLA games. If this was to have been split between both the 1st-gen and the This’Gen console, the number of Newer games would be far less, and be of lesser quality or innovation.

All of which makes perfect economic sense in the great scheme of things. But unfortunately, not many gamers look at the bigger picture - these days, and have a tendancy to be somewhat short sighted on such things, and are more into “instant” or “right-now” gratification. And the loss of an object, even if it was scheduled from day one, was seen, by their accounts, as a “silly (read *&^% dumb) thing to do” . . . .

But when you see WHY it was done, you can understand the reasoninng behind it. The two books in question are Opening The Xbox and Xbox 360 Uncloaked. The latter touches on the 1st-gen’s life and origions, as well as the 360 beginings. The former does go into the future of the Xbox brand, which includes their vision which included a Next-Gen Xbox.

How in gods green earth was what I said OFFENSIVE . . .? It was factual. well researched and backed with resourses about a bloggers article. I in no way said anything offensive to anyone, or inferred anything offensive to any member in this forum/thread/post. If you have the guts enough to comment on the post, then do so, or PM me, but having it deleted by calling my post OFFENSIVE is just juvenile to the extreme.

Someone going to get this one deleted as well due to being OFFENSIVE. ????

N4G has definitely gone to the dogs . . . .

When we look at the ARTICLE, it is obviously more of an opinion piece and clearly not news, so this ARTICLE should not have been included under "industry news". Its an opinion piece intended to spark discussion, which if you look at the comments on the original article it did, which is more than I can say for this site.
If you don't agree with the man thats one thing, but at least come up with an intelligent response to his article rather than just labeling it anti MS just because you don't like people bringing up the fact that they abandoned their last system. Many of you talk about PS3 fans not liking to hear the truth but it seems that you are guilty of having the same flaw. Just thought I would point that out.

i've been reading articles like this since both systems been out ,and i'll admitt that the 360 and the ps3 are both good systems,but the ps3 is no better then the 360,so far all the games that's on both systems looks better or runs better on the 360,now don't get me wrong i think that kz2 looks damn good,but the ps3 fanboys never admitt anything that good on the 360,they are still saying that the ps2 graphics are better then the first xbox and that's a joke,the ps2 graphics can't come close to the xbox graphics,another thing they all say that halo3 graphics are just like halo2 graphics even when magazine writers and people that played it behind closed doors after they were just about finished with it said that halo3 graphics was awsome and the game is really good but the ps3 fanboys still say that the graphics sux.the ps3 fanboys always say that the 360 doesn't have any good games on it, and when a game gets good reviews they say that it's wrong because the site is for 360 but if the same site gives a ps3 game a good review then the site is good.the ps3 fanboys will never admit that xbox live is better then the psn,they keep saying that xbox live lags alot and the psn don't,but i've been having xbox live for years and i never had lags,and the xbox live service is a lot better then the psn but they will never admit it,hell they said that oblivian suxed and they were glad that it wasn't on the ps3,but when it was released on the ps3 they said it was a damn good game,now the same game just that it was on the ps3 so the game got better,boy what a joke they are.the ps3 fanboys to this day still say that the 360 doesn't have not 1 good game on it even when the games on the 360 gets better reviews then ps3 games,hell look at lair and warhawk that ps3 fanboys keep talking about how great they are,but the reviews on both games was pathethic,some sites gave them a 2 out of 5,and some gave them 4.5 out of 10 and some gave the less,the only good rating they proble received was from the playstation magazine like that's suprising,this is a company that hacked a site and change the halo3 good rating to a bad one.
i've read some articles saying that with the ps3 you could play all the ps1 and 2 games but you can't play all the xbox games on the 360,well for one thing ,it's not true,you can't play all the ps1 and 2 games on the ps3,and the other thing is thst microsoft didn't own the chip that is used by some of the game on the xbox but they on everything that's in the 360 so it will be able to play all the 360 games on the new system.
sony keep saying that the ps3 last ten years ,well if they don't release a new system in the next 4 years,they will be way outdated because technology changes a lot faster then it did when the ps2 first came out because now every 2 to 3 years or less it is time to change anything that is considered to be electronics if you want to be up tp date.
i've come to one conclusion,the sony fanboys will never admit that anything is better then the ps3,even if it 10 times as better,because you have to remember that we are talking about people that said that the ps2 graphics were better then the xbox graphics.but i'll admit that the 360 has things on it that's better then the ps3 and the ps3 has things on it that's better then the 360,and i think that both systems are damn good,but please don't say that something is better just because it's on a ps3,if something is better admit it instead of saying the ps3 is better just because you have one

The xbox 360 is a good machine for hardcore gamer because of its title.
But for a family this is too much hardcore gamer. The hardcore gamers is a huge market as casual gaming and family gaming. M$ can't alienate a part of gamers in despite M$ has got good title.

From a Manufactures point of view,10 years and two models is probably a reasonable strategy, but from a gamers perspective, a new console every four a five years is best.Couple of years and i'll be ready for my X720.

Sony began developing the PS3 less than one year after the PS2 was released. Look up stories about "1000 times as powerful" and "the grid," and you'll see what I mean. Just because Microsoft released its second console more quickly does not mean the company, as a whole, has a more sound economic vision. They are doing well for themselves, I feel, but I fear they are more short sighted when it comes to keeping gamers who don't have a fortune to spend on next-next-gen systems happy. I personally would not be interested in purchasing a system two years after its been released, only to know that it would be supported, both software and hardware, for only a few years before the whole shebang was punted. Sony is ridiculous with their R&D, and all of their other technologies they keep patenting. If you look up recent Sony patents, it'll give you a taste of things to come, and boy, is the future tasty, smelly, and a whole lot of fun!