Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Yes, but why was the SEGA CD considered a failure and XBLive a success? Why do many consider the GC a failure and the XBox a success? Double standards.
Why is Sega CD considered a failure? Look at the games, there were barely any, and the majority were crap fmv titles. Although the system itself sold, the games did not. There are barely any Sega CD games worth owning let alone playing. Not to mention that the Sega CD died very early in it's life cycle, with the 32x and Saturn following right after it (from it's own company) and ofcourse the PS1 right after those. But, most important, it's not how many systems you sell, it's how many games you sell that make something a success or a failure in this business.
Xbox Live is considered a success because it's a major selling point for the system. It's also tredding unchartered terroritory for consoles (bb only, universal online community, etc). But perhaps the most significant sign is that tons of Xbox titles include some type of Live support, something the GC connectivity is considered not a success because of the lack of titles that incorporate it.
I don't see everyone saying the Xbox is a success and the GC is a failure. But if someone did, there are things that back that up a bit. The GC is Nintendo's fourth main home console, and it will be lucky to equal the amount of sales of the N64, realistically that won't happen though. So once again, it's part of a downward spiral in sales for Nintendo's home consoles. While the Xbox is the first system ever (home or portable) for MS in the videogame business. And it is neck and neck with the GC. That's pretty good for a companies first system. (you can argue all you want about how it's lost MS money, but they said that before they even released the system, that was there strategy for next gen dominance) But the bigger & more significant thing, is as I stated for Sega CD, the amount of games. Xbox gets great third party support while GC does not. I don't see a double standard anywhere.