anybody think the MS/XBOX will win in the long term?

just something that came to me, but anybody think that the Microsoft/XBox will win Sony/Playstation over the long term?
with the ps3 delayed and more and more xbox games and systems coming out it seems that it has potential to rival sony this generation
BUT.... the benefit that MS has, is that most of the xbox is based on PC architecture (heavily customized but still PC based). NOW say PS3 did manage to win the PS3 vs XBOX360 battle (not factoring Nintendo but it could potentially pull an upset ), MS can still have a XBOX720 ( ) out in 2-3 yrs if they like, because they can just build on the current pc advances in graphics and chip technology and still make the xbox720 backward compatible.
so by the time PS3 starts getting a into gear, a new XBOX can possible come out, still play the old games and will probably be 10x more powerful then the ps3.
so my timeline is something like this:
11/2005 Xbox360 comes out
11/2006 PS3 comes out
sometime in 2007/2008 PS3 is possibly deemed the winner of the battle
sometime 2009 xbox720 gomes out. nothing really but an enchancement of the current xbox360. more features better specs, nicer graphics/games (think of it like a die shrink )
2009-2012 PS3 (still out) versus Xbox720... which will you buy???
so i think that even if MS loses the xbox360 vs PS3 they're in a better position in the long term. look at how long between xbox ->x360 and compare that to PS1->PS2->ps3

Don't think so we have had PS2 for a long time and it still kicks out some good games. Energy is starting to come into play also as the cell cpu is low voltage. XBOX is said to be the best game machine while the PS3 is set to be a complete home system. Blu-ray, 60GB harddrive and free internet gaming. Sounds better then paying for XBOX live.

I think MS will have to start giving XBOX live away for free after 8 months of PS3. PS3 will have to get new games not Metal Gear 20.. Snake is weet but we need new blood. Also, we'll see the death of several vendors.

i dont think so. Even though Xbox is PC based, PS3 is still very competitive in development as evident wtih Unreal 2k7 and MGS4 and GT5.

There's no way that MS can have xbox720 or w/e in the next 10 years, that would piss off consumers really bad. Just think, you bought something for $400 and been paying monthly for it, then in 2 years, you found out that you have to pay $400 more to be able to beat something that only cost $400 once.

Now seriously think: Xbox720 vs PS3, which one will u buy? Especially if u know that ur system might be obsolete again in 2 years as evident with MS dropping current Xbox almost completely and that u will have to pay $400 every 2 years just to keep up with Sony, while Sony can just make a jump every 10 years and still keep up.

This may sound extream but if halo 3 gets released at the same time as PS3 then xbox is hands down winner.

I think as things progress you will see fewer exclusive titles, especially if say M$, Sony and Nintendo divvy up the console market more evenly. Developers need money too and they will break the contractual iron grip of the hardware maker if their survival and or profit margins are threatened.

If the PS3 is really that hard to write code for and the similarities between the 360 and the PC make it easier to get titles out the door then Microsoft will likely capture more market share and be a much bigger player this round.

In the end it will be about which hardware gives the best gaming experience. The developers will write games for it even if they have to rename and repackage the games to do it.

Well, with the passage of E3, it's clear that all of the old deabte of "Sony vs. Microsoft" was well off of the mark; I think it's pretty clear that this is a 3-horse race, not a 2-horse one.

And I'll say, each horse is brining a lot to the table. Enough, I think, to say that what we'll see doesn't necessarily have to resemble the last round, at all.

Personally, I see Sony losing some of its market share this round, with one of the chief elements being its high initial cost for the Playstation3. Yes, I know they're vastly undercutting the costs, but they were the ones who picked "Cell." Yes, I know that there's something called "inflation," but I also know that PC hardware really hasn't changed too much; a top PC graphics card in 2000 cost $500US, (GeForce 2 Ultra) while today, it's also $500US. (GeForce 7900GTX/Radeon X1900XTX) Yes, I know that the price could be figured to include "free" online gaming, but I also know that Nintendo, which must now ALSO be recognized as a competitor, will be doing the same thing, and Microsoft's service may become free in the not-so-distant future; and besides, it's still "only" $50US a year right now.

As for Microsoft, that's largely up in the air. They placed a lot on their bet that being first-to-market would be the deciding factor. It's also clearly costing them some things, that may greatly diminish their chances of improving over the original's distant second-place finish. I think they make a market share increase, but not a massive one.

Lastly, I feel that Nintendo, with the "Wii," just may actually increase market share. Obviously, price is a major attraction point; it's clearly "next-gen" in power, but even if it doesn't match even the Xbox 360, it will be hard to argue with a price that's potentially $200US, and won't be wasted if used on your existing SDTV (only 10% or so of US households have HDTVs anyway, or so I've heard; that's vastly less than the market for gaming consoles)

I also keep in mind that price becomes a stronger element outside of the USA, where they tend to be HIGHER, thanks to cross-ocean shipping, and Value Added Tax." (fellow Americans can think of it as Sales Tax on steroids, averaging 20%) The PS3 will have a lot going against it if, say, the actual price someone in Australia or Scandanavia (areas known for particularly inflated hardware prices) come up to the neighborhood of $1,000US. That just won't be pretty.

I will have my doubts; if we look at the predecessors, the PS2 sold 70 million units, while Halo 2 sold 7 million copies, making it a 10:1 ratio (on another note, Grand Theft Auto: San Adreas for the PS2 sold more than Halo 2)

While the Halo franchise is undisputably a strong token, its fans fail to realize it's vastly different from everything. It should be noted that the several million Xbox 360 units that have sold thus far weren't due to promises of Halo 3.

So a new format with more storage capabilities is bad? I wonder if you said the same thing when DVDs were launched, look at where the technology brought us today. Don't worry you can always pay more money and upgrade on options ie HD DVD for the 360 right? Or else how can MS suck more money out of your pocket?

Download full version games? No thanks, especially not on games that's easily gonna be a full DVD's volume or even more. With games costing £40 or so each I'd rather have a hard copy. And what's gonna happen when you fill your HD? Oh that's right you can always buy a bigger one from MS.

Judging from your posts you are indicating that you want a console that's basically a PC. When I buy a console I want it to be a console. I have a PC that would play any games you throw at it, and I have to spend money to upgrade my computer every year anyway why would I do that with a console too? Exactly how is that good value?

Have a look at the best sellers charts and see what games are there. I'm sorry NOT ONE game on there brinsg the slightest interest to me. Movie spin offs? Another NFS? Great collection of games! I'm happy I didn't buy a 360 when it launched, or I'd be stuck with no games to play and it'd either be put away together with my old consoles now or it can fail to impress another friend of mine. Imo Sony didn't even need to launch a PS3, I'd take a PS2 over a 360 anyday.

If anything, how can they lose in the long term? Microsoft is rolling in dough. Microsoft sees consoles as an invasion of HTPC territory (read Xbox360: Uncloaked, or the review). With the financial backing of Windows and whatever else Microsoft makes, they are like the undead or something: they have limitless resources. They can just keep pumping money into it until Sony just dies, or altogether buy Sony. Microsoft is Microsoft. Like the Netscape of years past, the Play Station will fall before Microsoft's capitalist army of walking paper-mache money mechs!

I may be exaggerating a bit.

Amen. That, and that PS3 that the fanboys can't see past into the real juice, the games and graphics, and most importantly, price. 600 bucks for something decent? No thanks. 500 for something not-worth-it? No thanks again. ~16 MBps Local Read Speed is nearly dooming the PS3 from the very day it comes out, making it number 2 out of the shed. This is the inquirer, however, to take it like with a grain of salt. Still, if the PS3 sounded good so far, I'd be backing it up. It's sounds like a piece of, well, poop, at this stage in the game. That Nintendo-ripoff controller isn't doing it favors either.

I have owned 2 VAIO laptops, not by choice, and each one had the flimsiest construction I've ever touched. Both broke and I had to replace each one several times. To me, Sony oozes of poor quality. They used to be good, in the early 90s and late 80's when their TV's were the standard of every home. We still have TVs from as early as 1987 that works fine, no problems, nothing. What was once great decayed into a rotting corpse of poor decisions (DRM, cough cough) and horrific quality. Microsoft to me signals bugs that get fixed and they find more, and fix those, and it's a never-ending cycle. That's just me of course, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Well I don't rely on Sony's word when the PS2 was out it looks so beautiful in paper but know the PS2 is bulls4!t. My Ps 2 got burned after playing 5 hours in a room with an AC at least it still had warranty then I change the PS2 and know my Ps2 will not read any disc because it says disc error and the disc doesn't have any scrathest on them.Then when I leave the PS2 4 fixing (the warranty ended so I send it to I guy that fixes C E) then the guy said that it was a error with the lens.conclusion MY PS2 NEVER FELT AND THE LENS WERE DAMAGED and had many problems.m$ WILL KICK Sony a$$ in sells but =the specs of the Ps3 seems to be better tha the 360 but who cares the 360 is cheapear and I don't care about the best graphics. Other thougth's if the 360 uses a modified Ati 1900 and the Ps3 uses a modified 7900GTX wich should win??

surely the 360 because it has 48 shaders (but I don't know if what I'm telling is true)

Both Sony and Microsoft have VERY poor business models, though fantastic systems.

When it came to NET profit in the last generation, believe it or not, Nintendo beat out both giants.

Sony and Microsoft continue to take losses on their consoles and make moderate profit on their games (which have driven down costs thanks to the incredibly firey demands of gamers-one of the 'smartest' markets of the bunch).

Nintendo meanwhile owns a niche market and sells all of its products pretty close to cost of production, thus losing very little on sales (and ending up with the most real profits at the end of the day, even though they are grossly outsold by their competitors).

I do not know who will the ultimate war because I don't know if either party CAN win that war (especially with the growing capabilities of computers). Pushing specs may indeed meet some cost vs. price walls in the next two decades.

Every XBox that gets made costs Microsoft. Every PS that gets sold costs Sony. It will take market growth for PS to become significantly more profitable. It will take HUUUUUGE market growth for XBox to become profitable at all.

So who will?

If anyone, Sony (most likely), but if not, then no one, and believe it or not, Nintendo will be sitting around with the same amazing profit to C.O.P. numbers its continued to boast since the 90s.