Gaming Console Wars

Why the Xbox is for Suckers:

I've been playing Video Games since the golden age, Atari 2600, Commodore 64 and of course the original Nintendo. At some point I've played every mainstream system. Including oddities like the Magnavox Odyssey 2, Collecovision, Atari Lynx (light years ahead of the Gameboy) and the TurboGraphx 16. With each successful generation I've evaluated and purchased what I considered to be the best and most versatile system. I'm not one to buy two or three of the mainstream gaming systems since I consider this a waste of money and completely unnecessary. A good gaming PC and one solid pure gaming console will satisfy just about everyone's gaming needs. Since each has it's advantages and disadvantages depending on the type and genre of game being played. The hybrid PC/Gaming console (Xbox) has managed to sucker in those who do not know any better.

Andrew gives us a few things to think about here. “Future proofing is a marketing gimmick” is one truth. “The titles in the end will determine any consoles success” [sic] is another truth. Microsoft did very well with the first Xbox, all things considered. It's the only TV-based console I still have in my home, largely because I had more games for the platform. The following quote, in particular, intrigued me:

The Xbox is nothing more then a glorified PC running a proprietary Microsoft Operating System with proprietary PC game titles.

Every game console is proprietary, almost by definition. It seems the next generation of gaming systems are going to be more open, as a matter of fact – lest you lock yourself into specific subscriptions to pay for online multiplayer playing. As consumers, we have to make certain sacrifices with our purchases. Xbox 360, the PS3, and Nintendo's next unit – none of them perfect. The Xbox 360 should have supplanted the Media Center Edition, yet it seems tailor-made for HDTVers. However, gamers seem to have placed their bets on Sony's product. As for Nintendo? Fuggetaboutit.