The Battle Of The Consoles: From Atari To The Xbox

msolnik writes: "There's been a lot of talk about Xbox, and GameCube, and even more speculation about the technology inside the box. However, the console wars are not going to be won based purely on technology. There's a long history of cyclical win and lose peaks and troughs for companies that have tried to stay the course in this business. Nintendo stands alone in having survived a number of generations of innovation and still managed to remain a contender in the market. Tom's Hardware has delivered this unique assessment of The Console Wars." Update: 12/06 16:28 GMT by M : Note that Tom's has updated some of the charts in the article - they note that there was a misunderstanding between Tom's and the article's author as to which version of the charts to post.

Comments

Re:That is,

[Gizzmonic]

No kidding. I don't even wanna go into detail about how horrible this article is, but here's some things to think about:

• Almost no mention of any consoles, except the newest batch.
  
• Irrelevant mentions of PC games. The writer even arrogantly and ignorantly suggests that Doom was a watershed in console gaming.
  
• Lots of dry comparisons about stuff like memory bandwidth and texture fill rate, undoubtedly ripped from someone's website. *YAWN*
  
• No mention of the console marketplace. How is this informative about Console Wars again?
  

Seriously, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better story about consoles than this. It seems that some PC nitwit who's never touched a console in his life wrote a history of PC games off the top of his head, stole a few images and tables to make it seem like it was about consoles, and of course Tom's Hardware picked it up. Crap like this is why I stopped reading that site in 1997.

Even more sad is that this board is being used to argue whether or not buying the Xbox hurts Microsoft or not. Mod me down if you want, but I'm really disappointed in Slashdot today.