450°

How Xbox 360 Dominated a Decade

Ten years ago today, Microsoft’s second attempt at a dedicated games console shipped to retailers across North America. The Xbox team had bold ambitions, but few within the company would have expected the 360 to become the most successful Western-made console in history. The Xbox 360 transformed the landscape of triple-A titles. It broke Sony’s 11-year spell of dominance in the market. It championed an era of HD games. Below we look back at some of the major decisions that shaped its success, with input from key people who were there at the time.

Read Full Story >>
gamespot.com
FallenAngel19843071d ago

Xbox 360 didn't dominate a decade. It got outsold by the Wii and then PlayStation 3. In fact when you align the launches, Microsoft's console was the slowest selling console in the seventh generation.

What you can say is that it is the highest selling western console in history.

WelkinCole3071d ago ShowReplies(10)
3-4-53070d ago

PS3/Xbox 360/ Wii all dominated in some certain areas but not one of them did it all.

343_Guilty_Spark3070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

PS3 lost. Take the L like a man. The 360 outsold the PS3 for years and it obliterated the PS3 in software sales especially in the largest gaming market in the world, North America. Not to mention the PS3 caused Sony to bleed massive amounts of money.

Sony users bring up Wii to try to lessen the blow even though they know the 360 was the better hardcore gaming platform and people mostly abandoned the Wii after the fad wore off.

Ask a PS3 apologizer to GIVE FACTS USING OFFICIAL NUMBERS. THEY CANT. Nothing indicates PS3 ever beat the XBOX 360.

360 also won with no Asia.

fattyuk3070d ago Show
3070d ago
3070d ago
dirkdady3070d ago

@EMZ I like how you pulled those figures out of your butt lol

The attach ratio globally not that much different from PS3 and 360. Even if one was slightly higher there is nothing dominating the market.

Not official but just a point of reference:
http://www.vgchartz.com/ana...

Your comment about ps4 and X1... Lol get the heck out of here lol..

Leaguer3070d ago Show
remixx1163070d ago

Um.......the 360 got outsold by the ps3 guilty spark, chill bro no need to write a paragraph about your feelings, just take the "L" and play some games.

Also EMZ don't follow up with his lie, you guys are embarrassing.

Are you guys clinging to the close call last gen since your favorite piece of plastic is getting mopped this gen, childish.

Also didn't the 360 launch a year earlier and 200$ less and still came in last??

Be real guys.

jb2273070d ago

I honestly don't care which console sold more hardware or software, I only care about games, and it's a pretty well known idea that PS3 had more quality exclusives last gen. Been debating on getting a cheap used 360 in order to play RotTR early and to clean up any exclusives I missed out on for the 360 last gen but the only ones I could actually come up with were Alan Wake & a couple Halo and Gears games out of sheer curiosity....and that'd be a stretch. Was there anything else worthwhile that I'm missing? Seems like all of the rest are multiplats that I already played on my PS3....funny too because guys like you are shouting from the rooftops that sales don't matter this gen & that XBO has superior software, but somehow when it comes to last gen, the complete opposite is true...I guess the whole "moving the goalposts" argument really does ring true in certain scenarios.

badz1493070d ago

almost irrelevant in many places in the world, selling neck and neck with PS3 while released a year (a year and a half in PAL regions) early and a distant away from Wii sale numbers is called dominating now? LOL

I know English is difficult to master but you can't be THAT dumb to call THAT as "domination"!

maybe the title should be changed a bit. add NA at the end of the sentence, and then maybe the article will start to make more sense!

Chevalier3070d ago Show
madmonkey013070d ago

no matter how you spin it, the xbox 360 was the lowest selling console last gen, despite horrendous hardware faults early on.

PX543070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

You want actual numbers...? I collected these figures each year, because it confused me when people said the PS3 had a poor launch. If that was a poor launch (not forgetting both consoles were released in November) how was the 360 launch good?

Hardware sales by year (aligned launch)
Year 1
360 - 1,178,267
PS3 - 1,252,040
Lead - PS3 - 73,773

Year 2
360 - 6,801,532
PS3 - 7,918,881
Lead - PS3 - 1,191,112

Year 3
360 - 7,847,107
PS3 - 10,251,149
Lead - PS3 - 3,595,164

Year 4
360 - 10,815,485
PS3 - 12,924,145
Lead - PS3 - 5,703,824

Year 5
360 - 10,064,774
PS3 - 13,658,716
Lead - PS3 - 9,297,766

Year 6
360 - 13,253,914
PS3 - 14,372,165
Lead - PS3 - 10,416,017

Year 7
360 - 13,785,807
PS3 - 12,150,117
Lead - PS3 - 8,780,327

Year 8
360 - 11,050,997
PS3 - 8,282,328
Lead - PS3 - 6,011,678

As you can see the only time the 360 outsold the PS3 was in the final year, and that's because the PS3 year 8 figures are from 2013 and the PS4 was released at the end of the year.

Even when you put the sales into the years (i.e. 360 year 1 = 2005, ps3 year 1 = 2006) the only times the 360 sold more were; Years 2005,2006 & 2008. So realistically that's only '06 and '08 considering the PS3 wasn't out in '05.

Additional Info, the PS2 sold nearly 20m units in 2005 and just over 15m units in 2006...

Dasteru3070d ago

The 360 only consistently outsold the PS3 in the NA market. Wordwide, the PS3 was outselling the 360 month after month right from launch. The 360 only won like 2 or 3 months out of the entire gen. The 360 had a 1 year head start (10 million units sold) over the PS3s launch and yet by the end of the gen, the PS3 had outsold it by around 3m units.

That is all also counting the fact that the PS3 launched $200 higher than the 360, supposedly had "no games" until about 2 years in, and also assuming MS wasn't re-counting replacement units for RROD claims as sold. Sony also used estimates of actual sold to customer sales, while MS only ever gave the sold to retailer numbers.

The 360 did win in software sales but again how many of those were due to people having to re-buy games they already had, due to the 360 chewing up the disks? The PS3s Blu-Ray disks had a hard protective coating on them that made them nearly indestructable. I have purchased over 200 used PS3 games recently to boost my collection and only 1 had any noticable scratches. I have around 85 360 games and almost all are scratched.

Foehammer3070d ago

I'm really impressed with the list from PX54.

Just stop and think for a second.

XB360 sold in 40 Countries

PS3 in well over 100

Very impressive

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 3070d ago
Clarence3070d ago

Thank you sir. The 360 came out year earlier and still got outsold.

343_Guilty_Spark3069d ago

Again you have no numbers.

P5X4 on here posting made up numbers why didn't you cite a source? Usually when you make an argument you provide legit sources. I see you have none.

Keep lying to yourselves. I know it feels good.

BillytheBarbarian3070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

360 Dominated in game attach rate. When people bought Wii, the general public didn't even realize you could take Wii Sports out of the console and play other titles.

PS3 people bought exclusives like Uncharted, MGS4, and Gran Turismo and were too poor to pay to play online.

360 had taken over with better versions of 3rd party titles, Halo 3 was still a big deal, and Gears of War hit the ground running. Forza made it easier for people to forget Sony as well.

You bought a Wii for Nintendo games and waggle time.
You bought a Xbox for Bro games like Madden, Halo, and Call of Duty and top of the line Xbox Live.
You bought PS3 if you were a diehard PS2 loyalist.

Eventually the PS3 did catch up and maybe did sell more down the road but by then Xbox and Wii hit saturation, Xbox exclusives dried up in the event of next gen, and PS3 had one last great game. The Last of US. Overall it was probably the most competitive generation since Sega Genesis went toe to toe with the Super Nintendo. Sony hadn't had real competition with Sega who couldn't handle the Saturn losses and Nintendo who wouldn't budge on the cartridge format. Sony had perfect timing...but they rested on their laurels with the PS3 thinking that PS2 gamers would automatically upgrade to PS3 and it just didn't happen that way.

The Xbox 360 did something that Sony wasn't expecting. They actually took over as the house hold name. The Xbox was in movies, tv shows, and featured as promoters heavily in extreme sports and the olympics. They even had a deal with Mt. Dew to make the first game fuel with Halo 3's launch. It was working the brand to pop culture status that Sega once showed Nintendo how to do. Then Sony followed the example with PSone. Sony got lazy after the PS2 and got slammed for a good 6 years before gaining ground back from MS.

TFJWM3070d ago

ummm, what? Lets go by paragraph I guess.

Please show me some numbers where Xbox DOMINATED attach rate. Every thing I see they slightly beat it.

I don't know how you can be too poor to pay for something that is free...

360 games was better by a couple fps and maybe slightly better rez. way less then what some people consider "nothing" now. Not sure how it helped people "forget" PS when PS outsold it every year it was on the market.

So there are more ps2 diehard loyalists then total xbox 360 buyers? ok...

Xbox exclusives dried up years before this gen, and PS3 had alot more then just the last of us... heavy rain, etc

If Xbox "took over" as a household name how are they so far behind PS now...?

remixx1163070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

"The ps3 had one last great game , the last of us."

That statement alone shows your bias and ignorance, its obvious you never owned a ps3.

Sony was lighting the market up with games when MS dried up its first party's by 2010. They have way more game of the year awarded games than MS period.....when's the last time MS had a game of the year award??

In the last year of the ps3s lifetime (2013) sony released ratchet and clank into the nexus, sly cooper thieves in time, gran turismo 6, beyond two souls, god of war ascension, pupeteer, the last of us and ni no kuni....

If you owned a ps3 you would've known the ridiculous amount of great games sony was shelling out.

You guys bragged about the XB1 launch.......you mean I have to pay 500$ for MS to finally give me some games??? Are you serious??? Yeah by all means you can be happy about your mediocre launch titles lol.

Ps3 fans were still enjoy an awesome amount of games.

MS got lazy and started giving you guys month exclusive dlc and the same tired franchises, once in a blue moon would they drop a gem like blue dragon, which barely sold.

Also claiming people were to poor to play online is just....well... Kinda prickish, I mean they bought the most expensive console yet they were "to poor to pay for online".....what and idiotic statement, I can't believe you said that.to try and justify MS charging for Xbox live with no compensation, what a sheep.

joeorc3070d ago

Attach rates selling software?

Xbox 360
Vs
Sony had ps2 still selling software, PSP still selling software, ps3 selling software.

During 7th generation, again Microsoft only had the xbox360 selling software.

So since this generation Microsoft calculated Xbox one + xbox360 for sales data for its attachment rate in selling software. So is it only counting one console vs one console? Or to exclude other companies other platforms in the same market they release so as to change the argument into a certain narrative?

Does ford & dodge only count just one car they manufacture in calculated market share?

You can try to change the narrative all you want, but does not change the truth.

BillytheBarbarian3070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

@Remix116

Hahaha, you know Gears 3, Gears of War Judgement, Halo 4, Forza 4, Forza Horizon, etc... came out after 2010. Whatever.

Sony exculsives = Wannabe Nintendo and Xbox exclusives.

Get Xbox for great online gaming and the best of the genres. Get Nintendo for the family friendly platformers. Get Sony if you can't afford it because Sony does both about as good as they can but comes off generic. Resistance, Killzone, WarHawk, ...the names are so generic they even sound like Steven Seagal movie titles. HAHAHAHAHAA!

remixx1163070d ago

Hey billy, you read my reply right???

Did you read where I said "same tired old franchises".

Now look at the games you mentioned, you prove my point.

Also I love how you mention 3 shooters yet you avoid games like ni no kuni, infamous, the tales series, little big planet, heavy rain, guilty gear, ratchet and clank and so on, but of course you mention shooters that's all you really know right???

To me it didn't matter if MS had better shooters if everything else was was lackluster by a mile, no diversity.

Try some variety dude geez.

Jayszen3070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

Sorry mate, but I and most of my gamer friends bought the PS3 because we knew that Sony would always have the better exclusives, would support the console longer (the Xbox was dropped like a hot brick when the 360 came out) and the PS3 had a blu-ray drive and player for god's sake! That technology alone was way more expensive than a console at the time.

Sony never got lazy - that is a myth spread by Xboners - it got arrogant and thought that gamers would pay nearly $600 for a console but in hindsight, theirs was the cheaper console when you consider how much was packed in and how Xbox charged for so many things it was ridiculous! I won't even go into the RROD scandal.

Just look how Microsoft tried to foist a draconian and inevitably an anti-consumerist DRM policy on gamers when launching the Xbone. Hubris is not limited to Sony alone and by your account, one could say that Microsoft got lazy this generation and got the very response it deserved.

Chevalier3070d ago

Talk about generic games then goes on to mention Forza, Halo and Gears sequels. Hilarious that Gears Judgement is even somehow worth mentioning. Lol. Tried being serious then mention sequels followed by sequels and somehow your happy with those meager offerings.

Yasmin3070d ago

Selective memory there, what?

I resent your jibe about Playstation players are too poor to play online. What are you a corporate shill for Microsoft? Why should anyone like to pay for things if they are free and playing onlie was free on the PS3 which is one of the reasons why Playstation gamers actually paid less for they console overall. If Microsoft could charge you for taking a fart while you are online, they would (of course, this is my opinion). You guys paid for everything and if you like it fo ahead but don't talk down to the rest of us who work for a living.

PS3 had lots of great games in the last year, not just 'The Last of Us'. In fact Sony's own studios were making games for the PS3 in 2013. This is while Microsoft abandoned the 360.

The article is a PR love letter to and by Microsoft to try and cheer up the downhearted Xbox One gamers who can see the writing on the wall. "Let us live off past glories and forget about our present defeats (and revise history while we are at it)"!

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3070d ago
ITPython3070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

Only reason the 360 was able to get such a huge popularity hit most of last gen was due to a few key reasons:

1. Released nearly a year earlier than the PS3. So all gamers looking for the "next-gen" experience went and got a 360. They had nearly a year to get attached to the UI, controller and gain a substantial friends list on XBL. So when the PS3 finally rolled around people in general didn't like it because it was different than what they were used to, plus all their online gaming buddies were on the 360.

2. PS3 hardware architecture was way more complex than developers would have liked, so for the first year or two most/all multiplat games ran like crap on the PS3 and ran smoothly on the 360. Developers later proved a lot more could be done with the PS3 hardware, but at the beginning of the PS3's life-span the majority of the next-gen gamers were happily sitting on the MS console, so devs didn't bother much to make the PS3 versions all that great since the sales of games on the PS3 would be lower due to less players (at first).

3. Marketing deals. MS pretty much went out and bought every marketing deal available with multi-plat third-party games, so all you ever saw on TV ads and everywhere else was a huge 360 logo and the words "Available on Xbox 360" with the PS3 being a brief mention as a small-print asterisk at the tail end of an ad. Huge hitters such as the COD games, which exploded with popularity last gen, were overwhelmingly associated with the 360.

These three things were the main reasons the 360 was the popular choice console of last gen. It still got outsold by the end of the generation, but it pretty much remained the popular console of choice via word-of-mouth.

However this gen the PS4 has secured that spot without any question, not only in raw sales but also popularity. It often amazes me how many people I talk to (at work or otherwise) who own PS4's, and I've yet to come across anybody (gamers I talk to) that own an XB1. Total polar opposite of last gen, when it seemed like I was the only person in my town that owned a PS3 and played COD on it.

DOMination-3070d ago Show
Azzanation3070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

You don't have to be the highest selling console to be the most dominate. The 360 took on half of the PS install base. The console dominated regardless on how you look at it. It made a name for it self, it had some of the highest selling games for last gen and it had 10 years straight of Live Subscribers. Sure it stop selling at the end of the gen but that doesn't mean it lost. The 360 was the best console of choice last gen by the gamers and the Devs. Just because the PS3 out sold it when the 360 support stopped, doesn't mean anything.

Wiki claims 360 sold 84m, PS3 sold 83.4m.

Console isn't about a sales race. Its about selling the most consoles to gamers at the right times. 360 was selling at full price for a lot longer and when it counted, not at dirt cheap prices and in its finial years.

And to top it off, the 360 had also one of the best gaming controllers ever made, DS3 stood no where near the 360 controller.

Yasmin3070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

It must be nice to have so many opinions!

This gen the PS4 is trouncing the Xbox One so now numbers are not important. The fact that even last gen the PS3 was released a year late but still caught up and surpassed the 360 is not important because you say that Sony was heavily discounting. Perhaps but they never had to discount like the Xbox One which discounting once, twice, three (times a lady) and giving away free games pretty soon after launch. They even gave away Titanfall on launch day because by the time it was released in early 2014, the console was selling so poorly, they had to give away the biggest game free. I guess it was the 'right time' to do that.

WelkinCole3070d ago

Here is the thing about the console market share.

Whenever a new console gen comes around. Everyone start from zero market share for that round.

For example MS can't claim their 7th gen console (X360) market share as part of their 8th gen console market share. It does not work that way.

Same way when the 9th gen comes around Sony will not be able to claim their 8th gen console (PS4) market share is part of their 9th gen console (PS5) market share.

MS was the first to start the 7th gen when they released the x360 first. As such technically they had 100% market share of the the 7th gen until the WII and PS3 launched.

This whole Sony lost market share from the PS2 era is stupid because the PS2 market share is not transferable to the 7th gen market share as they are separate.

In any case Sony marketshare for the 6th gen remained in tact as 152 million PS2 sold didn't suddenly vanish.

RevXM3070d ago

Yep the 360 controller is good.
It is way more solid than the DS3.
Plug and play with a Windows PC.

However I'll make the case that the DS3 is actually a better controller.

Better Rumble technology.
Sixaxis.
Built in rechargeable battery.
Convex sticks with smaller deadzone, good surface texture and 10-bit precition (360 controllers have 8-Bit precition) = DS3 more accurate.
D-pad didn't suck.
Pressure sensitive face buttons.
Bluetooth proved itself to be the better wireless technology for controllers at the time, Ps3 could pair up to 7 controllers (or BT devices) at once and a DS3 controller could be wirelessly paired with a pc without having to buy an expensive Microsoft brand USB Dongle. Built in BT or a cheap BT dongle would do.

Bbbbut the 360 is moar ergonomix!
Yeah it'll fly faster if you drop it from a plane. DS3 is already a decently comfortable controller so I'd argue that the ergonomics only truly matter if you have the dexterity of a 2 year old that dont know how to hold things. The DS3 just rests on my fingers, it is rounded and lightweight and most people can sit with it for hours... :)

Azzanation3070d ago

@Yasmin
I am not sticking up for the XB1 here, I am clearly stating the fact the 360 was a dominate console. Everyone starts off at zero share market, that doesn't mean you can create a console and expect it to sell. you need to win the gamers over which is what the Xbox brand did.

The PS3 was heavily modified and butchered to sell to the mass market, the fat PS3s were no longer sold and become extinct nothing the XB1 had to go though, its still the same hardware from launch.

Catching up on sales mean nothing, you know if companies wanted to win a console sales war to please petty fanboy wars, they will just give there consoles away for free and do that for 10 years even if the console is bad. Does that mean the console won the generation? No because sales don't tell the true story.

The fact your bringing XB1 in this argument shows nothing more then typical fanboy defence at its best. Stay on topic.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3070d ago
+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3069d ago
WelkinCole3071d ago

Dominated by becoming 3rd and last? lol!

Tobsesan3071d ago (Edited 3071d ago )

You should read the article and not just the headline.
In terms of sales figures, it was never overtaken by PS3, according to official figures. Some sites such as VGChartz published unofficial estimates that put the PS3 ahead in the final year before PS4/XB1 released, but according to officially published figures, 360 retained its lead. The most recently published official figures from Sony and Microsoft has the 360 on 84 million, with PS3 on 83.8 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Tobsesan3071d ago

So people disagree with me for posting facts and not make things up? Ah gotta love N4G =)

Kribwalker3071d ago

I've been saying this forever and get crapped on like crazy by people but yet no one has ever shown me proof otherwise while I provided them with proof smh

kraenk123071d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

The PS3 sold more right from the start. It sold as much if not even more with one year less!!!

BTW a few weeks ago the PS3 was clocked in at 87 million on Wikipedia. Guess MS changed it..lol

RpgSama3070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

@Tobsesan

In the words of Michael Scott Regional Manager of the Scranton branch of paper distribution company Dunder Mifflin Inc.

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write ANYTHING they want about ANY subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."

Wikipedia is not facts unless accompanied by a real link to an Official Financial Statement by MS and/or Sony.

SweatyFlorida3070d ago (Edited 3070d ago )

Regardless if it did or did not outsell ps3, the title is clickbait. It never "dominated" anything, if what you say say is true, it barely scraped past ps3 even with a year start (and a much better image), and it never surpassed Wii, which ACTUALLY dominated that gen. In fact the Wii's missing dominance and utter shit sales of WiiU is why analyst/number cruncher's are crying console doom and gloom.

Your comparison of 84:83.8 just looks funny given the circumstances. Microsoft did a fine job to put itself out there to enter the big 3 with the 360 though.

UserNameIsNotTaken3070d ago

I was gonna agree with you but I disagreed because you complained about disagrees.
OT: The 360 was last in the previous generation and that's a fact.

Ch1d0r13070d ago

If that isn't total domination then i don't know what is.

freshslicepizza3070d ago

this article is about north america but once again hardly anyone reads anything and just the headline. yet so many complain about clickbait articles.

the 360 did indeed dominate the largest market, north america, during that 10 year span. the wii may have sold more but it did not dominate for 10 years in north america. the xbox 360 was often the lead platform for developers and sold more software.

Halo2ODST23070d ago

I am actually surprised so many people are disagreeing with you for posting the truth, I guess some fanboys are fanatical.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3070d ago
rainslacker3070d ago

MS did a lot of things last gen which made them a major player in the console market. They were quite successful last gen because of these things. I won't go into detail because it's besides my point.

I can't discredit MS for being successful last gen, but dominating is quite the stretch no matter how you slice it. Software attach rate has no official number, although I've seen NDA stuff which confirms the estimates are close to correct, and a few tenths of a point there is not dominating.

Whether you want to factor in year over year or total sales is rather irrelevant IMO, because overall, they both were fairly close in hardware sales so it's hard to claim a "dominate" winner.

Features brought to the table, mainly MS dominated the online space is probably about the only thing that I can give them, because they did provide something more over the course of the gen, and I feel overall provided a better experience...even though I found Sony sufficient. Whether that amounts to dominating a generation I can't say.

Not really sure why MS had to dominate last gen for people to feel good about the brand. Give MS the credit they deserve for their successful establishment of the brand itself, because ultimately, that is the more important factor for the long term. It's what kept the X1 from being a flop despite the DRM, and now it's up to MS to prove that they can be a company for the gamers. What they did last gen, and whether they dominated, is rather moot, since I see the Xbox division of today much different than that of just a couple years ago...and I hope they continue that track.

3071d ago Replies(4)
3071d ago Replies(1)
stonecold33071d ago

wiki had ps3 at 87 million about week ago and changed it again

Show all comments (171)
130°

Ranking the Devil May Cry Series

VGChartz's Mark Nielsen: "Upon finally finishing Devil May Cry 5 recently - after it spent several years on my “I’ll play that soon” list - I considered giving it a fittingly-named Late Look article. However, considering that this was indeed the final piece I was missing in the DMC puzzle, I decided to instead take this opportunity to take a look back at the entirety of this genre-defining series and rank the entries. What also made this a particularly tempting notion was that while most high-profile series have developed fairly evenly over time, with a few bumps on the road, the history of Devil May Cry has, at least in my eyes, been an absolute roller coaster, with everything from total disasters to action game gold."

Read Full Story >>
vgchartz.com
VersusDMC2h ago

First to last for me...3,4,5,1,2.

VersusDMC1h ago

Me leaving it out should be telling of my thoughts on it. Better than 2 as a DMC game.

Still a good game though.

Friendlygamer2h ago

3,1,4,5 to me, never played 2. 5 gameplay is amazing but level design was really disappointing to me, just a bunch of plain arenas, the story felt like a worse written rehash of the 3rd and the charater models looked weird ( specially the ladies ). Another problem with 5 was that there was not enough content for 3 charaters so I could never really familiarize with any of them

monkey6021h ago(Edited 1h ago)

2.
Dmc.
4.
5.
1.
3.

God DMC2 was an awful game.
And in case this isn't obvious it goes worst to best

180°

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance Has Appeared On The Xbox Store

Activision and Raven Software's 2006 action role-playing game, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, has found its way to the Xbox Store.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
LG_Fox_Brazil7h ago

Used to love this one, but X-Men Legends 1 and 2 will always be my favorites, especially Rise of Apocalypse. Would pay some good money to play it today with online multiplayer, back then I had no way to get a modem

ZeekQuattro7h ago

I remember buying them dirt cheap on the PS4 and then a few days later I read they were delisted. I was wondering why the bundle was price so low and got my answer when that happened.

Knightofelemia5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

Sad to say this is one game franchise next to the Xmen that needs a sequel. I use to play the hell out of Xmen Legends and Marvel Ultimate Alliance. Was great when my cousin had the OG Xbox play with four other people and then playing online. Great games glad to see it reappear even though I own the discs love the mechanics of this game.

Terry_B4h ago

It got a sequel..but for dumbass #reasons as a switch exclusive.

shinoff21834h ago

It looked so horrible to. They should've kept it similar to the first two.

Asplundh4h ago

Because Nintendo funded it, they did the same for Bayonetta.

Knightofelemia4h ago

I totally forgot about the Switch sequel.

jukins4h ago

Misleading. This page is whats available for people who owned the game prior to delisting.

Abnor_Mal4h ago

The first game was the best imo.

90°

10 Weirdest Video Games of All Time

Plenty of unforgettable games have completely messed up their players throughout the years, all the way back from the PS1 days to the dark recesses of the modern internet.

Read Full Story >>
culturedvultures.com
JonTheGod1d 7h ago

Why are the Katamari games not on the list??