<div style='font: 12pt Modern; text-align: left; '>"There are already multiple systems with a great amount of power. Xbox, regardless of anything, is not a generation jump ahead of any of those systems (Playstation2, GameCube, or Dreamcast). Developers already had too many consoles to choose from, now they have more. Having the Xbox, a system which is only relatively more powerful, just opens up more annoyance for gamers; when they decide to make those few rare "exclusive" titles for it (which means you hafta buy another console to play them, when most people will already have one or two consoles to begin with). That could easily happen, seeing how all these systems are far too close in power. It'll all boil down to who the third parties choose to side with, and it'll mean more spent money from consumers. Then..."
Um, XBox is coming out around the same time as Gamecube (knowing Nintendo however......). And it will most likely be at least as powerful as Gamecube. There are 3 consoles this generation. You are saying there are too many. So, last generation which comapany did you bash to hell for joining in? Are you saying every console that has to come out has the be a generation ahead of any console before it? If that was the case their would be only one console per generation.
"There's the problem of software support. In PC gaming, basically every known title is developed by an American company. America holds the cards in PC gaming. With console gaming, however, almost every non-sporting hit title is a translated game from Japan. Japan owns THAT side of gaming. This is not talking out the ass, either... this is based on close observation of sales, for all consoles, since 1995 (when the current generation of systems started, with PSX's launch). Microsoft's only guaranteed winning point at the start, was to have key American developers and PC makers doing games for it. However, as key developers like Square, Konami, and the other top software sellers DENIED them the right to exclusive game titles or versions... they realized that their backing in Japan would not be as strong as one would usually want. And not to beat a dead horse, but, people will rightfully say "we don't need a computer masked as a console."
Even if it were true "having a PC discuised as a console" would be a pretty hot product. PCs are expensive, complicated (for those who don't spend alot of time on them), unrealiable and the games are usually buggy as hell. But the game content is there. Do you play PC games? Do you like PC games? If not, great. XBox might not be for you. As I've always said the picture in Japan is not the greatest at the moment and the TGS that just happened did little to change that. The real verdict will be handed down at the Fall TGS when the picture will really be clear. But I have my doubts about it but that does not mean it will not succeed here to say nothing of the game "quality". The reason consoles have been driven by Japanese content is because the consoles were Japanese. You can say American systems always fail, just look at Jaguar, 3D0, etc. But I think XBox has moved well beyond those systems, already, and this is f-ing Microsoft :) You just have to look at the support it is already receiving in both the US and Japan. And I have a feeling we haven't seen nothing yet.
"And yes, with Sega... they FINALLY have a Japanese software develop making EXCLUSIVE titles for their system... rather than remixes of games from PS2. So in thus, Crono chose to say "they're forcing me to buy their system with this move." That helps a system, very much so. They wanna have killer apps, ones which are exclusive to their console. That is a neccessary goal in any console's success. Before Dreamcast bowed out, we already had three substantiated consoles for this generation. And even without DC, there's already enough of them to maintain competition while ALSO giving choices. Xbox is a choice we don't need. "
You know, I could almost agree with you. I wouldn't mind too terribly at all if XBox never existed (although if it means more games that would normally be PC-only on a stable convient platform not to mention being able to rent them, then I'm all for it). I felt the same way about PSX last generation. All those 3rd party titles that made the PSX great could have just as easily been on Saturn or N64 (um...maybe not N64 but then the FMV could just be real-time cutscenes) and any games Sony wanted to publish they could have put on those systems. When you think about it, the same could apply to other consoles, even those with great 1st party support. Of course, I would prefer the console makers to have great 1st party support if there were multiple consoles as others consoles that may be almost totally driven by 3rd party games would be in some ways worthless and money that didn't "need" to be spended. But it still would be a great system, because a system is defined by the games it has, not only the 1st party games. The XBox is here, its a reality and there's nothing we can do about it. I think we should see if it has great content and judge it by that, not if the console is "needed" or if Microsoft sucks or not. And the verdict is still out on that. And the more consoles there are the more likely hardware innovation will occur. I shuuder to think of the technology today if it were not for the Sony and the PSX last generation.</div>
