Kotaku: "The next Xbox will be Microsoft's third video game console. And there are already those who say the still unannounced machine is doomed. You see, some believe in a Third Console Curse."
Damn, I was gonna' report something similar, got beaten to the punch.
This is Kotaku, thus they have no credibility. Your post would automatically be of more interest than their's.
...didn't know there was one to even make an article about it
Yeah, it's a mith to explain bad decisions from the console makers: N64 = fanboy mith = console curse =/= reality -> Cartdriges were more expensive than CDs PS3 = fanboy mith = console curse =/= reality -> $600>$500>$400 price tag
I have heard plenty about how no console manufacturer has dominated for 3 consecutive generations and this is fact. However... Microsoft have never come close to dominating a console generation so I don't see how this 'curse' can possibly apply to them.
There's no curse just bad decisions.
For Xbox to have a third console curse, you'd think you need at least TWO successful consoles...and the original Xbox was not a successful console. Yeah, it beat the Gamecube and Dreamcast, but that simply makes it the best of the failures. I also don't believe the next Xbox is cursed as most of it's issues are self inflicted, if the rumors are true.
How it worked for Sega? did it had 2 successful consoles b4 Dreamcast? or was it Saturn? confused... thing is there is no console curse, N64 suffered from chosing cards over affordable CDs and PS3 was expensive as hell for the average joe until 2 years (almost 3) in the market...
the curse is made by the poor income of the ps3 ....dont worry ms isnt sony
Poor income of the PS3? What does that even mean? If you're trying to say its sales weren't great, it's second place this generation worldwide behind the Wii. Nothing beats the Wii though, that had way too much appeal for people who didn't even like games. So naturally it was going to win this generation.
Actually he is saying that the revenues made off of the PS3 were not great since the ps3 cost sony too much to manufacture...hence 3 different versions each to try and lower the cost of the PS3. This is why Sony has lost $180 billion in 10 years and MS has gone up $20 billion. Sony company worth = $18 billion MS company worth = $220 billion MS on the other hand is making hand over fist with the 360 because it's an 8 year old console with 10 year old parts selling $100 more then it should be per unit. Also, I just checked and the PS3 is still in last place market share wise....which is the only sales that matter. Can you provide where you are getting your proof that the ps3 has outsold the 360. Unless you are referring to the totally irrelevant IDC own's admitted shipped "estimates". I am sure you are not because 1) Shipped hold no relevance in business. Market share > shipped. Consoles on shelves mean nothing. 2) Since when does admitted 3rd party estimates on shipped hold any ground? I am sure that someone with as many bubbles as you wouldn't be spreading FUD and irrelevant information...right? So please produce the proof that Sony has sold (market share) more then MS for this gens consoles.
@Lvl_up_gamer - It was confirmed by Jack Tretton and multiple other sources that the PS3 had sold more units than the 360 worldwide. Again, neither company can match the Wii sales, but it's great that they've both had a lot of success in sales. Just go take a look around, I don't have any sources but I'm sure you can find some with a quick search.
Sure there isn't. Next you'll say there's no Summer Glau curse.
There is no curse. It's just the console market is only big enough for 2 and a half major players. The half meaning a company that is either not "all-in" or struggles to compete with the two bigger players. EVERY market tends to fall into a dichotomy where you have two major players slugging it over for market share (Apple/Microsoft or Mac/PC, Pepsi/Coke, Nintendo/SEGA in days of ol', etc.). Sure you have tertiary companies that also compete for the same share, but there really are only two in the spotlight. In my opinion (NOTE: OPINION - You don't have to agree or disagree) Nintendo has been the half. They just don't seem to care about the same people as Microsoft and Sony do. Nintendo in this last generation has concentrated on the "causal" gamer and impulse buyer. Sure they're still aiming for their bread and butter of old being kids, but they also don't seem to care to grow with their market like Sony did. Sony's games matured with their market. Gamers who played the PS1 had games grow with them such that Sony was able to maintain their market, while still enticing new comers. Microsoft, well... it's hard to tell where they will go with their market and whether they'll maintain their userbase. They only have two generations under their belt in comparison to Sony's three and Nintendo's now six (with the Wii-U, if you want to count it as a new generation; I'm not considering handhelds).
We get it Kotaku, you like Microsoft.
How convenient that this curse dissipates when it comes to Microsoft. Great timing with that i suppose, eh kotaku...
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.