Um, are you people drunk or just incapable of reading? Their network is for 989 games. The reason EA doesn't support xbox live yet is because they built their own network up and want to get something from it. The article mentions that. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EA'S GAMES ARE PLAYABLE ON SONY'S NETWORK! They won't support it (yet) for the same reason they won't support xbox live. They have their own network and are big enough to force people to use it.
Quite frankly, Sony's network sounds like despite everything they said before about xbox live, they like the model. Some of the posters here do, too, judging from the "online voice will be the killer app" comment. That's been around for a year now on xbox.
People need to stop getting off so much when "their" system is perceived to be better than all of the other "crap" systems. One system is as good as another, or you may prefer one based on your own taste in games. The fact is, with 3 console makers pushing each other, we're all going to end up seeing better games and better features.
Konami makes little combat digiq tanks, similar to those little rc cars every annoying kid in the country had last Christmas. You can get them at places like kidrobot.com. They're pretty cool, since they have real treads and soon will have movable turrets. They move like real tanks, too, steering by moving treads in different directions or one at a time. The best part is that they've got little laser tag IR sensors, so you can shoot at each other. They recoil when they shoot and the controllers keep track of the score. Different tanks have different capabilities, too. All in all, pretty cool.
Have you been to asia? What I said about stores there is true. You can buy pirated games for about $2. Yes, I'm sure a large part of it is because the PS2 was out first. But chipping xboxes isn't as common and the games are nowhere near as easy to get hold of. In fact, you can't find pirated xbox games in stores. And I sincerely doubt that Rockstar doesn't care about the most populous continent on earth as a market.
But I see your point about here in the states. Though everyone I know who ever had a console chipped out never did it themselves. SO the difficulty isn't a big deal. Maybe the cost, I don't know, but here in the states it's certainly not as expensive as you say. The guy at the anime coffee shop down the street from me will do it for $50. If I was looking to buy pirated ps2 games, that would certainly sound reasonable to me.
Also, a lot of xbox owners here in the states are on Live. That's one of the major reasons for owning an xbox. You can't take a chipped xbox on Live.
I think we're both talking anecdotal evidence here, but I still maintain that a lot less xbox owners will deal with pirated games that ps2 owners. Pirating has long been associated with the sony consoles since the ps1 days. Not, to my knowledge, with the xbox. Of all of the ps2 owners I know, at least a few of them have had their consoles modded. None of the xbox owners I know have. For what that's worth.
You're about as wrong as you could possibly be when you claim that the PS2 is better at protecting against piracy than the xbox. The xbox can be chipped but so can the PS2. It's actually much more common to chip one of those than an xbox. In asia, part of the reason that the Ps2 is still so much more popular than either xbox or gc is because it's so easy to pirate games. In thailand, for instance, you can get (legally) ps2 games for about $2. In just about any store that sells games. You can't find the same deal on GC or xbox games. That's a pretty hard fact to ignore if you claim that xbox is more of a "mecca for piracy".
Sony can ban them from ever selling on their console. That's fine. They'll turn around and start making games exclusively for xbox.
People need to remember that Sony isn't in the lead because the PS2 is a better system than GC or xbox. They got in the lead because they had a system seller like GTAIII at a crucial time in the console race, when the other consoles were just getting started and the PS2 finally got past its dismal first-year showing of games. If Sony doesn't like what Rockstar is doing, then Sony can try to take them to court but that would kill them by denying them access to guaranteed revenue with the GTA series.
with the console race the way it is now, I'd say Rockstar is more important to Sony now than the other way around. Sony's a bigger company, sure. But losing Rockstar would hurt. Losing Rockstar to Microsoft would hurt a whole hell of a lot.
I think Rockstar has a better claim saying that Sony got to where they were with Rockstar's help. Every console needs a system-seller. Everyone thought it would be MGS2 for the PS2. Turns out it was GTAIII. Sony would probably still be in the lead in the console race without that killer title but certainly not by the large margin they are now.
As proof, if GTA wasn't so important to Sony, why would they pay so much money for exclusivity, both for III and the upcoming iV?
No I don't because Halo isn't live enabled. If you have experienced it, you're the only one in the world. Which doesn't make for a very good multiplayer experience, so I can see why you're not impressed.
No, the public is quite ready for online gaming, and in fact are paying for and using it right now. My xbox costs $50/year for online gaming and is about the easiest thing in the world to set up. My brother is a die-hard nintendo fan who just moved back to the states. I couldn't get him to play anything besides gamecube games when he came back because he just liked them better (and yes, I have a GC too).
But where he's living now, 3000 miles away from me, he has an xbox with live. He has been calling me constantly ever since to play online. It's that compelling, even to someone who prefers nintendo and never got into PC gaming. Plus, we get to talk long distance for free. There's a wide variety of games, and more coming.
All of the things that everyone says online gaming has to be are here now with the xbox live. It's easy (remarkably easy, in fact). It's lag free (for the most part). It's relatively cheap ($50/year). Microsoft has already signed up over 300,000 people, which, given their install base, isn't bad. They're really well set up for the next generation of consoles. In 2 -3 years, broadband will be even more prevalent and not having an online strategy will be a HUGE mistake.
DOn't get me wrong, I love my gamecube and wish more people would make games like Zelda and metroid. But they're really missing the ball on this one. Every nintendo-head here keeps saying "Nintendo has been in it longer than anyone, they know what they're doing." But Nintendo has a history of ignoring trends in technology (CDs!). Last time around, it cost them the leadership of the fastest-growing industry around. Can they survive another mistake like that?
That's just silly. You may hate microsoft or not even like the xbox but it's not a dying console. It may not beat ps2 but it's a fine console with some good games.
The consoles all have their own strengths and weaknesses, xbox no more so than others. As with each of the others, it brings some interesting things to the table. As with each of the others, it has some weaknesses. You go off saying how it's dying or "xbox sux" or other silly bits of bitterness and you'll just sound silly.
Also, don't know if anyone around here noticed the contradiction, but I thought everyone at/. hated Microsoft because of their monopoly (or at least that was the main reason of many). If it weren't for the box, Sony would completely dominate this round and the next. At least with another viable competitor, the console makers have to make an effort to sell us their machines. This will be even more true in the next generation. You want to see monopoly gone bad, imagine PS2 crushing both Dreamcast and Gamecube due to lack of competition. Is that a good thing just because Microsoft's not in the picture?
If you can't remember why you hate something, you'll just end up looking like a bitter ass.
Funny how Microsoft said something similar but they had to scrap their plans because everyone (the gaming press) was up in arms over the fact that they weren't focusing on games first. Then sony does the same thing.
Personally I don't mind these convergence devices but I don't think that I'd be eager to buy one just because it had a console. I'd rather keep the console a separate unit. VCRs, Tivos, DVRs, etc. can all sit comfortably in my audio rack. I prefer to have a console slide out on the floor so that I can sit back on my couch with the controller. I think Microsoft understands this because they have great, long cords on the controllers with breakaways. Nintendo does too b/c of their support for wireless with the wavebird. But I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with controller cords hanging out of the front of my A/V rack, with the potential for someone to trip over them and wreak havoc.
I recall Trip Hawkins being quoted liberally in the press around the time of the xbox launch. He unequivocally stated that the xbox would fail, and most likely within a year. The man has true vision. I remember reading it and the only thing I could get from it was that
a) He was still bitter about his console flopping
b) He was trying to say something controversial to get press
c) He was trying to suck up to Sony
People may not like the xbox but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Trip, you can find them refurbished for about $140 if you change your mind!
3- Well, then don't. If you don't like it, it's not a game for you. But realize that there's a big difference between you not liking a game and a game being poor.
5- The controller is huge and then there's the other controller that's not. Both of them cause me less handcramps than a ps2 controller. And I like my gamecube controller but I wouldn't call it brilliant. The buttons are difficult to use on sports games and anything not designed by Miyamoto. The z button sucks.
7- The xbox is second in US and 3rd worldwide. Actually, I believe it's 2nd worldwide now. I don't know the numbers and I don't want to get into a stats war. But last I heard, companies weren't dropping support for the xbox like they were dropping support for gamecube (e.g., Sega Sports).
8- Each of the systems has games that are exclusive and are great. Ps2 has GTAIII. That won't be exclusive forever. Nintendo has Metroid and Zelda, both phenomenal games. Xbox has halo, doa3, etc. The only clear winner there in exclusive quality content is Nintendo, but the dropoff after that for Nintendo is huge. There isn't much else besides the big 3 that I'd consider buying for my cube. Also, there are a lot of great games out there on all 3 platforms. The xbox versions consistently rate better in head to head coverage because the box just has more horsepower and features built in. Check out ign if you don't believe me.
I think people need to realize that if they don't like a game it doesn't mean it sucks. That if they have one system, the others don't automatically suck. And that there's a hell of a lot out there more worthy of their loyalty then freaking game consoles.
I agree strongly. I think that people fail to realize, from management on down to the trenches, that the real cost of software development is in maintenance. If you write a really nice subtle piece of code that saves processor cycles but is hard to understand, any performance gain (or points you give yourself for programming skill) will be completely offset by the time spent by other developers or you trying to figure out how it works a month or a year down the line. Very little code goes through its lifetime unaltered; things get added, removed, extended, etc., all the time because of business pressures. The harder this is to do, the higher the cost.
A perfect example of this is in variable naming. So many people I've worked with continue to use cryptic variable names like "chks". Wake up people! We no longer need to deal with the limitations of computers from 10 years ago! We can actually use long variable names without a performace hit! Isn't it about time our programming style changed to reflect that? Wouldn't it be easier to have a variable named "checks" so that other people could understand what was going on in the code? Or so they wouldn't confuse it with another variable "checksum", for example?
Of course, there's a fine line where too much design slows things down. You can't overengineer. I like a lot of what the XP people say about this, especially with the one-two punch of strict unit testing and refactoring.
Just my 2 cents, but
1) I like the XBox controller better than most controllers I've played. My hands don't get cramped after playing for a while. And the triggers have a great feel.
2) Not sure where you get lack of games from. There's a ton out there for the Xbox, more than for the GC, if I'm not mistaken. Lack of games you are interested in is another matter, and one only you can determine. Note, however, that this will always remain your opinion, not objective fact.
3) Microsoft loses money on the box, and they decided to make the buyer pay for the extra $25 or so in licensing costs that would be required (payable to Hollywood) if DVD was included. When you figure that the cost of the DVD pack is the same as a memory card, and that everyone needs to save games but not everyone wants to use it for DVDs, and that you don't need to drop the money on a memory card, then I'd say it works out.
Pro-nintendo points:
1) Can't argue there. I'm personally not a big fan of those games anymore but I recognize their excellence (I've always been a big PC game fan).
2) I don't like the GC controller. It's not well-designed for sports games. A lot of sites have pointed this out. That z button thing is awkwardly located (OK, so are the white and black buttons on xbox). It doesn't have push in on the analog sticks or analog buttons. It might be great for platformers but not for the games I like.
3) Can't argue here, if you like the games.
4) Also true, though I feel at times there are a lot more for kids than adults. I'm an adult (I think, though writing about video games makes me start to doubt that) so this isn't a big point to me.
Again, just my two cents, realizing that this is all subjective....
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There's a lot of crap out there in the console wars. People treat what they bought as if it's a religious stance. If I drink Coke over Pepsi, I don't treat it as a victory of good over evil; I just like the taste better.
I think the 3 systems all have strong points. I don't think any are run by mom and pop shops, so none of them gets a sympathy card for not being a faceless corporation. That said, I have an xbox and I prefer it to the others.
Sony pissed me off when the Ps2 first came out and I couldn't get one. I couldn't help but think that part of the shortage was a marketing ploy to drive up demand. Paranoid or not, it led me to buy a dreamcast instead (for $99), which I never regretted. While I'd like to play grand theft auto at some point, that's about the only thing that the PS2 has gamewise that I'd consider buying the system for, and that's not enough.
The cross-platform titles all come to xbox, and consistently are better on that platform (check out ign; they do comparisons all the time). The titles I'm interested in, like good first person shooters and sports games, are on xbox. Hate to beat a dead horse but I've never found a console shooter to be as good through and through as halo. Just my opinion, but there it is.
I think the hard drive is a great asset. Not having to mess with memory cards sounds like a small thing but once you've used it, you wonder why you'd ever have to handle saving any other way. I used to juggle between 4 cards on my dreamcast and it was a pain in the ass. Listening to your own music while playing games in also fantastic. I start to look down on games that don't offer this feature.
A lot of people bash the xbox because they think the console they bought is some sort of religious expression or something, or they hate Microsoft. Well, a console is just a console, and if it does what you want better than others, offers more for you money than others, looks and sounds better than other, and plays more of the games that you want than others, then that's probably a good console for you. It's totally up to the individual of course, so there's no way to objectively say what is the best console. I just wish people would calm down a little and not act like their like or dislike of a console has any real meaning to the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, are you people drunk or just incapable of reading? Their network is for 989 games. The reason EA doesn't support xbox live yet is because they built their own network up and want to get something from it. The article mentions that. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EA'S GAMES ARE PLAYABLE ON SONY'S NETWORK! They won't support it (yet) for the same reason they won't support xbox live. They have their own network and are big enough to force people to use it.
Quite frankly, Sony's network sounds like despite everything they said before about xbox live, they like the model. Some of the posters here do, too, judging from the "online voice will be the killer app" comment. That's been around for a year now on xbox.
People need to stop getting off so much when "their" system is perceived to be better than all of the other "crap" systems. One system is as good as another, or you may prefer one based on your own taste in games. The fact is, with 3 console makers pushing each other, we're all going to end up seeing better games and better features.
Konami makes little combat digiq tanks, similar to those little rc cars every annoying kid in the country had last Christmas. You can get them at places like kidrobot.com. They're pretty cool, since they have real treads and soon will have movable turrets. They move like real tanks, too, steering by moving treads in different directions or one at a time. The best part is that they've got little laser tag IR sensors, so you can shoot at each other. They recoil when they shoot and the controllers keep track of the score. Different tanks have different capabilities, too. All in all, pretty cool.
But I see your point about here in the states. Though everyone I know who ever had a console chipped out never did it themselves. SO the difficulty isn't a big deal. Maybe the cost, I don't know, but here in the states it's certainly not as expensive as you say. The guy at the anime coffee shop down the street from me will do it for $50. If I was looking to buy pirated ps2 games, that would certainly sound reasonable to me.
Also, a lot of xbox owners here in the states are on Live. That's one of the major reasons for owning an xbox. You can't take a chipped xbox on Live.
I think we're both talking anecdotal evidence here, but I still maintain that a lot less xbox owners will deal with pirated games that ps2 owners. Pirating has long been associated with the sony consoles since the ps1 days. Not, to my knowledge, with the xbox. Of all of the ps2 owners I know, at least a few of them have had their consoles modded. None of the xbox owners I know have. For what that's worth.
You're about as wrong as you could possibly be when you claim that the PS2 is better at protecting against piracy than the xbox. The xbox can be chipped but so can the PS2. It's actually much more common to chip one of those than an xbox. In asia, part of the reason that the Ps2 is still so much more popular than either xbox or gc is because it's so easy to pirate games. In thailand, for instance, you can get (legally) ps2 games for about $2. In just about any store that sells games. You can't find the same deal on GC or xbox games. That's a pretty hard fact to ignore if you claim that xbox is more of a "mecca for piracy".
Sony can ban them from ever selling on their console. That's fine. They'll turn around and start making games exclusively for xbox.
People need to remember that Sony isn't in the lead because the PS2 is a better system than GC or xbox. They got in the lead because they had a system seller like GTAIII at a crucial time in the console race, when the other consoles were just getting started and the PS2 finally got past its dismal first-year showing of games. If Sony doesn't like what Rockstar is doing, then Sony can try to take them to court but that would kill them by denying them access to guaranteed revenue with the GTA series.
with the console race the way it is now, I'd say Rockstar is more important to Sony now than the other way around. Sony's a bigger company, sure. But losing Rockstar would hurt. Losing Rockstar to Microsoft would hurt a whole hell of a lot.
I think Rockstar has a better claim saying that Sony got to where they were with Rockstar's help. Every console needs a system-seller. Everyone thought it would be MGS2 for the PS2. Turns out it was GTAIII. Sony would probably still be in the lead in the console race without that killer title but certainly not by the large margin they are now.
As proof, if GTA wasn't so important to Sony, why would they pay so much money for exclusivity, both for III and the upcoming iV?
No I don't because Halo isn't live enabled. If you have experienced it, you're the only one in the world. Which doesn't make for a very good multiplayer experience, so I can see why you're not impressed.
No, the public is quite ready for online gaming, and in fact are paying for and using it right now. My xbox costs $50/year for online gaming and is about the easiest thing in the world to set up. My brother is a die-hard nintendo fan who just moved back to the states. I couldn't get him to play anything besides gamecube games when he came back because he just liked them better (and yes, I have a GC too). But where he's living now, 3000 miles away from me, he has an xbox with live. He has been calling me constantly ever since to play online. It's that compelling, even to someone who prefers nintendo and never got into PC gaming. Plus, we get to talk long distance for free. There's a wide variety of games, and more coming. All of the things that everyone says online gaming has to be are here now with the xbox live. It's easy (remarkably easy, in fact). It's lag free (for the most part). It's relatively cheap ($50/year). Microsoft has already signed up over 300,000 people, which, given their install base, isn't bad. They're really well set up for the next generation of consoles. In 2 -3 years, broadband will be even more prevalent and not having an online strategy will be a HUGE mistake. DOn't get me wrong, I love my gamecube and wish more people would make games like Zelda and metroid. But they're really missing the ball on this one. Every nintendo-head here keeps saying "Nintendo has been in it longer than anyone, they know what they're doing." But Nintendo has a history of ignoring trends in technology (CDs!). Last time around, it cost them the leadership of the fastest-growing industry around. Can they survive another mistake like that?
That's just silly. You may hate microsoft or not even like the xbox but it's not a dying console. It may not beat ps2 but it's a fine console with some good games. The consoles all have their own strengths and weaknesses, xbox no more so than others. As with each of the others, it brings some interesting things to the table. As with each of the others, it has some weaknesses. You go off saying how it's dying or "xbox sux" or other silly bits of bitterness and you'll just sound silly. Also, don't know if anyone around here noticed the contradiction, but I thought everyone at /. hated Microsoft because of their monopoly (or at least that was the main reason of many). If it weren't for the box, Sony would completely dominate this round and the next. At least with another viable competitor, the console makers have to make an effort to sell us their machines. This will be even more true in the next generation. You want to see monopoly gone bad, imagine PS2 crushing both Dreamcast and Gamecube due to lack of competition. Is that a good thing just because Microsoft's not in the picture?
If you can't remember why you hate something, you'll just end up looking like a bitter ass.
Funny how Microsoft said something similar but they had to scrap their plans because everyone (the gaming press) was up in arms over the fact that they weren't focusing on games first. Then sony does the same thing. Personally I don't mind these convergence devices but I don't think that I'd be eager to buy one just because it had a console. I'd rather keep the console a separate unit. VCRs, Tivos, DVRs, etc. can all sit comfortably in my audio rack. I prefer to have a console slide out on the floor so that I can sit back on my couch with the controller. I think Microsoft understands this because they have great, long cords on the controllers with breakaways. Nintendo does too b/c of their support for wireless with the wavebird. But I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with controller cords hanging out of the front of my A/V rack, with the potential for someone to trip over them and wreak havoc.
I recall Trip Hawkins being quoted liberally in the press around the time of the xbox launch. He unequivocally stated that the xbox would fail, and most likely within a year. The man has true vision. I remember reading it and the only thing I could get from it was that a) He was still bitter about his console flopping b) He was trying to say something controversial to get press c) He was trying to suck up to Sony People may not like the xbox but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Trip, you can find them refurbished for about $140 if you change your mind!
3- Well, then don't. If you don't like it, it's not a game for you. But realize that there's a big difference between you not liking a game and a game being poor. 5- The controller is huge and then there's the other controller that's not. Both of them cause me less handcramps than a ps2 controller. And I like my gamecube controller but I wouldn't call it brilliant. The buttons are difficult to use on sports games and anything not designed by Miyamoto. The z button sucks. 7- The xbox is second in US and 3rd worldwide. Actually, I believe it's 2nd worldwide now. I don't know the numbers and I don't want to get into a stats war. But last I heard, companies weren't dropping support for the xbox like they were dropping support for gamecube (e.g., Sega Sports). 8- Each of the systems has games that are exclusive and are great. Ps2 has GTAIII. That won't be exclusive forever. Nintendo has Metroid and Zelda, both phenomenal games. Xbox has halo, doa3, etc. The only clear winner there in exclusive quality content is Nintendo, but the dropoff after that for Nintendo is huge. There isn't much else besides the big 3 that I'd consider buying for my cube. Also, there are a lot of great games out there on all 3 platforms. The xbox versions consistently rate better in head to head coverage because the box just has more horsepower and features built in. Check out ign if you don't believe me. I think people need to realize that if they don't like a game it doesn't mean it sucks. That if they have one system, the others don't automatically suck. And that there's a hell of a lot out there more worthy of their loyalty then freaking game consoles.
I agree strongly. I think that people fail to realize, from management on down to the trenches, that the real cost of software development is in maintenance. If you write a really nice subtle piece of code that saves processor cycles but is hard to understand, any performance gain (or points you give yourself for programming skill) will be completely offset by the time spent by other developers or you trying to figure out how it works a month or a year down the line. Very little code goes through its lifetime unaltered; things get added, removed, extended, etc., all the time because of business pressures. The harder this is to do, the higher the cost. A perfect example of this is in variable naming. So many people I've worked with continue to use cryptic variable names like "chks". Wake up people! We no longer need to deal with the limitations of computers from 10 years ago! We can actually use long variable names without a performace hit! Isn't it about time our programming style changed to reflect that? Wouldn't it be easier to have a variable named "checks" so that other people could understand what was going on in the code? Or so they wouldn't confuse it with another variable "checksum", for example? Of course, there's a fine line where too much design slows things down. You can't overengineer. I like a lot of what the XP people say about this, especially with the one-two punch of strict unit testing and refactoring.
Just my 2 cents, but 1) I like the XBox controller better than most controllers I've played. My hands don't get cramped after playing for a while. And the triggers have a great feel. 2) Not sure where you get lack of games from. There's a ton out there for the Xbox, more than for the GC, if I'm not mistaken. Lack of games you are interested in is another matter, and one only you can determine. Note, however, that this will always remain your opinion, not objective fact. 3) Microsoft loses money on the box, and they decided to make the buyer pay for the extra $25 or so in licensing costs that would be required (payable to Hollywood) if DVD was included. When you figure that the cost of the DVD pack is the same as a memory card, and that everyone needs to save games but not everyone wants to use it for DVDs, and that you don't need to drop the money on a memory card, then I'd say it works out. Pro-nintendo points: 1) Can't argue there. I'm personally not a big fan of those games anymore but I recognize their excellence (I've always been a big PC game fan). 2) I don't like the GC controller. It's not well-designed for sports games. A lot of sites have pointed this out. That z button thing is awkwardly located (OK, so are the white and black buttons on xbox). It doesn't have push in on the analog sticks or analog buttons. It might be great for platformers but not for the games I like. 3) Can't argue here, if you like the games. 4) Also true, though I feel at times there are a lot more for kids than adults. I'm an adult (I think, though writing about video games makes me start to doubt that) so this isn't a big point to me. Again, just my two cents, realizing that this is all subjective....
There's a lot of crap out there in the console wars. People treat what they bought as if it's a religious stance. If I drink Coke over Pepsi, I don't treat it as a victory of good over evil; I just like the taste better. I think the 3 systems all have strong points. I don't think any are run by mom and pop shops, so none of them gets a sympathy card for not being a faceless corporation. That said, I have an xbox and I prefer it to the others. Sony pissed me off when the Ps2 first came out and I couldn't get one. I couldn't help but think that part of the shortage was a marketing ploy to drive up demand. Paranoid or not, it led me to buy a dreamcast instead (for $99), which I never regretted. While I'd like to play grand theft auto at some point, that's about the only thing that the PS2 has gamewise that I'd consider buying the system for, and that's not enough. The cross-platform titles all come to xbox, and consistently are better on that platform (check out ign; they do comparisons all the time). The titles I'm interested in, like good first person shooters and sports games, are on xbox. Hate to beat a dead horse but I've never found a console shooter to be as good through and through as halo. Just my opinion, but there it is. I think the hard drive is a great asset. Not having to mess with memory cards sounds like a small thing but once you've used it, you wonder why you'd ever have to handle saving any other way. I used to juggle between 4 cards on my dreamcast and it was a pain in the ass. Listening to your own music while playing games in also fantastic. I start to look down on games that don't offer this feature. A lot of people bash the xbox because they think the console they bought is some sort of religious expression or something, or they hate Microsoft. Well, a console is just a console, and if it does what you want better than others, offers more for you money than others, looks and sounds better than other, and plays more of the games that you want than others, then that's probably a good console for you. It's totally up to the individual of course, so there's no way to objectively say what is the best console. I just wish people would calm down a little and not act like their like or dislike of a console has any real meaning to the rest of the world.