Do you think Microsoft have got it right with focussing on online multiplayer, or do you think Sony' s focus on pricy technology is the better plan and what about Nintendo, have they got it right with not directly competing with their competitors and targeting their console primarily at non gamers?

It remains to be seen of what will happen in the coming, bloody battle THAT is the console wars, but which strategy do you think will be the most successful of the three giants?

Right now X360 is a " friendly-PC" with some exclusives - and that' s a great thing for many people.They have Online like on PC (even better maybe), PC games (except some truly PC genres like strategies - Civ4,Age of Empires Total War).

I think that most 360 owners are very PC related and it wouldn' t be stupid for MS to release Wireless mouse+keyboard setup - cause those boys sure love it and strategy games would be all over the place.

Right now 360 is the best thing any PC gamer can have - they don' t have to upgrade their system evey year, they just sit back and play , and they play their favourite games from their favourite developers plus they can taste some console games like DoA,Burnout,Halo.Visuals are on par with normal PC' s and sometimes even closer to high-end PC.

It really is a great thing for PC gamers and others who don' t want that huge, noisy box, based on windows, for gaming.

To be honest i think that PS3 is coming with the better strategy...why? because MS hasn´t been delivering the enough amount of AAA titles has it was supposed to...don´t know why but they seem like they dont give a damn.

PS3 has always enormous amount of 3rd party support which means a lot of games in few time...it seems to me that same developers always work harder to make a good PS game than a good xbox game...i mean capcom´s and square-enixs...the games they make to xbox are either old PS ports or the stupidest kind of games as possible.

PS3 is expensive? hell yeah...but even where i live people spend a lot of money on futile things like cell phones all the time...as soon as there is a new model people buy it...so if you pay 500€ for a cell phone then you have that or an extra 100 to buy a PS3.

Wii is the best to me....they started as the laughing stock of the industry but they managed to reach this point with great respect from their opponents...have good games...easy to develop, cheap and new kinds of gameplay....

I am so into Nintendo right now

I fail to agree with that hidemoto basically ff13 and mgs4 is coming late 2007,and rememer ff12 was supposed to come to europe and usa mid 2004,its now aimied for late 2006 in usa,and sometimes early 2007 in europe.

So ff13 could even come late 2008 for us/eu.


Well at that time when mgs4 is out you gonna have games like,Halo3,mass effect,bioshock,gears of war,blue dragon,lost odyssey,alan wake,forza2,fable2,lost planet,too human,tri-ace new rpg and some new RARE game just to name a few.

Looks like 360 is winning at late 2007.

And i know ps3 get games like heavnly sword and v5.

But 360 already has games out like Graw(action-tactial shooter),pgr3(racing) and oblivion(rpg).
So i mean 360 already delivered a very very great year.

Ps3 is gonna have big problems getting AAA titles or even good titles fast.
and with its over priced console it will get in trouble.

Thing is, how do you know if most of those games wont be ported? sure in house games by Micorosoft wont, but 3rd party ones like graw and oblivion might.

Halo3=Ms publisher
Mass effect=ms publisher
Gears of war=ms publisher
Blue dragon=ms publisher
Lost odyssey=ms publisher
Alan wake=ms publisher
Forza2=ms publisher
Fable2=ms publisher
Too human=ms publisher

MS is atleast themself givin out AAA exclusive titles,but sure,Oblivion could come to ps3 also.

But so does VF5 to 360,however its wrong to only speculate :P

Microsoft has a great strategy with their Xbox Live, securing some of the Sony exclusives, and i think and hope that this can render Sony obsololete after this gen, not that competetion isnt good, i just dont like the Sony fanbois, and seeing them weep would make me a happy panda!

Also there are plenty of exclusive MS titles that pawns most things Sony can dish up, unless people really want another Ratchet and Clank game (yawn)

All three companies have very different strategies this time, and they all have a pretty good chance at success, imo.

That' s a good thing. That means that either way you go, your console won' t be a waste of money. There should be more than enough to satisfy anyone on each console.

As for each strategy:

MS is taking the safest route. Basically the 360 is simply an evolution of the original xbox. No shame in that. Very sensible, very safe. They' ll keep the user base they had last gen and they stand to gain a lot more as more developers jump on board.
Downside: Their console is set up to have the shortest life span of the three. If and when the PS3 and the Wii finally start showing that they can do things the 360 can' t, people are going to start to lose interest. They can release add-ons later on, but we all know how add-ons fare in this industry....


Nintendo is trying to create new gamers this gen. They can bank on franchises to keep the hardcore fans happy, and that sweet innovative controller is going ot attract a lot of attention from people who wouldn' t touch gaming otherwise.
Downside : will this console finally get 3rd parties interested in nintendo like the old days? First party games a great, but nintendo NEEDS to get those third party exclusives coming. Even Mario gets old after a while.
They' re going to have to watch out for gimmicky games this gen too.
The controller is great, but there' s got to be some good games for it, or people will consider it just a gimmick and nintendo will find themselves hanging on to Zelda, Mario and Metroid to keep them afloat...again.


PS3 Obviously, they have the most risky strategy of the three. Some would say downright stupid. However, if BLu-ray picks up like they think it is, they' ll have the cheapest player on the market, and that' s a BIG plus. The cost is prohibitive as a pure gaming machine, but it' s really not that bad for what you really get. Plus, they' ve always got the third parties. PS3 won' t have a game shortage, that' s for damn sure.
Downside HD. Sony is counting on HD making a huge leap forward marketwise, and if it doesn' t they' re fucked, plain and simple. If more people don' t buy more HDTVs Sony' s package looks pretty lame, especially with that price. That' s the only area i can think where Sony may have seriously erred this time out. The price alone isn' t as big a deal as people are making it out to be. If people want it, they' ll pay for it.


of course, i' m retarded, so just disregard all of this

Downside: Their console is set up to have the shortest life span of the three. If and when the PS3 and the Wii finally start showing that they can do things the 360 can' t, people are going to start to lose interest. They can release add-ons later on, but we all know how add-ons fare in this industry....

What exactly can the PS3 do that the 360 cant? You mean the worthless tilt tech they built into the controller? Or the blue ray player that wont really be needed this gen?`

Sure DVD vise for watching movies it could be okay, but MS will release the HD drive for the Xbox, and it will still cost less than the PS3, meaning that will be the cheapest HD dvd player!

Ms gonna try and have xbox360 out as long as possible,to build up a true audience.

XBox was only made so they could have a brand for their XBOX360.

the original xbox had a life span of 4 years which is a bit on the short side, the PS2 lifespan is going to be 6 years, which is a bit too long. Sony said they would keep PS3 alive for 10 years, which sounds like suicide!

Well at that time when mgs4 is out you gonna have games like,Halo3,mass effect,bioshock,gears of war,blue dragon,lost odyssey,alan wake,forza2,fable2,lost planet,too human,tri-ace new rpg and some new RARE game just to name a few.

hope you are right quez...really do

Right now Microsoft has more exclusive titles than Sony. Increased development prices and times will be the reasons for Sony not having the amount of content it boasted in the previous generations.

Sony have cool stuff, Microsoft have cool stuff, both have online (i sooooooooo want multi-platform titles to be cross compatible!), both have multi-media features, one has a next gen DVD drive a shit controller and a high pricetag.

I don' t trust Sony to make their online service work and i don' t trust their lame pad. I do trust that they will get some awesome games that everybody will want to play at some point (even on their friends machines) and i do trust that idiot Sony fanboys will carry on saying retarded things like " Halo 3 will come to PS3 because Nintendo' s 360 is wack!"

So far Sony have embarrassed themselves but TGS is approaching fast and we will get to REALLY see what PS3 has instore for us.

Well, firstly...

the original xbox had a life span of 4 years which is a bit on the short side, the PS2 lifespan is going to be 6 years, which is a bit too long. Sony said they would keep PS3 alive for 10 years, which sounds like suicide!

Seriously, are you crazy or not paying attention? Sony have stated that all of their consoles will enjoy a 10 year life cycle, they never stated that any one of their consoles (Yes, including the PS3) will have a 10 Year cycles as most powerful sony branded console (Unless Sony flop this time around).
Playstation was around in 1995 and was stopped production in 2005. The PS2 will stop production after the 10 year cycle. In 5-6 Years after PS3 you can expect a PS4, but PS3 will still be in production.

Sorry for going on so long on this point but so many people seem to have this misunderstanding.

I digress...

Each company has some good and bad sides. I personally think Nintendo have done the best, because even if they fail to win this generation, or even come in a close third, they have still done a great think and brought back faith in nintendo. I just hope they can keep their games fresh, and it' s not a ' played one, played them all' affair.

I am not really feeling MS yet, as going on for a year and of the 360 games I have played there is nothing I would buy the console for, and yes there are some good games coming in the near future, but I fail to see something that ranks as must have (For me).

Sony... Risky... I have had major doubts in Sony with the PS3, dispite preferring sony since sega went out of the wars. I wouldn' t buy one too early though, launch machine can be a bit dodgy, and so I can use this time to wait and see what happens on both MS and Sony sides of things. I like the idea of Blu-Ray included though and do not much favour the PC type of console the 360 currently is, much like the eXBOX.

Anyway, I believe it' s Nintendo' s strategy that wins, already won, infact.

I like Nintendo' s strategy best. They are all about the games. They want to interject fun back into the living room, as opposed to the other two who merely want to overpower each other.

I like Sony' s gumption for trying to bring the newest and best technology to market. I hope they do well, and Cell and Blu-ray succeed. If the Cell processor turns out to be " all that" , then I' ll be happy, as it' s a different approach in a stagnating industry (more megahertz, more cores, blah, blah, blah.).

I also think that people are not giving Microsoft enough credit for taking chances. I mean, how many NEW IPs are they banking on? Yeah, Sony has a lot of tried and true sequels coming, but Microsoft is banking on totally fresh games. Gears of War, Blue Dragon, Prey, Lost Planet, Lost Odyssey, and Viva Pinata just to name a few.

Well, we' ll see. I want all three, but that PS3 might have to wait, although sometimes it' s better to buy early, before they upgrade and institute all that digital-rights management crap!

Seriously, are you crazy or not paying attention? Sony have stated that all of their consoles will enjoy a 10 year life cycle, they never stated that any one of their consoles (Yes, including the PS3) will have a 10 Year cycles as most powerful sony branded console (Unless Sony flop this time around).

They said it like it was their plan to havd it last 10 years, through and through. As in after 10 years we will make another console!

I dont see how people see the Xbox is so PC' ish, sure it gets PC ports, but i fail to see that as a bad thing. It gets all the same multiplatform titles as the Sony consoles, it has nice exclusives, like Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey (mentioned to to push any final fantasy arguments from this thread) the only thing left is crappy shit games like Jak, and Ratchet and Clank, and c' mon whats so good about those, Jak and Daxter was good, but after that it turned to shit. With the Xbox you get all the best, you have nice Jap developer support (RE5, Lost Planet, Above Mentioned RPG' s), You got PC ports of the best shooters, you got nice exclusives, and at 2\3 of the price of a PS3.

Why do you think they say 10 years for ps3?

Please think people,they put in a movie player and make it' s console heavly overpriced,could it mean they wanna make consumers think it as a very long time investment?

Yes that could very well be correct QuezcatoL, but then again the PS1 similary had around a ten year (albeit one that was at times on life support) lifespan and the PS2 may yet be around for many years to come.

ORIGINAL: Vx Chemical

What exactly can the PS3 do that the 360 cant? You mean the worthless tilt tech they built into the controller? Or the blue ray player that wont really be needed this gen?`

Sure DVD vise for watching movies it could be okay, but MS will release the HD drive for the Xbox, and it will still cost less than the PS3, meaning that will be the cheapest HD dvd player!

Sure, the HD player will be the cheapest, but Blu-Ray is just a better all around fomat. I seriously think it will win the HD format wars, especially considering the strong PS3 tie in.
That' s where MS is screwing up with HD-DVD. Add-ons always suck in sales. An add-on HD-DVD player isn' t going to help them in the format wars nearly as much as Sony' s PS3/Blu-ray player combo.
But, like I said before, in order for BLu-Ray to have the impact Sony is depending on this gen a LOT more people need to get interested in HD.

Sure, the HD player will be the cheapest, but Blu-Ray is just a better all around fomat. I seriously think it will win the HD format wars, especially considering the strong PS3 tie in.
That' s where MS is screwing up with HD-DVD. Add-ons always suck in sales. An add-on HD-DVD player isn' t going to help them in the format wars nearly as much as Sony' s PS3/Blu-ray player combo.
But, like I said before, in order for BLu-Ray to have the impact Sony is depending on this gen a LOT more people need to get interested in HD.

I dont see BluRay winning, its heading down the same stream as betamax, sure its a bit better on some aspects, but its also a lot more expensive, and there is no need for all the storage it provides, HD DvD has enough space.
If PS3 fails then bluray fails, and sony as we know it today, will cease to exist. Hopefully we wont have to be bothered by Howard Stringer, and KK anymore after that!