# thaddius' Console Roast 2014 Edition - Round 11



## thaddius (May 1, 2014)

Welcome back to _thaddius’ Console Roast 2014 Edition_. For those of you who are not aware this is a poll where you, the GBATemp user, get to vote on what GBATemp thinks is the worst console ever is. For more information check out the Rules section below.

*Recap:*
Back again! So who 'won' last week? Well the winner is none other than:





*The GamePark Wiz and Caanoo!* Congratulations, GamePark! I must say I'm surprised GBATemp. I would have voted for the Pandora, although there are some hard feelings there.


So yeah, the Wiz and the Caanoo were pretty decent systems, but y'all didn't like them for some reason.

At least the brain dead individuals who voted for the DS and PSP weren't voting in larger numbers, right?

For more information check out last week's thread here.

So, before we move on to the next round, how's about some rules?

*Rules:*


Spoiler



There can only be one!

Each week I pit each console generation against itself to determine what the worst console of that generation was. Updates will hopefully be up every Thursday from now till the end.

We’re going to work our way up through consoles and handhelds until we reach the current generation. Once that’s all done, we’ll determine the worst console and the worst handheld. From there we choose the definitive GBATemp-approved WORST CONSOLE EVER.

Your only job, Mr. or Ms. GBATemper, is to cast your vote for what you think the worst of the generation is. Please try to do some research, watch some videos, maybe play a few of these games on a (completely legitimate) emulator, and you just might learn a little about the weird amorphous blob that is video game history. But I can't (and won't) keep you from just shooting from the uninformed hip. You're also encouraged to explain your choice in the form of a response to this topic. 

In the event of a tie, I (Sir thaddius prigg) will cast the deciding vote. It is my Roast after all...

The Generations are taken from Wikipedia as I've deemed that to be an appropriate neutral third party. I understand if you might have some concerns that I've put things in the wrong generation in your opinion, but I'm not too concerned about that. Generations are murky constructs at best and are based on arbitrary distinctions made by outsiders as post hoc rationalizations that don't mean anything to anyone anyway. Also if I left out even included a certain console/handheld you think does/doesn't belong there I'm probably not going to include/not include them anyway. Basically don't take any of this too seriously. I'm not going to change the polls based on your opinion of them.

Aggressive discussion is allowed, but please try to keep within the rules of the forums. Just try to have fun and don’t be a jerk, k?


Enough of that crap, time to get started!

*Intro:*
Do we have to do this? The Seventh Generation on consoles is pretty bare, and I have a feeling I know how it’s going to go. I don’t like it one bit… Well at least it’ll be over soon.

This generation was known for two things: 1) ushering in the supposed HD revolution, and 2) motion controls. Somehow both were a big deal, don’t ask me why.

Yes, the hallmarks of this generation was everyone having to get new TVs and get their lazy asses off of the couch for once.

Say what you will about either trend, they’ve become ubiquitous.

Now let us meet this week’s crew.

*This Week's Challengers are:*

*The Microsoft Xbox 360*




Microsoft strutted confidently into the Seventh Generation early with the Xbox 360. Seemingly hot on the heels of the original Xbox, the 360 would integrate online gameplay like no console seen before it.

While this console was capable of playing media off of DVDs, it had an interesting component in that you could now download digital games onto your hard drive (if you had one, that is). But would people willingly forgo physical media for a license that could be revoked from them at any time? I wonder how that will pan out…

The 360 is credited with having one of the most robust controllers ever, and (aside from the d-pad) your humble author might just have to agree.

Now despite all this fancy-dancy stuff a bunch of it was overshadowed by a glaring issue: hardware failures. Early models had a propensity to overheat and cause catastrophic hardware failures that were represented via the 360’s ringed light indication system as three red lights, aka The Red Ring of Death. MS was quick to replace any console suffering from it at no extra cost, but eventually would drop the courteous practise and leave users out twisting in the wind.

Yours truly (and faithfully ) has gone through four 360s so far, three of which had RRODs, the last one occurring mere months after MS stopped the practise of replacing 360s. I had to open the thing myself and repair it; not something I often expect to do with my consoles.

The 360 also ushered in the trend of obnoxious (but useful) updates to the system’s firmware. Primarily a method of deterring piracy MS effectively used it to update the system’s features throughout its lifetime to ensure it would stay relevant.

And of course, what would the internet enabled console age be without DLC and patches, or as I like to call it, “We didn’t bother to try and fix all the bugs or finish the game, so we’ll just release it and fix all that stuff as we go along. Oh, and the DLC will more often than not cost a bit of coin”. I’m not well known for pithy descriptions of things.

And who could forget the HD-DVD thing? An expensive add-on for the 360 that played a rather decent media, but as soon as Disney and the porn industry switched to BluRay HD-DVD was quickly abandoned and the 360 moved on to digital downloads and streaming. Luckily that was enough.

Last but not least we can’t talk about the 360 without talking about MS’ response to the Wii’s runaway success: The Kinect. Slap an array of motion analyzing IR sensors to a microphone with decent voice recognition software and you got yourself a motion gaming revolution that people mostly use to tell Netflix to pause their video.

*The Nintendo Wii*




This console won the generation last time around when we did the ‘best’ consoles. I was rather surprised but not disappointed.

The infamous ‘two Gamecube’s duct-taped together’, Nintendo released their gaming ‘Revolution’ to the world in 2007 and changed the way we play games. Seriously, it did.

Completely ignoring the HD boom and focussing on what would be panned as gimmicky controls, the Wii used a very interested amalgam of old tech to make the Wii Remote controller - a device that could track arm movement and rotation as well as traditional digital/analogue button presses and control stick movements. This was such a novel idea that Sony and Microsoft, the two companies that seemed poised to absolutely destroy Nintendo, released their own motion control schemes in hopes of cashing in on the craze.

As we keep hearing over and over again every time Nintendo releases anything these days, the rabid ‘haters’ touted the end of Nintendo as we know it, chanting loudly that its demise would resemble that of SEGA. And you know what? It sold very, very well despite being an underpowered, mostly standard definition game box with no BluRay, HD-DVD, or even lowly DVD playback. How the hell did this compete against two media centre game consoles and stay relevant?

Nintendo obviously released some of the better selling games for the system, but its use of old tech in new ways allowed a number of people to experiment. This is the system that churned out titles like Boom Blox and No More Heroes - casual and hardcore games alike that used these wacky new control schemes to their credit. And Metroid Prime 3: Corruption/Metroid Prime Trilogy’s controls scheme? Awesome.

Nintendo did create a lot of confusion with the release of the Wii Motion Plus upgrade to make their motion tracking a little more accurate. Ultimately its release allowed for games like The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. Being able to actually swing Link’s sword in a relevant way made this game stand out.

And Nintendo’s digital store would bring us the coveted Virtual Console where we could go and experience our favourite NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, ad infentum games, and even try a few we never got to own before. There were some other digital games on their service too but, with a few exceptions, you mostly never hear about anything from there.

With the good comes the bad though, and the Wii was flooded with poor quality games, enough to leave third parties gasping for profit once again on a Nintendo platform.

The Wii would eventually become a homebrewer’s dream and we would see some ingenious hacks and programs for the system.

All in all the Wii is not a terrible system, but its relevance soon dropped off the map. I wonder if it’s enough to make this a paradoxical winner of both the Console Classic and Roast this generation.

*The Sony PlayStation 3*




Sony released the PS3 in 2007 and leaped into the waiting arms of their rabid fan base only to find that both the steep launch price of $499US (for the cheap model…) and what is probably the worst launch lineup I’ve ever seen sent everyone else into the beds of Microsoft and Nintendo at first.

Sony would try to mirror the success of the PS2 and bank on a new proprietary media (not the first or last time you’ll hear this about a Sony system) for playing movies. This time the BluRay would save them from their launch troubles.

While BluRay eventually trounced HD-DVD it hardly had people running for PS3s as cheap BluRay machines when vanilla BluRay players started to drop in price. Also digital streaming has become much more important somehow.

Sony would have to wait for less shovelware-like titles to be released for the system, a price drop, and the re-inclusion of rumble in their controllers (something that was conspicuously missing from the original SixAxis and we were told was not possible with gyro controls even though the Wii had it) before sales started to pick up to a rate on par with the other two systems.

After panning the Wii’s motion controls as a “lolly pop” Sony would go on to to release their own motion controllers that would strongly resemble lolly pops. The PlayStation Move would be largely ignored by the public as an expensive add-on that would only be necessary for a handful of titles. Personally I believe it to be a kamikaze product that Sony would have embraced if it actually caught on.

One aspect of the PS3 that still bothers me to this day is the PS2 backwards compatibility debacle. Initially PS3 consoles had hardware based backwards compatibility, but as this contributed to the cost of the console, it would eventually opt for software based compatibility, and then ultimately no backwards compatibility. With the PS2 being rebranded as a Wii competitor PS2 BC on the PS3 would only detract from sales. And when Sony started releasing PS2 Classic titles on their PSN digital service I knew that we would never get that patch that allowed for ubiquitous software based BC.

*Outro:*
Well there you have it. A generation I'm not going to pad with Wii clones. Now that I think of it I could have done the OnLive (although it could be argued it's not really a console) and maybe a few others, but whoever wins this round will probably not make it on to the next one so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I certainly hope you guys don't either.

So yeah, cast your votes and remember to not take anything said here too personally. Also don't attack people personally. This one got ugly last time.

Peace out!

*Current Standings:*


Spoiler


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2014)

Dis gon b gud.


----------



## Gahars (May 1, 2014)

I'm going with the Nintendo Wii.

"What a shock!" I hear you cry. I know, I know, it's quite unexpected, but hear me out.

I hate motion controls. They're fine for party games and minigame collections, but horrible for just about anything else. They're just unwieldy, finicky, and imprecise. They're distracting, something a controller should never be, and to me, the gimmick lost its appeal very quickly. Even games that overcame this hurdle (like SMG, for instance) would've been much better served with a standard controller.

Plus, the Wii's library was rather... well, it was a modern Nintendo console. There were some fine Nintendo titles and little else. If you're not a fan of all the Nintendo franchises, then there really isn't much appeal at all.

The less said about its online capabilities, the better.

Plus, it has Other M, which taints harder than my nether regions.

Now, the other consoles had their fair share of problems. The 360, of course, had the Red Ring of Death shenanigans, and the first party library pretty much dried up after Alan Wake. The PS3 launched pretty awfully and had the online fiasco for a good while. Still, I feel like those systems ultimately had better game selection (first and third party) and better services, not to mention better controllers; for all the 360's problems, that pad is a work of art.

So yeah. Wii it is. Fight me irl, chuckleheads.


----------



## DinohScene (May 1, 2014)

360.
Horrible horrible cooling design.
Pretty sleek looking console tho.
Masterwork of a controller and lovely faceplates <3

PS3.
Ugly bulky design.
Quiet fans tho.
Cheap feeling controller. 

Wii.
Well I gots meself a new bathroom tile.
Weird controller, innovative but weird.

As for the games.
I spend a good time on the Wii.
PS3 I specifically got for Ni No Kuni and Okami HD.
360 was me main console anyway.

I'd almost say 360 for it's overload of shit FPS and it being the main console for COD but the Wii just lacks in 3rd party support.
PS3...
Sorry, but you dun have that many flaws.

Wii it is!


----------



## chavosaur (May 1, 2014)

Fuck. I know exactly how this is going to go. 
Well I myself garnered the most fun out of the 360 in this gen. I attribute it as one of my favorite consoles of all Time, and it was the beginning of my Achievement Hunting era. I love the Xbox so it won't take my vote.

Nintendo's Wii was a very family oriented system with a ton of fun games that I go back and play all the time so it won't take my vote. 

The playstation 3 was a console I kind of skipped over this generation, but ended up getting into at the end of its life cycle. Te Last of Us was the first game I played and it was astounding. Playing more into its library I found a ton of games I really enjoyed and it's a solid system. So t won't take my vote.


My point for this gen, is that I refuse to vote for this generation. I found all consoles to be utterly fantastic in their own ways and I'm glad I own all 3. 

There's no way in hell I could choose.


That being said, I have a terrible feeling how this voting will go.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 1, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Dis gon b gud.


Damn...you beat me to it. 


Yeah...how do I have to vote for THIS one? I admit it: I just bought the wii because of the movement thing. It's still fun at times. And it's still the cheapest console with some quality games on it. Oh, and hacking is a piece of cake.

On the other two...really, can ANYONE tell me a difference between these two? Sure, ported games were nothing new, but I sort of feel like the far majority is non-exclusives in this gen. Up to the point that the few games are the ONLY reason you go for one over the other.
Okay, that's not entirely true. When I finally decided to buy one of those, it was the xbox's controller that gave the final push in that direction (not that it's THAT much better...but slightly better is still better  ).

Same here: I voted for the PS3 for worst because it's the only one I don't have. But if there was an option for a draw between xbox360 and PS3, that would have been my real vote.


----------



## GameWinner (May 1, 2014)

So, we're finally here.
Let's see, PS3 was my main console of choice last gen...hell, it's still my main console with Persona 5 coming.
I've owned a 360 for a while but ended up selling it since I wasn't that interested in it. I loved my Wii...for the first few years before I put it in my closet 
never to be played again.
Probably going with 360 on this one..or Wii... DECISIONS!


----------



## T-hug (May 1, 2014)

For me it was the 360 > PS3 > Wii.
I've played every single exclusive from lastgen!


----------



## TecXero (May 1, 2014)

I had to choose PS3. Both the PS3 and 360 had heating problems early on, and the early Wiis shipped with a faulty disc drive that could fail when it came to the DL DVDs. PS3, though, had a bit too complicated architecture setup, compared to the other two systems. Don't get me wrong, it's my most favorite console of the last generation, but looking at the hardware when it first came out, not only did it have hardware problems, but it took a while for games to come to it. Even then, usually the PS3 ports were worse than the 360 ports early on. Towards the end of its lifespan, it did really come into its own, though.


----------



## TheCasketMan (May 1, 2014)

Voted for the Wii.  It was basically a Gamecube 2.0 with gimmicky motion controls. The worse Nintendo console in my opinion. Horrible control, barely any 3rd party support, bad online, the few 3rd party games were shovel-ware except Sonic Colors and Madworld, only 1 "good" Metroid game, too casual, and weaker specs from the other 2 consoles by miles(at least the GameCube had similar specs to the PS2 and Xbox). It still had its 1st party games as usual.

The PS3 seemed expensive at first, but it was actually the cheapest blu-ray player released at that time with free online play that wasn't so bad. With games, it started slow, but as time went on, there was a non-stop plethora of AAA games like Uncharted, LBP, Infamous, God of War, TLOU, Sly 4, Heavy Rain, Ni no Kuni, Demon Souls, Resistance, etc. The list goes on right now with Persona 5 & more.

The 360 started as an excellent console with excellent games, superior 3rd party games, and superior online service/community; it was on the verge of annihilating the PS3, but then they committed the same mistake as the Wii; they went too casual with their games and Kinect, half way through the gen, and the PS3 raced past them and ended up ended selling more PS3 systems world-wide despite its higher price.


----------



## mightymuffy (May 1, 2014)

Once you soft mod a Wii it becomes one almighty piece of gaming entertainment! But that's not the question here really.... and if you have the means you can mod the other two and they'll provide quite a lot of what the Wii can do anyway.

3 FANTASTIC games machines, all worth every penny I've spent on them, but there's only one worst when you ignore that 'soft modded' thingy = Wii, despite giving me countless hours of enjoyment, and will almost certainly remain the ultimate games machine for parties, no question!


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 1, 2014)

I voted for the Wii because while it has a lot of great exclusives I highly enjoy when comparing it to 360 and PS3, they both had more games to choose from because the majority of Wii's library is made up of shovelware.

As for the eighth gen worst console that'll be Xbox One.


----------



## matpower (May 1, 2014)

So we finally got to this point, huh? *insert some master race joke here*
I owned every console from this gen, I played my Wii more than the other consoles, I enjoyed playing my PS3 too, but the X360? Nope, most games that were released for it were released on the PS3 and 1st parties/other populars games are FPS, I don't really like them. Also Xbox Live sucks, it was paid and filled with "UR MUM!" 10 years old kid. Later, I did RGH expecting better emulators to replace my now-dead Xbox 1, in the end, it wasn't worth and I moved my emulators to my Wii.
My vote is on X360.
(But let's be honest, this generation had great consoles, it is hard to pick the worst one)


----------



## calmwaters (May 1, 2014)

First off, they're *not* motion controls. I don't even know what the hell that means, anyway. If you mean controls that allow motion, then might I recommend the Silver GameCube Controller? There are joysticks and buttons which allow for in game motion. Secondly, games that used the Remote and Nunchuk would free yourself from the couch, which was what made the Wii unique. I have seen gamers sit on the couch or a recliner and play games for many hours. Now some people get tired (there are warning messages in instruction manuals about this), but they don't want to stop playing because the experience is so immersive. It's nice to be able to get up and stretch without worrying about yanking the controller out of its socket, etc. But I voted for the Wii because it was the successor to the GameCube (which wasn't very well received... go figure) and then as time went on, the games became crappier and crappier.

I don't blame Nintendo for allowing developers to release such crappy titles on their system as much as I blame the developers for creating such crappy titles in the first place. It's almost as if the developers believed I didn't deserve a quality gaming experience because I had a Nintendo. And then came the myth that the Wii became a console exclusively for families because of its simple control scheme. This was enough to ruin the Wii nearly to the brink of extinction. I stopped getting games because there were no good ones to play; my tolerance for shovelware only goes so far.

The only thing thing that went bad for Microsoft was the Kinect and the eventual deterioration of Xbox Live. Sony saw the Move and the hacking of the PSN. At least those're my reasons for their failure.


Foxi4 said:


> Dis gon b gud.


 
Got nothing actually worth reading to say? Or are you trying to stay clear of the inevitable flame war which will shortly ensue?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> Got nothing actually worth reading to say? Or are you trying to stay clear of the inevitable flame war which will shortly ensue?


I'm looking forward to it, especially since I'm having a hard time picking the worst one since all three have good stuff to offer.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 1, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> I'd almost say 360 for it's overload of shit FPS and it being the main console for COD but the Wii just lacks in 3rd party support.


 
It's not that the Wii lacked third party support the games were just overall crap due to being unwanted shovelware bs.

For a large majority of the time I used my Xbox 360 to watch MP4/AVI videos and YouTube but since I "hacked" my HDTV I no longer have to boot the 360 for such thing.

Exclusives: Wii > PS3 > 360
HD-ness: PS3 > 360 > Wii (it's not HD really, more so like NGC 2.0)
Shovelware: Wii > 360 > PS3
Hardware: PS3 > 360 > Wii

Overall it comes down to this for me:
Wii pros: 1
Wii cons: 3

Personally I don't really care about the hardware but when comparing to the PS3 and 360 yeah it's inferior.

I've never had my 360 go RRoD on me but that's because I bought the Slim edition which is silent and runs smoothly although when I use my PS3 60GB that thing sounds like a jet although there are times when it's somewhat quiet too.


----------



## thaddius (May 1, 2014)

As usual I'm only going to vote in the event of a tie, but so far that hasn't happened!

When it comes down to it I would rather vote for the one I had the least fun with.

I didn't mention it in my description (they were all getting a bit too long anyway) but Sony removing Linux support rubbed me the wrong way, and the subsequent security breach turned me off of playing it altogether. The only reason I use the PS3 these days is as a Vita game depository so I don't have to keep downloading my games. For that reason I'd vote for the PS3.

The Wii and 360 were my primary source of gaming for the majority of the generation, and I have 50+ games for each. The PS3 on the other hand only convinced me to buy 6 games for my collection.

Sorry PS3. It doesn't mean your a bad system, it just means I'm not not as fond of you as I am the others.


----------



## BORTZ (May 1, 2014)

I feel i must weigh in here. I went though stages with all the last gen consoles. 

The first was the Wii. Being a very large Nintendo gaming growing up and though highschool, the Wii was the one for me. I loved the games, the ideas they brought to the table and the design. The problem that I didnt start having till much more recently is the lack of HD. After I softmodded it, the wii became the emulation powerhouse and free games central for me. That thing has seen many hours of use.

After a while i started playing my roommates 360s and after college was left with no 360 of my own. It was really difficult to justify to myself to buy a console that seems to deliberately sabotage itself after a few years of gaming. That aside, I sucked it up and got a slim. I had it for a little over a year and a half and am currently looking to sell it. The games are fine, but I just dont care to play on a shiz system. I basically have to vote 360 this round, despite sale numbers and success it saw in the west. I cannot see past the hardware failure issue. How can a company think that is an acceptable business model? I uderstand a generation or 2 of parts doing that, but for years and years? no. 

And just last week I got a PS3 and everything seems like it should feel. I am sad I didn't get one soon and tell my friends to piss into the wind when the convinced me to get a 360 a few years back.


----------



## Veho (May 1, 2014)

All your previous roasts featured at least one oddball console from left field in addition to the well-known big boys, I was expecting you to unearth some obscure box to list alongside the big three. I am disappoint.


----------



## tbgtbg (May 1, 2014)

Going with 360 solely for the RROD issues.



Veho said:


> All your previous roasts featured at least one oddball console from left field in addition to the well-known big boys, I was expecting you to unearth some obscure box to list alongside the big three. I am disappoint.



Yeah, should've thrown the Sega Firecore in there or something.


----------



## Veho (May 1, 2014)

tbgtbg said:


> Yeah, should've thrown the Sega Firecore in there or something.


Or the Chintendo Vii  



My vote would go to Wii Mini, if it counted as a separate console. While technically still a Wii, in reality it's more like _half_ a Wii; Wii being as humble as it is already, the Wii Mini is just sad.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2014)

Veho said:


> All your previous roasts featured at least one oddball console from left field in addition to the well-known big boys, I was expecting you to unearth some obscure box to list alongside the big three. I am disappoint.


Yeah, it was the same with the Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/Xbox poll - no weird-ass console from the margins to dump votes on... and there I hoped for the iQue Player or the XaviXPort...


----------



## matpower (May 1, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, it was the same with the Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/Xbox poll - no weird-ass console from the margins to dump votes on... and there I hoped for the iQue Player or the XaviXPort...


iQue Player is a (technically, since it uses the System-on-a-chip stuff and games needed ports) portable N64, most people wouldn't vote at it if they did research. Same with the Firecore.


Veho said:


> Or the Chintendo Vii
> 
> 
> 
> My vote would go to Wii Mini, if it counted as a separate console. While technically still a Wii, in reality it's more like _half_ a Wii; Wii being as humble as it is already, the Wii Mini is just sad.


Man, that subtitles are great. 
To be honest, Wii Mini was a terrible idea from the start, Wii never needed to be smaller, it is the smaller than most Slim consoles.
(I swear he wants to see the flame wars, that is why he didn't pick any weirdo!)


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2014)

Veho said:


> Or the Chintendo Vii
> 
> My vote would go to Wii Mini, if it counted as a separate console. While technically still a Wii, in reality it's more like _half_ a Wii; Wii being as humble as it is already, the Wii Mini is just sad.


Chintendo Vii is just the tip of the iceberg, Veho. Meet the Overmax line:



Spoiler: Overmax Movebox














Spoiler: Overmax V-Motion













Spoiler: Overmax 85 Games













Spoiler: Overmax 90 Games










...can you tell what they're ripping off? _;O;_


----------



## Walker D (May 1, 2014)

I don't even want to answer that ...all of them showed something that made it fun to me in some way..


----------



## Veho (May 1, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Chintendo Vii is just the tip of the iceberg, Veho.


I know, I mentioned the first one that came to mind. There really are too many to list here.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2014)

Veho said:


> I know, I mentioned the first one that came to mind. There really are too many to list here.


Well, to be fair, I've seen the Movebox in normal supermarkets... so... I suppose... it's mainstream?


----------



## Nathan Drake (May 1, 2014)

I voted for the Wii. I got bored of the controls and longed for a more traditional control scheme, and I've grown so bored of Nintendo franchises that the Wii had next to nothing to offer me in terms of a good gaming experience.

The 360 wasn't amazing, but the amount of fun I had playing games against my friend on that system can't be understated. It had a decent range of exclusives as well. It falls short though with its pay wall for absolutely every online function, as well as for the fact that much of the library and its exclusives tended to be one FPS or another. I did like its online functionality though. It had a number of functions that the PS3 really would have benefited from including in its online service.

The PS3 was the all star of this last generation, in my humble opinion. It had a diverse range of exclusives, and PSN is easily one of the best ways to legally get your hands on all of the great PS1 titles. Besides that, the online store is vastly superior to what was offered on either the Wii or 360. As of now, I can't find much of a reason to own any recent console besides the PS3, as due to its library and overall functionality, it offers the most out of any of the last gen hardware.

I'm completely disregarding piracy and homebrew here, as all three systems are hackable and grant similar functionality once hacked.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 1, 2014)

This was a really tough one.  All three 7th-gen consoles were great IMO. I reluctantly chose the PS3 because of its high price.  I only played it a few times as I couldn't afford to buy one.

I really liked the Wii, because the lack of HD didn't bother me even a little.  I also absolutely loved the motion control.  I know some people didn't like it (Gahars for example), or thought it was "gimicky", but I loved it.  It was especially good for anything with a gun.  The Metroid Prime games, Conduit 1 & 2, and most Resident Evil games are examples.  I got really good at aiming with the remote to the point where I could head-shot just about anything.  To me it wasn't distracting at all, and made the game feel much more real.

I understand why someone would really dislike the motion controls if they couldn't adapt to them.  I had a very easy time of it though.


----------



## Dork (May 1, 2014)

Oh this is easy, Xbox 360.

PC for any multiplat titles, and a PS3 + Wii for all the great exclusive games they had. Xbox 360 was extremely lacking in exclusive games and was really only a multiplat machine.


----------



## EyeZ (May 1, 2014)

Wow.... what a selection to pick one from.

Definitely not the PS3, as the PS3 is my fave, so the Wii or the 360 

I'll be back with my vote after some deliberation.


----------



## codezer0 (May 2, 2014)

This generation... geeze.

Speaking only from experience...

Xbox 360

Launch one RRoD'd, true, but it was a hard drive failure... the system still kept working if I could have used it without the hard drive. With the BB replacement plan, I was able to upgrade to the Elite that I'd been using ever since.
Started with maybe compatibility of 15% of the original Xbox library; has since grown to support ~51% of the entire catalog, which is impressive for pure software BC
Buying a newer model, other than just being more difficult to mod, doesn't rob you of any functionality. At All. Even a new 360 E can still play all the original Xbox games already made compatible.
Firmware update enables 1080p output for all the systems.
Nintendo Wii

Directly backward compatible with GameCube games, and short of specialty accessories (like the GB player), everything worked.
480p only? bleh...
At the least it made a much more automatic up-conversion for GameCube games

Virtual Console has worked stupendously well on the system.
Hacking has really blown the doors off what the system could do beyond that
Nintendium at least on the home consoles, has stood the test of time thus far. Only ever had to buy one, and it's been a tank in every sense of the word
Using the wiimote+nunchuk _should_ be the ideal console input for stuff like shooters, but in practice, it tends to cause me some serious cramping at the wrists
Probably (original) home to some of Suda 51's best work
PS3

Currently on my *4th* (yes, fourth) 60gig PS3. Sony hardware reliability, my ass.
The 20gig I initially rescued currently has a corrupt NAND. And nobody wants to carry any solutions that would let me bring it back, much less fix the BD drive 
Sony started with 90~% BC that could easily be made to 100%, then 60%... to 0%
... so they can sell us half-assed "HD collections" (looking at you, _God of War Collection_)
Where are the stable Cobra-based firmwares?
The current editions of the system are a blatant mockery of everything that you got with the launch models
... yet only the neutered ones actually get any love in the form of no-solder kits, ODE's, the lot.
So few games that would even output in 1080p
... most of which arbitrarily limited it to HDMI only, when there's no technical reason to do so.
All the hype of 3D, and 720p only? Meh...
The lie of "supporting Linux"
The god-awful triggers on the factory controllers
The lie that they couldn't put rumble in, only to bring it back not even a year later.
Oh, and of the three, Sony chose to ban me despite never playing online. 
 
I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 2, 2014)

Had to go for the Wii on this one for pretty much the same reasons as Nathan Drake. Nintendo games entertained me for a couple weeks, and then I just got sick and tired of Mario and Zelda and was left with...a couple of junk third party games.

After the Wii, I went for the 360 which provided me for most of my console games for quite a few years. Then I switched to the PS3 and haven't given a second look back. Since I bought it about a year ago during the beginning of it's long death, it was cheap, PS+ gave me a shit ton of games to play, the exclusives were great and the multiplats aren't nearly as bad as the first few years. 

Though now that I have my PS4, it looks like my PS3 will be taking a bit of nap unless it gets some kind of great game that won't be coming to the PS4.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 2, 2014)

I really don't think I can honestly cast a vote in this, and may sit this one out. 

I own all three systems, and all of them have their strengths. The Wii is certainly my favorite, but you all know that's because I'm a huge Nintendo fan, so it naturally had the games that I liked best. I also personally liked the motion controls, at least in the cases where they were utilized well. Heck, even Metroid: Other M did some cool things with motion controls. The downsides were obvious though, since the system just wasn't powerful enough to output visuals anywhere near on par with its competition, or carry multiplats that didn't feel like watered down ports with forced motion gimmicks.

PS3 is the second for me, though I didn't pick it up until about a year ago. The OS feels overall smooth, unintrusive, and simple to me (I know that last one in particular is very subjective, but I much prefer a UI simple in both feel and literal use, as I find it easier to navigate). The PS3 also has my favorite 7th-gen controller (I really don't understand why people hate the dpad... I think it has the best one of the three!), with the only downside being the triggers, to a degree. I also am coming to love Sony's exclusive offerings, and PS+ is quite possibly the best money-saving gaming investment ever, aside from Steam, of course. The only real downside I see here is game performance, especially in earlier games, which brings us to...

360 is the third for me, but don't get me wrong; I don't think it's a terrible system. Thing is, if it weren't for the fact that multiplats often run better on 360 than PS3 (especially in earlier games), as well as the fact that I like Halo and Gears of War, I would see no compelling reason to own one. It has almost no exclusives, online multiplayer is paid (along with many other services that are free on just about every other platform, like Netflix and YouTube), and even with a paid subscription, the dashboard feels like it's at least 60% ads that waste so much space. Not to mention that Microsoft didn't seem to learn it's lesson from the original Xbox regarding the dpad: The 360 controller easily has one of the worst, most unreliable dpads I've ever seen in a major, first party controller. There were also the infamous RRoD issues, but I personally never had to deal with that.

You know what, scratch what I said in the beginning: After writing everything out, I know that 360 gets my vote. Just keep in mind I don't think it's an awful system: I just don't think it's as good as the two alternatives.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 2, 2014)

I voted for the PS3, it was waayyy over priced, under delivered on the PS2 legacy and then you have Sony suing people left and right, the whole PSN happy fun time thing. Thanks to Sony many people had to get CC's reissued.

To add to the problems I think the PS3 is the only console in history that nearly took down a mega corp in one gen with money lost counted in the billions.

Nintendo raked in billions, Microsoft probably made some pretty good money on the 360 (even after paying out the ass for the whole RROD) and Sony just ate it, I doubt they made money on the PS3 and most likely lost all the money they had made on the PS1 and PS2 (At one point this was certainty but they may have made some $$$ back on the PS3 at the end? But surely not enough to cover the billions they lost at the beginning.) 

I guess it's all about expectations for my vote, from Nintendo I expected so little except Excite Truck and Zelda at launch. The cheap price of the machine and a couple of great games at launch was all I expected. I got so much more from that little wonder box it's not even funny. 

From my PS3 I expected an HD PS2 with a shit ton of awesome games, after all I paid like $400 for my PS3 (used) and Sony promised a LOT! What I felt like I got was a watered down PC with too many FPS games. Sure things turned around in the past couple of years and it finally became worth owning the thing. But it was a test of my will power not to sell the thing. 

I never expected much out of the 360 considering how the original Xbox did (it was my vote for the worst console last gen.) but in my opinion the 360 performed at least as well as the PS3 in so many respects. The RROD thing was bad, but taken in context of how bad the PS3 did to Sony and the bad things Sony did and the whole comedy routine you could build out of the stuff Sony said before and after launch.... 

Seriously the PS3 nearly killed off Sony single handedly, it did more damage to the company than Nintendo and Microsoft combined. To me that makes it the worst console in that gen.


----------



## Nathan Drake (May 2, 2014)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> -snip


The PS3 didn't nearly bankrupt their entire corporation. Sony is bigger than that. It may have put their gaming division in danger, but clearly they bounced back. As for the price, the PS3 did much like what the DS did: it started out unpopular and then relaunched with a shinier model that got all of the attention. At the time of release, their biggest mistake was including a blu-ray drive, which, in these past few years has actually proven very useful for keeping large games from big developers on a single disc. Anybody who bought in early did get the added benefit of PS2 support, so, ya know, they had that going for them. The price was highly unattractive, but hey, at least most people only had to buy one PS3 instead of a multitude of RRoD 360's that took someone suing for responsibility to be taken.

When it came to games, the 360 was the FPS machine. PS3 was more a balance of RPG games, multiplats (which happened to include the major multiplat shooters), and action/adventure titles. Sure, it wasn't the PS2, but anybody expecting another PS2 was clearly delusional. The PS2 was an unusually successful system in terms of game selection. It was a real one off as far as game development goes, and a lot of its profit comes from the fact that the PS1 took away the majority of Nintendo's support during the previous generation. Really, you can't blame Sony because you regret being an early adopter. It's a risk you choose to take and all disappointment is your own fault in the long run. It's why people suggest waiting two or three years before buying. If you sat there thinking that any company could deliver on absolutely everything they promised (though whether they even promised another PS2 is up for debate), then you're silly. They say what they need to in order to get early adopters.

Really though, your information is littered with misinformation. Trust me when I say that people here would have practically been masturbating to the idea of Sony dying so that Nintendo would lose the only competitor that seems to be able to outdo them. They still happily went after the fact that the PS3 suffered for awhile, but unlike Nintendo, both Sony and Microsoft have a lot of non-game related goods going for them that remain fairly successful.


----------



## SickPuppy (May 2, 2014)

I bought a 360 and barely used it. I'm so cheap I wouldn't pay to game online with the thing when my PS3 and Wii were free to game online, although my modded PS3 never went online, the PS3 homebrew kept me busy.  I would have modded my 360 but there wasn't much homebrew going on with it so I said screw it and it sat there collecting dust. I got more use from my PS3 and Wii so I gave the 360 the axe.


----------



## Adeka (May 2, 2014)

Voted 360 because it's the only console that has ever died on me.  Not a big fan of fps games either so most of it's exclusives were a huge turnoff.

Wii...God awful multiplayer.  Awesome original exclusives.  It was the first of the 3 consoles I picked up.  Plus it still works.

PS3.  PlayStation Plus.  Need I say more?


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 2, 2014)

Nathan Drake said:


> snip


 
I could post a small army of links to the information on how the PS3 nearly broke the company. Even Sony themselves claimed that they "bet the company" on the PS3.

Sorry if this information is new to you, it's only 5+ years old to me... 

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/sony.html

From the archives, sadly it seems to paint a far different picture than your post. There are literally hundreds of news stories on how the PS3 at launch was costing Sony billions of dollars yearly for the first couple of years.

Then you get recent stories like this one...

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/01/sony-slashes-profit-forecast-again-raising-pressure-on-ceo

Read that article very carefully, then do a bunch more digging on how Sony is doing. (As you say they are a large company) They pretty much only make money these days on the entertainment division. Almost everything else is bleeding money at an astounding rate or has been sold off. (Too much stuff sold off to link in this post, but the short list is Chemical production, LCD production, PC production, multiple office buildings, and much much more. Sony isn't as large as they used to be.) 


Pray Sony does better and soon, I know I am...

No I don't want Sony to "die" or even do badly, please do not take my post in that way. I only point out the facts as the news is presented. When I expressed an opinion in my post I labeled it as such. I honestly didn't think I needed to post links to each and every thing I mentioned as it's pretty common knowledge to anyone who even remotely pays attention to gaming as a hobby. 

"Trust me when I say that people here would have practically been masturbating to the idea of Sony dying so that Nintendo would lose the only competitor that seems to be able to outdo them." 

They may get that fantasy fulfilled sorry to say, and I feel the industry will suffer for it.


----------



## Ericthegreat (May 2, 2014)

Why is the 360 leading this? lmfao


----------



## KingVamp (May 2, 2014)

The poll was pretty much predictable.


----------



## Veho (May 2, 2014)

matpower said:


> To be honest, Wii Mini was a terrible idea from the start, Wii never needed to be smaller, it is the smaller than most Slim consoles.


They didn't redesign it to make it smaller but to make it cheaper. It's only slightly smaller than the original.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 2, 2014)

Ericthegreat said:


> Why is the 360 leading this? lmfao


 
RRoD and Gold's unnecessary paywall.

Pay to use YouTube? Screw Microsoft!



Veho said:


> They didn't redesign it to make it smaller but to make it cheaper. It's only slightly smaller than the original.


 
It's like Sony when they released "PSP Street" a cheaper version of PSP for the market who couldn't afford the better models or just wanted a new PSP for a low price.


----------



## matpower (May 2, 2014)

Veho said:


> They didn't redesign it to make it smaller but to make it cheaper. It's only slightly smaller than the original.


 
There isn't a big price difference between Wii and Wii mini here, I keep forgetting that price thing.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 2, 2014)

Wow, this is a tough one to vote on. I never had a PS3, but I like the system, and for Wii and Xbox, I have them both and love them. RRoD was never an issue for me, not even on the older Xbox, but I always hated gold membership. As for the Wii, it's my least played console, I only ever played like, 4 games on it but it's not a bad console. I need to think for a bit. lol


----------



## chavosaur (May 2, 2014)

Considering the poll now, I should definitely be preparing to argue my ass off come the 8th gen roast. 
If you could predict what was gonna happen here, we all know full well how The Xbox One, PS4, WII U votes are gonna go


----------



## orcid (May 2, 2014)

xbox 360
The PS3 and Wii have much better exclusive games. Also the rrod was a real desaster. In my personal opinion the xbox 360 is worse than the wii because you can play almost every game on the PC and the PS3. The only reason getting a xbox 360 is if you like FPS, you are into online play and don't care about all the PS3 and Wii exclusives. For these people it`s a great console and maybe even the best console of this generation.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 2, 2014)

orcid said:


> xbox 360
> The PS3 and Wii have much better exclusive games. Also the rrod was a real desaster. In my personal opinion the xbox 360 is worse than the wii because you can play almost every game on the PC and the PS3. The only reason getting a xbox 360 is if you like FPS, you are into online play and don't care about all the PS3 and Wii exclusives. For these people it`s a great console and maybe even the best console of this generation.


 
Even though I like the 360 and its library I have to agree that the console was mainly made for shooters overall.

It also has some interesting exclusives here and there but nothing that's unmissable.

_Dead or Alive: Xtreme 2_ and _Rumble Roses XX_ must've been the way to attract the Japanese audience but it didn't work.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2014)

I know my vote won't change much, but I had to vote for the Wii. I like the system, but while the magic of the WiiMote and the comfort of a WiiMote+Nunchuck combo did not fade away with me, the games did. There's just not a lot of AAA games available for the system, mostly because the hardware is a generation behind the competition. It's still a solid system for what it's worth, don't get me wrong, but the 360 and the PS3 proved to be more future-proof for obvious reasons.


----------



## Nah3DS (May 2, 2014)

don't like the library + shit d-pad = Xbox



DinohScene said:


> Wii.
> Well I gots meself a new bathroom tile.


everyone tries so hard to make jokes about the Wii


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2014)

NahuelDS said:


> everyone tries so hard to make jokes about the Wii


With a name like _"Wii"_ you really don't have to try too hard. Then there's the _"Wii U"_, what's next, _"Wii Urself"_?


----------



## chavosaur (May 2, 2014)

NahuelDS said:


> everyone tries so hard to make jokes about the Wii


It's pretty easy considering The system itself is a joke ;O;


----------



## Nah3DS (May 2, 2014)

chavosaur said:


> It's pretty easy considering The system itself is a joke ;O;


come on! you can do better than that


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 2, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> Wii.
> Well I gots meself a new bathroom tile.


 
You wii'd all over your new bathroom tile?

EWWWWW, THAT'S SICK, MAN!!


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 2, 2014)

chavosaur said:


> It's pretty easy considering The system itself is a joke ;O;


That's a bold statement, considering it was the most popular console in every region of the world, and the third most successful home console in history.

What's your reasoning?


----------



## Nah3DS (May 2, 2014)

JoostinOnline said:


> What's your reasoning?


"all the cool kids bash the Wii"


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 2, 2014)

NahuelDS said:


> "all the cool kids bash the Wii"


...well played.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 2, 2014)

JoostinOnline said:


> That's a bold statement, considering it was the most popular console in every region of the world, and the third most successful home console in history.
> 
> What's your reasoning?


 
Considering the ;O; included in his post, I doubt he was actually serious.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2014)

JoostinOnline said:


> That's a bold statement, considering it was the most popular console in every region of the world, and the third most successful home console in history.
> 
> What's your reasoning?


It was definitely very successful sales-wise, but keep in mind that it was also the 100-million-selling dust collector. A good portion of those sales are users of the Wii Fit board, yet another good portion are casual gamers who moved on to smartphones. I can say that without a shadow of a doubt I've gone through practically everything the Wii had to offer that interested me and since then the system devolved into a Just Dance/Mario Party/Mario Kart jukebox used exclusively on parties and I'm willing to wager that many Wii's gather more dust than attention at this point in time. Of course I very well may be wrong, but the numbers speak for themselves - although initially very strong, software tie ratios of the Wii plummeted and as of today they're well below even the Gamecube.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39708/

Even in 2012 you can see how software attachment rates were on the incline with the PS3 and the 360 wheras the Wii's steadily dropped year after year - there's reasons behind that. That's not to say that the Wii was a one-trick-pony - it definitely showed that you can make up for hardware inadequacies with clever design, but the magic wore off eventually. To be fair though, the Wii's score is surprisingly good all things considered and there's no denying that it was a great success for the company.

Just for the sake of consistency, fast forward to 2014 and the tie-ratios are as follows 10.24 for the Xbox 360, 9.14 for the PlayStation 3 and for the 8.89 Wii, so overall, owners of the other two systems bought more games on average than owners of the Wii. Of course this is from VGChartz, so god knows how inaccurate these numbers might be - I'd have to look through NPD reports to find more accurate scores.


----------



## chavosaur (May 2, 2014)

These are the jokes people *cane pulls off stage*


----------



## DinohScene (May 2, 2014)

People take their system far to serious.
Far.. to.. serious..


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 2, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> Considering the ;O; included in his post, I doubt he was actually serious.


I've actually never known what that emoticon was supposed to be.  It looks like a person with patchy facial hair is in the middle of sex-face.



Foxi4 said:


> It was definitely very successful sales-wise, but keep in mind that it was also the 100-million-selling dust collector. A good portion of those sales are users of the Wii Fit board, yet another good portion are casual gamers who moved on to smartphones.


Another case of you deciding that everyone feels the same as you and turning into an imaginary statistic.



Foxi4 said:


> I can say that without a shadow of a doubt I've gone through practically everything the Wii had to offer that interested me and since then the system devolved into a Just Dance/Mario Party/Mario Kart jukebox used exclusively on parties and I'm willing to wager that many Wii's gather more dust than attention at this point in time.


I didn't enjoy any of the party games on the Wii.  For me it was action games like The Conduit, Xenoblade Chronicles, The Last Story, Metroid Prime Trilogy, the Resident Evil games, and so on.



Foxi4 said:


> Of course I very well may be wrong, but the numbers speak for themselves - although initially very strong, software tie ratios of the Wii plummeted and as of today they're well below even the Gamecube.
> 
> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39708/
> 
> Even in 2012 you can see how software attachment rates were on the incline with the PS3 and the 360 wheras the Wii's steadily dropped year after year - there's reasons behind that. That's not to say that the Wii was a one-trick-pony - it definitely showed that you can make up for hardware inadequacies with clever design, but the magic wore off eventually. To be fair though, the Wii's score is surprisingly good all things considered and there's no denying that it was a great success for the company.


That could easily mean that people didn't feel the need to keep buying new games for satisfaction.  I'm not saying that it's definitely what it meant, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your assessment that it makes the console a dust gatherer.



Foxi4 said:


> Just for the sake of consistency, fast forward to 2014 and the tie-ratios are as follows 10.24 for the Xbox 360, 9.14 for the PlayStation 3 and for the 8.89 Wii, so overall, owners of the other two systems bought more games on average than owners of the Wii. Of course this is from VGChartz, so god knows how inaccurate these numbers might be - I'd have to look through NPD reports to find more accurate scores.


Also keep in mind that new games haven't been made for the Wii in 2 years, but new ones are being released for both the 360 and PS3.

For the record, if we aren't counting homebrew, the 360 would be my favorite console of the 7th gen.  I spent sssssssssssooooooooooooooo much time playing Oblivion on it.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2014)

JoostinOnline said:


> _*Snip!*_


It's a general truth that when owners of a given system suddenly stop buying games for it then the selection is lacking. Unless we're going to agree on the imaginary premise that people were happy with the 8 games they bought and played them happily ever after between 2009 and 2012 _(the period of time when the tie-ratio for the Wii began dropping)_, it means that the system suffered a software draught and we know it did because we witnessed it ourselves. Judging by the fact that the Wii U is not bringing in the Wii crowds back for more, the assumption that the Wii bubble burst and that the crowd moved on appears to be entirely correct, with or without your cheeky remarks, but sure - it's an assumption, hence the _"I very well may be wrong"_ part of my post which you seem to have glossed over. Your reply boils down to _"you're making gross generalizations based on your own opinion, but my feels tell me otherwise"_ - that's the magic of having an opinion - it's not fact, it's what I think about a given subject, you don't have to be cheeky about it, especially considering the fact that I enjoyed my Wii for what it was worth _(insert phallic joke here)_.


----------



## orcid (May 2, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> .....


The wii was not supported as long as the other two consoles which had/have an extraordinary long lifetime and there certainly was a decline in software sales and support by the developers because it became very easy using pirated software. For me this are no reasons why the wii could be a bad console.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2014)

orcid said:


> The wii was not supported as long as the other two consoles which had/have an extraordinary long lifetime and there certainly was a decline in software sales and support by the developers because it became very easy using pirated software. For me this are no reasons why the wii could be a bad console.


Don't blame piracy for the decline of a system - pirates are in the gross minority and don't have a substantial impact on software sales, they're a marginal fraction of the total userbase. According to Team Twiizers, as of 2012 there were 3.1 million unique Homebrew Channel installations - that's only 3.4% of the Wii's total userbase at the time, it's an insignificant amount of people. As for software support, I specifically took a period between 2009 and 2012 since after 2012 software support practically died out, however within that period the Wii was alive and kicking. As for the Wii being a bad console, it certainly isn't and that's not what this poll is about.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 3, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> ...


 
If piracy were really that huge then Xbox 360 would've been a complete flop because a lot pirated and paid for Xbox LIVE Gold in order to play those games online. Heck, I read posts of people who'd get another 360 unbanned + Gold membership all over again.

There's also that I remember the internet saying PS3 was doomed due to being hacked but oh, look at it, did it flop? No it did not.


----------



## chavosaur (May 3, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> If piracy were really that huge then Xbox 360 would've been a complete flop because a lot pirated and paid for Xbox LIVE Gold in order to play those games online. Heck, I read posts of people who'd get another 360 unbanned + Gold membership all over again.
> 
> There's also that I remember the internet saying PS3 was doomed due to being hacked but oh, look at it, did it flop? No it did not.


 
Did... Did you read the post at all?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> If piracy were really that huge then Xbox 360 would've been a complete flop because a lot pirated and paid for Xbox LIVE Gold in order to play those games online. Heck, I read posts of people who'd get another 360 unbanned + Gold membership all over again.
> 
> There's also that I remember the internet saying PS3 was doomed due to being hacked but oh, look at it, did it flop? No it did not.


...that was the point I was driving at. Piracy is as old as the industry, it's always a factor and blaming it for the shortcomings of a system is counter-productive.


----------



## matpower (May 3, 2014)

To be honest, I always thought if a system is pirated, it will sell move because people can just buy the console and play their favorites games for free, the PS2 was really popular here in Brazil because of that.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2014)

matpower said:


> To be honest, I always thought if a system is pirated, it will sell move because people can just buy the console and play their favorites games for free, the PS2 was really popular here in Brazil because of that.


See, the problem with that mentality is that people often times don't realize that unless the system sells at a profit _(which is rarely the case, especially early on in the life cycle) _this actually generates losses because the company loses money with each system sold and does not generate a profit to bounce back with by selling games. Just because systems are selling doesn't mean that the company is making any money - it could be the opposite.


----------



## TecXero (May 3, 2014)

matpower said:


> To be honest, I always thought if a system is pirated, it will sell move because people can just buy the console and play their favorites games for free, the PS2 was really popular here in Brazil because of that.


A lot of companies sell their consoles at a loss, hoping to make it back through game sells. So, they're actively losing money on consoles sold purely for piracy.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 3, 2014)

chavosaur said:


> Did... Did you read the post at all?


 
I got derailed after reading a bit of it. Was tl;dr.


----------



## matpower (May 3, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> See, the problem with that mentality is that people often times don't realize that unless the system sells at a profit _(which is rarely the case, especially early on in the life cycle) _this actually generates losses because the company loses money with each system sold and does not generate a profit to bounce back with by selling games. Just because systems are selling doesn't mean that the company is making any money - it could be the opposite.


Actually, that is a pretty good point I have ignored, but the amount of money loss depends on the amount of people pirating stuff, and that made me wonder: "How much is the paidiracy ratio in the videogame market for most popular consoles?"


WiiCube_2013 said:


> I got derailed after reading a bit of it. Was tl;dr.


I swear tl;dr is ruining the internet!


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> I got derailed after reading a bit of it. Was tl;dr.


C'mon, man - it was 4 lines of text, I dread to think what's your take on FAST6191's posts. 


matpower said:


> Actually, that is a pretty good point I have ignored, but the amount of money loss depends on the amount of people pirating stuff, and that made me wonder: "How much is the paidiracy ratio in the videogame market for most popular consoles?"


That is quite interesting - most piracy-related statistics focus on the amount of downloaded software, I don't remember reading any articles on how many games the average pirate buys or how many console owners don't buy any games at all. I'm sure there's a gradation here - some pirates exclusively download, some buy the games they were impressed with, some buy the ones that have to be original copies to be played online, so who knows? It's an interesting subject for a study.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 3, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Just for the sake of consistency, fast forward to 2014 and the tie-ratios are as follows 10.24 for the Xbox 360, 9.14 for the PlayStation 3 and for the 8.89 Wii, so overall, owners of the other two systems bought more games on average than owners of the Wii. Of course this is from VGChartz, so god knows how inaccurate these numbers might be - I'd have to look through NPD reports to find more accurate scores.


 

Attach rates are an important metric to measure the success of a given console, but it requires the numbers to be placed in a proper perspective.

The numbers look a bit different when you consider the Wii has at least 20 million more systems sold than the PS3 or 360, it means though the attach rate was lower Nintendo still managed to shift a ton more software than either Sony or Microsoft and in effect made even more money from software licensing. (Plus that attach rate isn't that far apart... less than 2 between the top and the bottom with the PS3's being .25 more than the Wii... almost a difference not worth mentioning.) 

Just out of curiosity why in your opinion was the PS3's attach rate nearly identical? 

My guess is that while the Wii did have a lack of great games in the last couple of years, the PS3 lacked any great games for it's launch. But it sold pretty poorly at the start so that shouldn't have had much effect on the attach rate. I also suspect a lot of people purchased PS3's as cheap BD players (I actually know some one who has a PS3 and no games they actually just watch movies on it.)


----------



## Nathan Drake (May 3, 2014)

You know, I made a huge post regarding the inaccuracies of tie-rates, and how discussing the significance of them without actually determining the statistical significance of them is silly and pointless, but suffice it to say that arguing over tie-rates is so absolutely worthless. They don't represent true software adoption rates for a multitude of reasons that I'm sure you could all figure out with a bit of thinking and specifically looking at the Wii's top "selling" title.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2014)

Nathan Drake said:


> You know, I made a huge post regarding the inaccuracies of tie-rates, and how discussing the significance of them without actually determining the statistical significance of them is silly and pointless, but suffice it to say that arguing over tie-rates is so absolutely worthless. They don't represent true software adoption rates for a multitude of reasons that I'm sure you could all figure out with a bit of thinking and specifically looking at the Wii's top "selling" title.


Of course, the Wii's top seller is Wii Sports because it was bundled with consoles with Wii Play trailing behind because it was bundled with WiiMotes - they're top sellers because you had them shoved down your throat, not because they're good games, I get your point. 


Psionic Roshambo said:


> Attach rates are an important metric to measure the success of a given console, but it requires the numbers to be placed in a proper perspective.
> 
> The numbers look a bit different when you consider the Wii has at least 20 million more systems sold than the PS3 or 360, it means though the attach rate was lower Nintendo still managed to shift a ton more software than either Sony or Microsoft and in effect made even more money from software licensing. (Plus that attach rate isn't that far apart... less than 2 between the top and the bottom with the PS3's being .25 more than the Wii... almost a difference not worth mentioning.)
> 
> ...


You are overlooking a very important factor - PS3 software _(between $40 and $60)_ is more expensive than Wii software _($30 - $40)_, which works in favour of the PS3, plus you have to look at the most recent tie-ratio. The reason why Nintendo made filthy amounts of money from software sales isn't because software sold terribly well on the system - the reason is that what sold the most were first party titles which pump substantially more money into the bank than third party titles that only provide licensing profits.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 3, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course, the Wii's top seller is Wii Sports because it was bundled with consoles with Wii Play trailing behind because it was bundled with WiiMotes - they're top sellers because you had them shoved down your throat, not because they're good games, I get your point.
> You are overlooking a very important factor - PS3 software _(between $40 and $60)_ is more expensive than Wii software _($30 - $40)_, which works in favour of the PS3, plus you have to look at the most recent tie-ratio. The reason why Nintendo made filthy amounts of money from software sales isn't because software sold terribly well on the system - the reason is that what sold the most were first party titles which pump substantially more money into the bank than third party titles that only provide licensing profits.


 

Well on the Wii Sports thing, it wasn't packed in Japan and it still managed to hit the top of the charts for quite some time. It's a pretty fun game on it's own merits and I for one am glad to have it come with my systems. (So much fun in fact it's one of the games I keep installed on my Wii's external hard drive.)

Also on another note do you think BD disks might be a tad more expensive to press than DVD's? Or that production of HD content might be a bit higher too?  

PS3 games costed more because simply they costed more, not because Sony made more money selling them. Consumers purchased what they wanted and didn't pay a damned bit of attention to price. The fact that at one point the Wii was selling for 249.99 while the 360 Arcade was selling for 199.99 and the Wii was still outselling it week on week for months.... (To this day I cannot figure out why there was not a huge huge huge jump in 360 sales at that price point.)


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2014)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Well on the Wii Sports thing, it wasn't packed in Japan and it still managed to hit the top of the charts for quite some time. It's a pretty fun game on it's own merits and I for one am glad to have it come with my systems. (So much fun in fact it's one of the games I keep installed on my Wii's external hard drive.)
> 
> Also on another note do you think BD disks might be a tad more expensive to press than DVD's? Or that production of HD content might be a bit higher too?
> 
> PS3 games costed more because simply they costed more, not because Sony made more money selling them. Consumers purchased what they wanted and didn't pay a damned bit of attention to price. The fact that at one point the Wii was selling for 249.99 while the 360 Arcade was selling for 199.99 and the Wii was still outselling it week on week for months.... (To this day I cannot figure out why there was not a huge huge huge jump in 360 sales at that price point.)


Pressing is not substantially more expensive - if anything, BD licenses are higher. As for development costs, it really depends on the title and the size of the studio that made it, not necessarily the platform. Take motion capture or 3D scanning for example - it's going to be the same regardless of the platform, it's the end models that will be more or less simplified in the end. That's not to say that making an HD game is as easy as making a non-HD game, the financial input is definitely higher with HD ones. As far as the 360 Arcade is concerned, I think that many users didn't want to go for the half-arsed version of the system and prefered to save up for the complete package.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 3, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Pressing is not substantially more expensive - if anything, BD licenses are higher. As for development costs, it really depends on the title and the size of the studio that made it, not necessarily the platform. Take motion capture or 3D scanning for example - it's going to be the same regardless of the platform, it's the end models that will be more or less simplified in the end. That's not to say that making an HD game is as easy as making a non-HD game, the financial input is definitely higher with HD ones. As far as the 360 Arcade is concerned, I think that many users didn't want to go for the half-arsed version of the system and prefered to save up for the complete package.


 

Well at today's prices DVD and BD pressing are pretty close in terms of cost. But at the launch of the PS3 BD prices where pretty much at OMFG are you kidding me. The manufacturing had to be tooled up as BD disks cannot be pressed on the same equipment as DVD's. That was one of the selling points of HD DVD, it could use the same equipment to press as DVD's and only required minimal upgrades. 

Another point in this whole story is that at the launch of this gen, most people did not own HD TV's.  I don't remember the exact percentage off hand but I want to say it was under 30%.

Sounds retarded at this point in time but for sure it made an impact on sales.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2014)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Well at today's prices DVD and BD pressing are pretty close in terms of cost. But at the launch of the PS3 BD prices where pretty much at OMFG are you kidding me. The manufacturing had to be tooled up as BD disks cannot be pressed on the same equipment as DVD's. That was one of the selling points of HD DVD, it could use the same equipment to press as DVD's and only required minimal upgrades.
> 
> Another point in this whole story is that at the launch of this gen, most people did not own HD TV's. I don't remember the exact percentage off hand but I want to say it was under 30%.
> 
> Sounds retarded at this point in time but for sure it made an impact on sales.


Except the PS3 and the Xbox 360 both have SD-outs. The resulting picture quality is rather meh, but they're both compatible, so that point is sort of moot.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 3, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Except the PS3 and the Xbox 360 both have SD-outs. The resulting picture quality is rather meh, but they're both compatible, so that point is sort of moot.


 

It's true you can connect them to an SD TV, but like you say the quality is meh where the Wii was designed as an SD console and looked still meh but at least you could read the text in game.... (It's a problem on my PS3 if I try to connect it to SD... so shitty, but GTA5 with no reading required works fine! Now off to punch random people in the back of the head on the sidewalk for no reason.... lol) 

But I don't think the picture quality had anything to do with it, I think it was more about consumers not knowing they could connect up these machines to SD TV's. I think Sony really pushed the PS3 as an HD console and so people just assumed you needed an HD TV to use one. 

My 20GB unit (320 now) even came with Talladega Nights on BD... I am looking at the box right now and nothing on my PS3 box says I can hook it up to a normal TV, but I do see the giant list of supported formats (really cool!) and I see HDMI, that's for those new fangled TV's right? (My god is my PS3 box beat up... I think the person I bought it from used the box as a punching bag after he took the PS3 out.) 

I mean I know I could connect my PS3 to an SDTV and I already knew it would use all my old cables (I used at one point a coax cable adapter I bought with my launch PS1.) but I pay a lot more attention to this stuff than your average "gamer".


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2014)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> It's true you can connect them to an SD TV, but like you say the quality is meh where the Wii was designed as an SD console and looked still meh but at least you could read the text in game.... (It's a problem on my PS3 if I try to connect it to SD... so shitty, but GTA5 with no reading required works fine! Now off to punch random people in the back of the head on the sidewalk for no reason.... lol)


So your argument is that people who didn't have HD TV's yet but knew that they will soon bought a system that wasn't future-proof? Naw, I doubt it - it was more so a matter of pricing.


> But I don't think the picture quality had anything to do with it, I think it was more about consumers not knowing they could connect up these machines to SD TV's. I think Sony really pushed the PS3 as an HD console and so people just assumed you needed an HD TV to use one.


That's more like it - marketing can make or break a system.


> My 20GB unit (320 now) even came with Talladega Nights on BD... I am looking at the box right now and nothing on my PS3 box says I can hook it up to a normal TV, but I do see the giant list of supported formats (really cool!) and I see HDMI, that's for those new fangled TV's right? (My god is my PS3 box beat up... I think the person I bought it from used the box as a punching bag after he took the PS3 out.)


Well, yes - lots of customers are not technologically savvy, see point above.


> I mean I know I could connect my PS3 to an SDTV and I already knew it would use all my old cables (I used at one point a coax cable adapter I bought with my launch PS1.) but I pay a lot more attention to this stuff than your average "gamer".


Mine came with a PS proprietary-to-RCA cable, so hey - it was pretty obvious to me it supports SD resolutions.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 3, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, yes - lots of customers are not technologically savvy, see point above.
> Mine came with a PS proprietary-to-RCA cable, so hey - it was pretty obvious to me it supports SD resolutions.


 

But you knew about the RCA connector before you bought it right? I mean I did for sure or else I wouldn't have picked mine at the price I did.

If not nothing on the box would cause me to fork out 499-599 dollars, I mean the commercials where pretty odd or creepy at the time (crying possessed baby doll anyone?) those did nothing to inform consumers about how the PS3 would work on an old TV and with an HDTV when they upgraded.  If anything the my box would convince me that I needed to own or buy an HDMI TV to use it. (Not all HD TV's had those at the time.... I had a friend with a 720P TV lol tube.... with no HDMI so yeah it sucked.) 

I think just a picture along the bottom of the box with what is included would have help out initial sales a lot.

Some one needs to invent a time machine and send back a marketing person who has done less drugs than the ones they hired at the time...


----------



## Nathan Drake (May 3, 2014)

Speaking from the uneducated consumer standpoint, I knew next to nothing about HD TVs, HDMI, or anything like that when the PS3 came out. Hell, I don't even recall people worrying about whether or not it would run on SD or HD. That wasn't a worry in 2006 when HD TVs weren't all that mainstream yet. I'm sure the average consumer assumed that it would work on whatever they had, which is the case with most any piece of technology. The turn off was entirely the price. Completely, 100%. Sony knew it, the consumer knew it, and Sony fixed it as quickly as they could.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2014)

Nathan Drake said:


> Speaking from the uneducated consumer standpoint, I knew next to nothing about HD TVs, HDMI, or anything like that when the PS3 came out. Hell, I don't even recall people worrying about whether or not it would run on SD or HD. That wasn't a worry in 2006 when HD TVs weren't all that mainstream yet. I'm sure the average consumer assumed that it would work on whatever they had, which is the case with most any piece of technology. The turn off was entirely the price. Completely, 100%. Sony knew it, the consumer knew it, and Sony fixed it as quickly as they could.


Pretty much. $499 doesn't grow on trees, and that's how much the most basic PS3 package cost back in the day - that's a lot of money right there, even if the economy was better than it is today. The $599 PS3 was completely out of reach.


----------



## chavosaur (May 4, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Pretty much. $499 doesn't grow on trees, and that's how much the most basic PS3 package cost back in the day - that's a lot of money right there, even if the economy was better than it is today. The $599 PS3 was completely out of reach.


$499 is an atrocious price it's a good thing we're past that with today's consoles. 
...
;O;


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2014)

chavosaur said:


> $499 is an atrocious price it's a good thing we're past that with today's consoles.
> ...
> ;O;


At least the Xbone has the Kinect excuse for the inflated price... _;O;_


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 4, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> At least the Xbone has the Kinect excuse for the inflated price... _;O;_


 

True true and I believe both the PS4 and the Xbox One will have price drops fairly soon.

Hard drives have finally started to fall back down in price (only took years... Those tsunami's really messed things up for mass storage.) 

I think GDDR5 RAM will fall in price, but GDDR3 will probably go up.... (MS may have miscalculated on that one.) older types of RAM that fall out of favor tend to go up in price. The way the Xbox One is selling will not help that situation. GDDR5 is starting to pop up even in low end graphics cards. (128 bit short bus cards.)

AMD is getting ready to launch some new chips so that should push the cost down on the CPU's? (I put a question mark since I have no clue what contracts they worked out... They could have worked out the price on a 5 year scale for all I know.) At the very least I am sure AMD is prepping a node shrink and that could help with costs for AMD, as a side effect the chips should run a bit cooler and maybe Sony and MS can reduce the size of the cooling (cheaper.) 

Anyway I expect the PS4 to really start hitting it's sales stride once it hits the $299.99 mark like the PS3 did, I am thinking that's either some sort of PSN+ contract away or 2 price drops. So maybe 2 years for the hard price. 

If I was Sony, I would do a price drop fairly soon to keep the hype wave going. They can't afford to give MS or Nintendo any opportunity to turn things around. (I mean afford quite literally....)


----------



## CompassNorth (May 4, 2014)

Without a doubt it's the Wii.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 4, 2014)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> True true and I believe both the PS4 and the Xbox One will have price drops fairly soon.


There's no reason for Sony to have a price drop.  I'm sure they are already losing a lot of money with each console they sell, and the console is a huge success.



CompassNorth said:


> Without a doubt it's the Wii.


Why?


----------



## CompassNorth (May 4, 2014)

JoostinOnline said:


> Why?


Come on now, wii?
That lil controller? That looks like a dildo.
Aight, I aint trying to play my games on no dil-do.


----------



## Qtis (May 4, 2014)

I voted for the Wii, since it lacked a large library of games compared to the competition. It's a fantastic machine, but still, I'd say the PS3 is the console for me this generation. My PS3 game library (and the 360 library as well) is larger than the library for the Wii. The console had it's days, but the good games were few and far between. A modded Wii on the other hand.. well that's another story, but then again, that's not the poll here.

Also, my reaction to the thread, replies and how the votes are dividing.. Keep it coming!



Spoiler


----------



## TheCasketMan (May 4, 2014)

CompassNorth said:


> Come on now, wii?
> That lil controller? That looks like a dildo.
> Aight, I aint trying to play my games on no dil-do.


 

Ahhh Chad Warden.  That brings back awesome memories.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (May 4, 2014)

I voted Xbox 360 cuz I'm a Sony fanboy thanks to emgire and Foxi4Sony. As well, I despise FPSes beyond belief and the 360 is chock full of them. Wii is pretty terrible too, but I had some good times with it regardless. Plus, thanks to the active Wii scene during last-gen I was able to play a shitton of games for free. So 360 falls short in mah eyes.


----------



## ieatpixels (May 4, 2014)

the worst thing about the 360 was even if you ignored it and stuck to the other consoles, you were still affected.
games were made on and for the 360 and were distinctly poor quality. poor use of controls, bad graphics, generic brainless gameplay.
360 ports were awful, they lowered the bar.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 5, 2014)

CompassNorth said:


> Come on now, wii?
> That lil controller? That looks like a dildo.
> Aight, I aint trying to play my games on no dil-do.


That's how we're different then. 

But for real, give a good reason for your choice.  There's nothing wrong with voting Wii, but I'd like to know your reasoning.  Qtis gave a good one.

ieatpixels I loved 360 games personally (I mean, how can you not like Halo?), and thought the controller was great too.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 5, 2014)

JoostinOnline said:


> That's how we're different then.
> 
> But for real, give a good reason for your choice. There's nothing wrong with voting Wii, but I'd like to know your reasoning. Qtis gave a good one.
> 
> ieatpixels I loved 360 games personally (I mean, how can you not like Halo?), and thought the controller was great too.


 

I too like to hear why people voted the way they did, I mean all three are solid systems that gen so any vote is down to almost petty reasoning. (Although I could understand a person voting for the 360 if they where on the 5th system and just had a horrible time with the machine.)

Edit: I also can understand voting for the Wii as it did need more games (really when is there enough?) or voting for the PS3 if you expected more from it.


----------



## mkdms14 (May 5, 2014)

Honestly it comes down to what type of games you want to play.  For a While the Xbox360 was out selling both Wii and PS3.  Why there were not enough Wii's to go around soo you could't buy one.  PS3 $600 need I say more.  Out of all the consoles I'd say the PS3 had the most variety when it came to games.  Wii had some of the best exclusives.  Xbox 360 had Halo and a bunch of other FPS game.  Me I have never been a FPS gamer.  I own both PS3 and Wii.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 5, 2014)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> I too like to hear why people voted the way they did, I mean all three are solid systems that gen so any vote is down to almost petty reasoning. (Although I could understand a person voting for the 360 if they where on the 5th system and just had a horrible time with the machine.)


Petty reasoning or not, the whole point of this poll is to choose the system that was least satisfying within the last generation. That doesn't mean the system was bad, not by any means, they're all pretty solid in their own ways and they all have their flaws.

The Wii was underwhelming from a technological stand-point and aside from Nintendo exclusives and a couple notable games it severely lacked in the triple-A department and the multiplats were obviously the worst on it since it was the weakest out of the three.

The PS3 had the most juice but it was so complex that you needed a degree in rocket science to program for the thing, hence the library is relatively small, but nevertheless filled with good content that's worth picking up, that, and it offered great multimedia capabilities and had the latest optical drive - shame that the controller was very meh and their implementation of motion controls never really kicked off like the Wii's did.

The Xbox 360 was like the middle ground between the two - the CPU was based on CELL technology in the sense that the cores were modified PPE's, but the whole architecture was steamlined and memory was unified which lead to more releases, especially early on in the life cycle. Xbox Live was also the best implementation of online, however on the flip side it is a paid service to this day which can be a turn-off... and then there's the Kinect - a futuristic dream that sounds fantastic in theory... but doesn't exactly deliver in practice.

All three consoles had hiccups in terms of reliability - the Wii had the blue slot of death, the PS3 had the yellow light of death, the 360 had the red ring of death, so in that department they all initially had issues, especially the 360 and the PS3, but in the end they were resolved with subsequent revisions.

All in all, it comes down to everyone's personal experience with the systems, which is a good thing - it means the generation was fruitful and every manufacturer offered something interesting to their customers.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 5, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> The Wii was underwhelming from a technological stand-point


Well that's not really true since it was the first home console to make real use of motion sensory.

Anyway, your post didn't answer anything.  He and I want to know the OP's personal reasons for his choice, not yours.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 5, 2014)

JoostinOnline said:


> Well that's not really true since it was the first home console to make real use of motion sensory.
> 
> Anyway, your post didn't answer anything. He and I want to know the OP's personal reasons for his choice, not yours.


I was commenting on the general outlook of the situation, not providing a show of clairvoyance. As for motion controls... we've seen them throughout the years in more or less awkward iterations, the Wii was simply a much more competent approach towards them and frankly I think that the controller alongside the exclusives were really the system's saving grace simply because they made it all the more different than the other two, but hey - that's me.


----------



## Metoroid0 (May 8, 2014)

Nintendo DS


----------



## Oxybelis (May 8, 2014)

JoostinOnline said:


> Well that's not really true since it was the first home console to make real use of motion sensory.


 eyetoy was pretty real too.

2014 would be 4th year my 360 sitting in the box. I can see why some may vote for Wii, but PS3? It has tons of exclusives, and will have some more.


----------



## Sakitoshi (May 8, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> ... not providing a show of clairvoyance. ...


I'll like to see that.


While the initial appeal of the Wii were the low price and motion controls, or more precisely the Wii Sports hype, what was really the savior of the Wii was the pointer. that allowed tons of mouse based and rail shooter games to work like a charm on a game console without extra accessories(like the typical mouse and lightgun addons). and after that the motion hype started to fade but good games didn't stop coming(do you think people liked No More Heroes because of how you charge the sword?), the Virtual Console also caused a hype and people didn't need the necessity of another console even when the multiplat that came at that time were watered down because they already had the Wii to play them(and had the benefit of the pointer in the case of Call of Duty), and like someone mentioned some post ago, the majority of the people didn't had a HDTV so they couldn't tell the graphical difference to justify a PS360, and the price difference didn't help.

anyway, my vote is for the Xbox360, why?? because has poor exclusives, the controller is overrated and Microsoft didn't helped making the dashboard worse every revision(I think the 1st dashboard was better and more organized).
the only thing I care about the Xbox360 are the shmup of Cave, ooohh god why Cave??? I want to play Mushihime-sama Futari and Deathsmiles on my PS3 ;O;. the good thing is that there is an emulator for those games on PC, just need a better processor to play full speed. so nope, I don't care about the Xbox360 at all :3


----------

