[TheGame]

*yawn*

Tell me this, if you're so intent on this "bias", and Japanese being the forefront of it, then why was Xbox doing just as bad before it's ultra pricecuts and free game scams after totally bombing the first 2 months in the UK/Austrailia? Is this also because Aussies/UK peeps have "bias" against Xbox, or is it because the best game for the system (Halo) wasn't even available for launch some month or so later? Why was GCN just as bad until Smash DX was released in the UK?

Lets see, where is the developer Rareware based? How long after Microsoft purchased them did sales turn around? I think that UK is bias in a sense too, but thier baby went to Microsoft, and they are following.

Pikmin/Animal Forest weren't popular in Japan for years, and neither was XenoSaga...there's no reason Xbox can't have these same games that ARE NEW.

No reason? LOL

First of all, use American made games as examples, we allready know anything with the name Nintendo on it is going to sell successfully at worst.

Also, did you see some of the reviews for Animal crossing? It ranged everywhere from a 3.0 to an 8.5. If it wasn't for the fact that Nintendo made it, it wouldn't have been popular anywhere. Let a game like that be on Xbox, and a new fresh developer make it, it wouldn't have enjoyed the success of the GCN version no matter how you look at it.

But this has nothing to do with bias in this case, it simply has to do with who is developing the game and not how good or bad the game is.

Also, Xenogears has a cult following... if that were released on Xbox (still a japanese game so please don't give a dumb reply) it would still sell. Or, then again, more fans may have paid attention to the fact that Xenosaga isn't a sequal to Xenogears, and it would hae failed. But because it's on Ps2, people seem to blind themselves to that fact. Hell, some people probably are ignorant to the fact that Square didn't even develop the game this time around.

But it's all maybes... people think Xenogears/Square when they see Xenosaga. Maybe that thought force would havge been different had to been released on Xbox.

Of course not, but was Xbox launching the same time as PS2? No. Was PS2 already out and dominating, along with GCN, when Xbox FINALLY launched in Japan? Hell yes. Did Xbox's launch lineup even come close to PS2's plethora of available titles, or GCN's monster Luigi's Manion, let alone Smash DX? HELL NO.

Did Ps2's launch line up compete with DC's "plethora of available titles" when it was launched? No, but ever single damn Ps2 was off the shelf.

Read above. Actually it is all about the games here as well. Xbox's launch lineup was last, meaning existing hardware had the upper hand with more titles available as well as better titles that fit that niche' market. Only DOA3 fit, and even it's sales were lackluster in comparison to the wide amount of Japanese titles available for the other two consoles this time last year

Well, let me do like you and say "read above"

Metroid Prime is the closest holiday title to a million copies right now (Mario Party 4 is not far behind). This is what I meant. It's not too far under Splinter Cell in the US, and is doing very well, and will no doubt do good in the UK. However, MP only sold some 50k in Japan so far, but even that's better than I expected

With the free game deal I'm sure it will pass SC. But if not for that I doubt Metriod would really go anywhere fast at this point in time.

Honestly, there are no games- which is what I've said over and over now. Look at the Japanese lineup of games compared to PS2's or GCN's. If Xbox had these games PS2 and GCN had, and they didn't, Xbox would be leading in sales there- at least in software

*claps*

I agree 110%. Ps2 and GCN have name recognition, and that's basically why thier games sell better. But I'm not dropping the bias angle... because time and time again Japan proves not to go for US made games, no matter how well they do at gamerankings.com

I mean, you can sit here and say you don't like Halo, and I can sit here and say I don't like Metriod.... but most people do, and Japan is not buying it, why? Like I said over and over, give me a better reason than bias against american made games. We both know the bad sales have notta to do with game quality.

I find it easy to relate poor american made game sales in Japan to poor American made console sales in Japan.

Funny, you misread my post. I was saying DC would be the console of choice if PS2/GCN didn't have all the Japanese games they have now, which would give DC the edge because it DOES. Read carefully next time.

??? Umm, you lost me. Try explaining it in different words, one more time.

It was the console of choice; moreso than the PS2 until it died- then PS2 picked up. You don't recall this?

No, I recall poor Japanese console sales, and half decent US console sales. While the game sales stayed atop Ps2 until it's death. Ps2 still outsold DC week to week from the day it was launched. (well, maybe DC stole some weeks because of the shortage, but from Ps2's launch to DC's death Ps2 in fact did sell more)

In this instance, yes and no. In a way it had to do with the hardware since it wasn't there anymore, and in a way it was the software because there couldn't possibly further support for a dead console. Next.

Read above, that doesn't explain why more Ps2's got into homes than DCs in that time period before DC's death. Of course DC held it's little head start, but for those months Ps2 smacked the DC.

Then why was DC ruling with an iron fist in Japan with PS2 sharing the same market?

Head starts don't count.. Month to month Ps2 beat DC in hardware sales.

Why were Sakura Wars games outselling PS2 games by millions of units until they were ported to PS2?

More units sold=more people to sell games to.

And better yet, Nintendo 64 had better hardware than PSX- why did PSX outsell it in hardware (though not software)?

How is that hardware-related, going by your theory?

Woah woah woah... I gave more factors than just hardware in success. Here's a quote:

"timing, pricing, hardware features, and games equally"

You see where I'm going right? If not... let's see.

timing: Psx came out a year earlier, people had enough time to adjust to the new brand

pricing: Psx costed less and had much cheaper games

Hardware features: Well, N64 got Psx in graphics, but Psx introduced somthing new in CD's.

Games: They both had good games, Psx just had the mass appeal. Nintendo got half assed support from Capcom, Konami, Nacmo, and EA, and no support from Square.

Let's not forget N64 still sold past the 50 million mark.

Sure GCN has the price advantage- NOW...but how in the hell do you figure a GCN with two games at $250 is an "advantage" over an Xbox with two games at $200? This was the situation from May till December, and that bundle sold MS an extra 3 million units.

How do you know it's the bundle that helped sell the console? I know it can't hurt, but I'm sure many people didn't buy an Xbox just to get JSRF and SegaGT. Whille gamers now basacally get two games of choice to battle that Xbox with. You have to admit, if you didn't have a console this generation and you were trying to decide on which to buy and you had $250, chances are you (as I) would sway GCN's way due to freedom of selection period.

Sure, you get a GCN and two games for the same price as an Xbox and two games NOW, but even then GCN's are sold alone for the same $150, and sold. No solo Xbox's were to be found at major retailers for that same $200, and you know this- MS pretty much replaced the standalone with their bundle, while Nintendo didn't. How is this an advantage even now with peeps buying solo GCN consoles like idiots (400k so far)?

err, read above

And you still haven't told me how $300 for a GCN and 3 games is an advantage over an Xbox and 3 games for $200 in the UK (and that 3rd game is Halo)...

read above AND read here

You get your personal choice, that's why GCN's deal would be better. Some people would rather just buy a GCN with Mario for $200 over Xbox and those free pre-selected games. So a GCN with one game of choice is a better deal to some people than Xbox with 3. It just depends on what you want/like. You get more freedom in Nintendo's camp though.

How in the hell do you figure this is "lightyears better", and what of the deal in the UK where you get an Xbox and three games free?

read above

How is it not? GCN gained about the same sales advantage in Japan as Xbox did launching in UK...almost nothing until their heavy-hitters (Smash DX and Halo respectively) appeared months later.

season is still a factor. In UK GCN was released at a time where it had a fair chance to catch up... in Japan Xbox was released a bit too late to take any fire from GCN. This holdiday season was the true test, Xbox won in one place, and GCN won in the other.

I never said it was; read my post before this one where I QUOTED such. I know this, but please believe it's the major defining factor.

it no more of a factor than Price. If GCN costed $2000 and the games were $4000 a peice Bill gates not many peeps will buy it. Just like if the games aren't popular enough, or just not good enough.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum, having good games could possibly be the biggest thing to drive console sales, but DC proved it isn't.

And those consoles are manufactured by companies that had heavy losses from earlier consoles they made that had no good game quality (Sega, NEC, SNK)...

if Sega had such hevy losses, why bother making a new console? Heavy losses isn't what killed it, Ps2 is.

Name ONE.(console with weak game quality to succeed)

That's all a matter of opinion. There are people I know online who feel Ps2's game quality isn't even close to that of GCN's or Xboxs. Yet it still owns?

There are plenty of people who would say N64's games MURDER Psx's games (including me, aside from sports games) but Psx still owned right?

What point are you trying to get at? For every console to fail there are thousands of people who like it, and for every console to succeed there are thousands of people to hate it. So yes, consoles with weak game quality by many people's standards do succeed.

Now, that's why game quality isn't even what I talk about when I mentioned games as a factor, it more of name recognition. Quality is random, one person's trash is another person's treasure. There is no true way to define game quality without polling all the gamers who own consoles. Lets say game sales are the poll of quality... then why is Metriod considerd one of the best games of all times, and NFL 2k3 rated higher than Madden 2003 at most reviewing sources?

Game quality has a lot to do with it, but that doesn't mean a quality game will sell, and a crappy game won't sell like crazy.

Here I'd have to agree and disagree. While all of the statements are true, every console that has failed was because of a combination of these things, not just one in particular. However, the consoles that did succeed were majorly led by game sales to keep the consoles afloat, and that is a fact.

Have you checked GBA's game attach rate? GBA's success doesn't really come from game quality does it? GBA doesn't have to release a good game for the next nine months to stay afloat.

Have you also checked Ps2's attach rates around the demise of DC? In Japan there was less than one game sold for every console sold. Yet it still pumped out more hardware, and got Sega in such a scared state that they had to quit.

I agree.

Good... so you agree with basically the only point I'm trying to get accross.