I concede that your first point is true. I reject your second point as it is based on an open source VS Microsoft debate. Everybody on Slashdot LOVES fighting Microsoft, and for the reasons you cited that is often a very appropriate response. HOWEVER, this debate is not centered exclusively around Microsoft. Almost everyone who replied to my posts keeps dragging Microsoft into it. They're changing the discussion from open source VS proprietary to competition VS monopoly. One would be stupid toargue that a monopoly produces better software than competition.
The only reason Microsoft is involved in this discussion AT ALL is because they create well-known programs. If you want a true debate on the merits of open and prorietary development, consider a comparison between Firefox and Opera instead. I keep bringing out this point in reply after reply after reply, and people either ignore it, try to go around it ("Well, you can't ignore Internet Explorer because everyone uses it." -- THIS ISN'T THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION!) or start modding me down.
Ok, so how about instead saying, "IE sucks BECAUSE it's old, so instead I will compare Firefox to a more recent piece of proprietary software called Opera?"
Open source developers do not hold exclusivity on innovation. Look at Google and what they've done over the last couple of years, and how other equally capitalistic/greedy corporations now play catch-up.
Many people attribute things to the open source movement that are independent of it. An open source developer's desire to innovate is NOT in any way stronger than the desire of a company to build a better product to compete with it's arch rival. This is why capitalism works, and why monopolies like Microsoft are bad for ANY industry. Open source is not the issue, competition is. Whether companies compete against each other, or individuals compete against companies, the end result will be the same: more cool stuff for us, the consumers.
Yes, I will concede that this is a big advantage for open source developers. They, in fact, have many advantages. I do not dispute these things. However, they have many major disadvantages as well (someone elsewhere replied that they do not have the money or research and focus groups that a corporation has).
These "advantages" combine to produce open source software that is regularly updated and patched, and stays on the bleeding edge of fundamental technological innovation. The "disadvantages" combine to produce software that is often and, in quite a few ways, inferior to commercial software equivalents that share a similar update cycle (IE is obviously a poor comparison then because it hasn't been updated in years, so consider a comparison between Firefox and Opera).
Yes, it's a more modern browser. However, this had NOTHING to do with the fact that Firefox is an open source project. Look at Opera. It, too, is more "modern" than IE6, and that's as much a corporate-produced closed-source program as IE is.
If you really want to start comparing closed and open source accomplishments and try to use web browsers as an example, don't you think that the better comparison would be between Opera and Firefox? I think so. In this case, is Firefox really more advanced? In my personal opinion, it is greately inferior (I use Firefox instead only because I got addicted to some of it's extensions).
Well, in that case, comparing Firefox with IE6 is like comparing the intelligence of a 30 year old to that of a 13 year old. "I'm way smarter than you because I've had more time to acquire knowledge!"
When it comes to open source altenatives of programs that actually, you know, have regular update cycles (Photoshop vs Gimp, OpenOffice vs MS Office, etc), the open source version is always trying to play catch-up and rarely actually matches the quality of the original before that original suddenly gets it's next big update and surges further ahead. What is the reason for this? One reason is focused/centralized design, a concept that (from my understanding, at least) is in conflict with open source development.
As the original article pointed out, open source development is usually obsessed with things that, frankly, don't usually require that level of obsession, while ignoring things that actually do need to be looked at. Yes, it ends up GREATELY excelling at the things it obsesses with (security is usually the big example being touted), and that is an important positive aspect of open source development. However, there's a price that's paid for this, in the area where in-house development picks up the slack.
I really don't understand this debate at all, or what comments like yours are meant to prove. Both pieces of software are designed by highly experienced software engineers. The only difference being that one group is employed by Microsoft, and the other likely do it in their spare time (they're usually still employed by some big-ass technology company).
Why do people like you insist that there's some kind of a major difference in professionalism between rank-and-file Microsoft programmers who write their software and between those programmers who choose to work on open source projects? In the end, given enough time, both groups of programmers have equivalent education and experience and, given the right environment, will design similarly competent (or incompetent) code. Why is it some kind of a pro-open source argument to say that Firefox is on par with a program developed by an "evil corporation"?
I do agree somewhat with the idea that, for the most part, open source software development leads to a different kind of program with a different set of goals and accomplishments. Some of these are better for the consumer, some are not. The open source communal development paradigm is not the epitome of software design. It has it's uses, but it is not without it's limitation... as the article clearly pointed out.
Re:Very Bad News From First 360 Owners
on
Prepping For The 360
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Let me tell you something about backward compatibility. It's a feature that everyone wants, and then no one uses.
Unfortunately, this kind of logic about Nintendo making money is somewhat poor. Nintendo generally spends less, and makes less -- but the revenue is higher than expenditures.
Microsoft and Sony spend a LOT more, and make a LOT more -- but their revenue is lower than expenditures.
Yes, Nintendo is running a far more profitable business. However, this is because their target is significantly lower than their competitor's. It's the same reason that Jet Blue, a tiny little airline, is consistently profitable (or was, last time I checked) while it's giant competitors are consistently losing money.
I honestly don't see why anybody would be glad that Nintendo is minimizing their expenditures for the sake of staying profitable (other than ensuring that they stay in business, of course). The fact that they spend less means that they make less games, and it means the deals they sign with publishers are also of the penny-pinching variety, which leads to outside publishers having less incentive to release their product on Nintendo hardware.
While I never owned an Xbox, at least you can't say that Xbox owners aren't happy with their purchase. The hardware is amazing (as is Nintendo's, by the way), the amount of games coming out is very high, and it has a LOT of cheap perks like Xbox Live, hard drives, etc. All these things contribute to Microsoft losing money in their game devision, while also contributing to the superior value of their product. Nintendo's value comes from their in-house software development, it has very little to do with the hardware or the extra services they offer (none that I know of).
Unless you're buying a Nintendo console for the specific games that Nintendo makes, you get far less value out of your initial investment (console price nonwithstanding). That is the price of Nintendo's profitability.
I expected the mesasgeboards there to be filled with "I disagree with what Jerk says, but I respect his right to say it in a fair way"
Just out of curiosity, what the hell kind of a psychotic utopian community do you live in!? Why in God's name would you ever expect that kind of reaction from ANYONE, much less an internet message board?
I, and you will find most sane non-evangelical fundamentalists, agree with you. Especially your last point. However, you're barking up the wrong tree. Slashdot, incase you never noticed, is a website owned by a company called "Open Source Technology Group". As such, they will usually only post the sorts of articles that are based around Open Source, and the threat to this movement (Microsoft, SCO, et al). Since these are the articles they post almost exclusively, you will find that the readership here is composed of people who like reading these articles because they agree with them. As such, your average Slashdot user is more likely to be a deep-rooted supporter of Open Source software than your average computer user, or even your average software developer, and they will call any anti-Open Source comments you may post as "trolling".
If you want to post comments here, know your audience. You won't change their mind by posting anti-open source comments here. You'll just annoy them. If you want to participate in a slightly less "obsessed"/biased tech community, I suggest you stick to a site like Digg.com. They are not aligned with any evangelical corporation with a specific mission, and as such their community is far more normalized among various tech-related geekeries.
I know that those genre games are available on the Gamecube. What I was talking about there was the Revolution. These games will no longer be released for this console simply because it's not made for that purpose. It has a completely different input device.
As far as backwards compatibility goes, the latest issue of GamePro Magazine said it best: It's the feature that everybody says they want and then nobody uses.
I don't care that you can plug in a Gamecube controller. I don't have one. Do you think I'll go out and buy one to play a bunch of last-gen games? I think not. Do you think ANY game publisher will expect you to own one of these for their NEW games? If the history of non-standard peripherals is a good guide, don't count on it. Therefore, FEW games will come out that require a standard gamepad. This is why I said you can rule out "first person shooters, complex stealth adventures, fighting games, basketball games, etc." Sure, new genres will be created utilizing new and interesting gameplay mechanics that might end up being very fun and entertaining... but people like me actually like playing games in THESE genres. The Revolution is simply not designed with that in mind.
Oh, and since you brought up games like Resident Evil 4... the only reason that game came out for the Gamecube first is because Nintendo paid a load of money for that to happen. And, although Sony and Microsoft do it with some titles too, it was VERY different when Nintendo did this for Resident Evil 4. Why? Because even THEY realize that, when someone thinks of Nintendo, they're not thinking of your standard violent and bloody games and wanted to improve their image with the non-Nintendo gamers. I guess it worked for them somewhat, but to me it simply underscored their weakness in the area. Who knows if they'll go through this expensive public relations stunt again for the Revolution.
To summarize, Nintendo has been publishing non-standard casual games ever since they came out with the N64. The image they established with the NES and SNES as the defacto game platform is dead. They're the niche game platform. The Revolution, with it's non-standard controller, takes them about 50 steps further into that niche. For you it may be good (nothing wrong with originally, obviously), but to people like me, it's a major turn-off. I like certain genres, and if Nintendo doesn't have them, I'm taking my business elsewhere. Paying lip-service to genre gamers by releasing a game like Resident Evil 4 isn't good enough.
Nintendo is targetting the same niche market with the Revolution that they targetted with the touch-screen Nintendo DS. The games on that platform aren't the "standard" types of games most people want to play. I see Revolution's entire library consisting of the same types of fun, quirky puzzle/party games as most of the Nintendo DS seems to have. For most gamers, this isn't good enough. Originality be damned, people WANT to play sports games and fighting games and open-ended sandbox games of the GTA variety, things that don't look to be possible with their standard motion-sensing controller.
Personally, I'm the type of person who doesn't WANT to pay $50 for a party game. If I want to play those types of original games, I can load up my web browser and hit up some fun Flash games for free. They're about as original (though less graphical, obviously) as anything that the Revolution is bound to have.
And I just want to add that the Revolution will NOT be a success. Why? They actually managed to completely turn their back on a HUGE segment of their potential audience. People like me who like to play games in current genres, who want to play first person shooters, complex stealth adventures, fighting games, basketball games, etc. I will not even CONSIDER buying this console. It is my preference (please realize that this is MY preference, ok?), and as such they have marketted their product outside of my zone of interests. And I'm not alone. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 will be successful because they welcome EVERYONE and don't lock out entire game genres through weird controllers or weird demographic targets. Revolution's audience share, by default, will always be limited.
Even for $200, Garritan Personal Orchestra has some of the lowest quality I've ever heard in this kind of a commercial sample library. Honestly, how does that company get this much positive accolade? Sure, some of their solo instruments (violins, piano, harps) sound pretty good, but many of the other instruments do not (the brasses are atrocious!!!). And when you play them all together, it REALLY brings out the crapyness of the weaker samples.
For $200, you should stick to EastWest (which you cited) and their budget line of libraries, or VSL. And even then, your best bet is to just cherry-pick the best samples out of all of these and use those.
And, yeah, a free or open source solution in this area is a complete and utter waste of time.
I prefer these sorts of games running at 30 fps. It's artistically more pleasing on the eyes. This is the same reason that a cinematic film running at 24 fps is artistically more pleasing on the eyes than a digital camera home movie running at 60 fps.
I'd say that 60 fps is mostly only useful for fast-response twitch sorts of games, like racing games, shooters, and the like. Other games, like RPGs, adventure games, etc, would look perfectly fine at 30.
Project Gotham Racing 3 is the "system seller". That, and possibly Call of Duty 2, though to a lesser degree (the graphics in it are too current-generation for most people's tastes).
If you're one of those people who are skeptical of Wikipedia's accuracy, you can go ahead and update those figures yourself, or comment about them in the Discussion page.
I don't know how familiar you are with capitalism, but, if a product is not making money for it's company, then that product is not a success and is justifiably discontinued. It doesn't matter how many units it sells. If it's not making a profit for the company, for whatever reason, even if that rason is poor money management on the part of the executives, then that product is not a "success".
The Dreamcast failed for ONE SIMPLE REASON. Every single gamer in the entire world said to themselves: "Instead of spending $200 on this console, I'll wait and see what the PlayStation 2 is like."
No amount of marketing cash could POSSIBLY have EVER reversed this viewpoint for the vast majority of the people. Those on whom the marketing DID work for (hardcore gamers who buy every console anyway, and Sega fans) would've bought it even if Sega didn't promote the console at all.
If there's anything you can compare the Xbox 360 to here, it's that many people have already said to themselves: "Instead of spending $300 on this console, I'll wait and see what the PlayStation 3 is like."
Slashdot Mirror
I concede that your first point is true. I reject your second point as it is based on an open source VS Microsoft debate. Everybody on Slashdot LOVES fighting Microsoft, and for the reasons you cited that is often a very appropriate response. HOWEVER, this debate is not centered exclusively around Microsoft. Almost everyone who replied to my posts keeps dragging Microsoft into it. They're changing the discussion from open source VS proprietary to competition VS monopoly. One would be stupid toargue that a monopoly produces better software than competition.
The only reason Microsoft is involved in this discussion AT ALL is because they create well-known programs. If you want a true debate on the merits of open and prorietary development, consider a comparison between Firefox and Opera instead. I keep bringing out this point in reply after reply after reply, and people either ignore it, try to go around it ("Well, you can't ignore Internet Explorer because everyone uses it." -- THIS ISN'T THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION!) or start modding me down.
Ok, so how about instead saying, "IE sucks BECAUSE it's old, so instead I will compare Firefox to a more recent piece of proprietary software called Opera?"
Open source developers do not hold exclusivity on innovation. Look at Google and what they've done over the last couple of years, and how other equally capitalistic/greedy corporations now play catch-up.
Many people attribute things to the open source movement that are independent of it. An open source developer's desire to innovate is NOT in any way stronger than the desire of a company to build a better product to compete with it's arch rival. This is why capitalism works, and why monopolies like Microsoft are bad for ANY industry. Open source is not the issue, competition is. Whether companies compete against each other, or individuals compete against companies, the end result will be the same: more cool stuff for us, the consumers.
The reason Firefox kicks IE's arse dispite being made by people of similar talent is because IE is 3 YEARS OLD and Firefox 1.5 came out YESTERDAY.
Yes, I will concede that this is a big advantage for open source developers. They, in fact, have many advantages. I do not dispute these things. However, they have many major disadvantages as well (someone elsewhere replied that they do not have the money or research and focus groups that a corporation has).
These "advantages" combine to produce open source software that is regularly updated and patched, and stays on the bleeding edge of fundamental technological innovation. The "disadvantages" combine to produce software that is often and, in quite a few ways, inferior to commercial software equivalents that share a similar update cycle (IE is obviously a poor comparison then because it hasn't been updated in years, so consider a comparison between Firefox and Opera).
Good, you read the first two sentences of that post before you replied. Unfortunately, that's all you apparently read.
Yes, it's a more modern browser. However, this had NOTHING to do with the fact that Firefox is an open source project. Look at Opera. It, too, is more "modern" than IE6, and that's as much a corporate-produced closed-source program as IE is.
If you really want to start comparing closed and open source accomplishments and try to use web browsers as an example, don't you think that the better comparison would be between Opera and Firefox? I think so. In this case, is Firefox really more advanced? In my personal opinion, it is greately inferior (I use Firefox instead only because I got addicted to some of it's extensions).
In other words... BE FAIR.
Well, in that case, comparing Firefox with IE6 is like comparing the intelligence of a 30 year old to that of a 13 year old. "I'm way smarter than you because I've had more time to acquire knowledge!"
When it comes to open source altenatives of programs that actually, you know, have regular update cycles (Photoshop vs Gimp, OpenOffice vs MS Office, etc), the open source version is always trying to play catch-up and rarely actually matches the quality of the original before that original suddenly gets it's next big update and surges further ahead. What is the reason for this? One reason is focused/centralized design, a concept that (from my understanding, at least) is in conflict with open source development.
As the original article pointed out, open source development is usually obsessed with things that, frankly, don't usually require that level of obsession, while ignoring things that actually do need to be looked at. Yes, it ends up GREATELY excelling at the things it obsesses with (security is usually the big example being touted), and that is an important positive aspect of open source development. However, there's a price that's paid for this, in the area where in-house development picks up the slack.
I really don't understand this debate at all, or what comments like yours are meant to prove. Both pieces of software are designed by highly experienced software engineers. The only difference being that one group is employed by Microsoft, and the other likely do it in their spare time (they're usually still employed by some big-ass technology company).
Why do people like you insist that there's some kind of a major difference in professionalism between rank-and-file Microsoft programmers who write their software and between those programmers who choose to work on open source projects? In the end, given enough time, both groups of programmers have equivalent education and experience and, given the right environment, will design similarly competent (or incompetent) code. Why is it some kind of a pro-open source argument to say that Firefox is on par with a program developed by an "evil corporation"?
I do agree somewhat with the idea that, for the most part, open source software development leads to a different kind of program with a different set of goals and accomplishments. Some of these are better for the consumer, some are not. The open source communal development paradigm is not the epitome of software design. It has it's uses, but it is not without it's limitation... as the article clearly pointed out.
Let me tell you something about backward compatibility. It's a feature that everyone wants, and then no one uses.
Unfortunately, this kind of logic about Nintendo making money is somewhat poor. Nintendo generally spends less, and makes less -- but the revenue is higher than expenditures.
Microsoft and Sony spend a LOT more, and make a LOT more -- but their revenue is lower than expenditures.
Yes, Nintendo is running a far more profitable business. However, this is because their target is significantly lower than their competitor's. It's the same reason that Jet Blue, a tiny little airline, is consistently profitable (or was, last time I checked) while it's giant competitors are consistently losing money.
I honestly don't see why anybody would be glad that Nintendo is minimizing their expenditures for the sake of staying profitable (other than ensuring that they stay in business, of course). The fact that they spend less means that they make less games, and it means the deals they sign with publishers are also of the penny-pinching variety, which leads to outside publishers having less incentive to release their product on Nintendo hardware.
While I never owned an Xbox, at least you can't say that Xbox owners aren't happy with their purchase. The hardware is amazing (as is Nintendo's, by the way), the amount of games coming out is very high, and it has a LOT of cheap perks like Xbox Live, hard drives, etc. All these things contribute to Microsoft losing money in their game devision, while also contributing to the superior value of their product. Nintendo's value comes from their in-house software development, it has very little to do with the hardware or the extra services they offer (none that I know of).
Unless you're buying a Nintendo console for the specific games that Nintendo makes, you get far less value out of your initial investment (console price nonwithstanding). That is the price of Nintendo's profitability.
I expected the mesasgeboards there to be filled with "I disagree with what Jerk says, but I respect his right to say it in a fair way"
Just out of curiosity, what the hell kind of a psychotic utopian community do you live in!? Why in God's name would you ever expect that kind of reaction from ANYONE, much less an internet message board?
I, and you will find most sane non-evangelical fundamentalists, agree with you. Especially your last point. However, you're barking up the wrong tree. Slashdot, incase you never noticed, is a website owned by a company called "Open Source Technology Group". As such, they will usually only post the sorts of articles that are based around Open Source, and the threat to this movement (Microsoft, SCO, et al). Since these are the articles they post almost exclusively, you will find that the readership here is composed of people who like reading these articles because they agree with them. As such, your average Slashdot user is more likely to be a deep-rooted supporter of Open Source software than your average computer user, or even your average software developer, and they will call any anti-Open Source comments you may post as "trolling".
If you want to post comments here, know your audience. You won't change their mind by posting anti-open source comments here. You'll just annoy them. If you want to participate in a slightly less "obsessed"/biased tech community, I suggest you stick to a site like Digg.com. They are not aligned with any evangelical corporation with a specific mission, and as such their community is far more normalized among various tech-related geekeries.
Okay.
I know that those genre games are available on the Gamecube. What I was talking about there was the Revolution. These games will no longer be released for this console simply because it's not made for that purpose. It has a completely different input device.
As far as backwards compatibility goes, the latest issue of GamePro Magazine said it best: It's the feature that everybody says they want and then nobody uses.
I don't care that you can plug in a Gamecube controller. I don't have one. Do you think I'll go out and buy one to play a bunch of last-gen games? I think not. Do you think ANY game publisher will expect you to own one of these for their NEW games? If the history of non-standard peripherals is a good guide, don't count on it. Therefore, FEW games will come out that require a standard gamepad. This is why I said you can rule out "first person shooters, complex stealth adventures, fighting games, basketball games, etc." Sure, new genres will be created utilizing new and interesting gameplay mechanics that might end up being very fun and entertaining... but people like me actually like playing games in THESE genres. The Revolution is simply not designed with that in mind.
Oh, and since you brought up games like Resident Evil 4... the only reason that game came out for the Gamecube first is because Nintendo paid a load of money for that to happen. And, although Sony and Microsoft do it with some titles too, it was VERY different when Nintendo did this for Resident Evil 4. Why? Because even THEY realize that, when someone thinks of Nintendo, they're not thinking of your standard violent and bloody games and wanted to improve their image with the non-Nintendo gamers. I guess it worked for them somewhat, but to me it simply underscored their weakness in the area. Who knows if they'll go through this expensive public relations stunt again for the Revolution.
To summarize, Nintendo has been publishing non-standard casual games ever since they came out with the N64. The image they established with the NES and SNES as the defacto game platform is dead. They're the niche game platform. The Revolution, with it's non-standard controller, takes them about 50 steps further into that niche. For you it may be good (nothing wrong with originally, obviously), but to people like me, it's a major turn-off. I like certain genres, and if Nintendo doesn't have them, I'm taking my business elsewhere. Paying lip-service to genre gamers by releasing a game like Resident Evil 4 isn't good enough.
Nintendo is targetting the same niche market with the Revolution that they targetted with the touch-screen Nintendo DS. The games on that platform aren't the "standard" types of games most people want to play. I see Revolution's entire library consisting of the same types of fun, quirky puzzle/party games as most of the Nintendo DS seems to have. For most gamers, this isn't good enough. Originality be damned, people WANT to play sports games and fighting games and open-ended sandbox games of the GTA variety, things that don't look to be possible with their standard motion-sensing controller.
Personally, I'm the type of person who doesn't WANT to pay $50 for a party game. If I want to play those types of original games, I can load up my web browser and hit up some fun Flash games for free. They're about as original (though less graphical, obviously) as anything that the Revolution is bound to have.
And I just want to add that the Revolution will NOT be a success. Why? They actually managed to completely turn their back on a HUGE segment of their potential audience. People like me who like to play games in current genres, who want to play first person shooters, complex stealth adventures, fighting games, basketball games, etc. I will not even CONSIDER buying this console. It is my preference (please realize that this is MY preference, ok?), and as such they have marketted their product outside of my zone of interests. And I'm not alone. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 will be successful because they welcome EVERYONE and don't lock out entire game genres through weird controllers or weird demographic targets. Revolution's audience share, by default, will always be limited.
Choice quote:
"The Xbox 360 easily maintains the cred the original Xbox earned in 2001 when it crushed rival PlayStation with superior graphics and performance."
Priceless...
Even for $200, Garritan Personal Orchestra has some of the lowest quality I've ever heard in this kind of a commercial sample library. Honestly, how does that company get this much positive accolade? Sure, some of their solo instruments (violins, piano, harps) sound pretty good, but many of the other instruments do not (the brasses are atrocious!!!). And when you play them all together, it REALLY brings out the crapyness of the weaker samples.
For $200, you should stick to EastWest (which you cited) and their budget line of libraries, or VSL. And even then, your best bet is to just cherry-pick the best samples out of all of these and use those.
And, yeah, a free or open source solution in this area is a complete and utter waste of time.
But is it a tumor?
I prefer these sorts of games running at 30 fps. It's artistically more pleasing on the eyes. This is the same reason that a cinematic film running at 24 fps is artistically more pleasing on the eyes than a digital camera home movie running at 60 fps.
I'd say that 60 fps is mostly only useful for fast-response twitch sorts of games, like racing games, shooters, and the like. Other games, like RPGs, adventure games, etc, would look perfectly fine at 30.
Project Gotham Racing 3 is the "system seller". That, and possibly Call of Duty 2, though to a lesser degree (the graphics in it are too current-generation for most people's tastes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcast
If you're one of those people who are skeptical of Wikipedia's accuracy, you can go ahead and update those figures yourself, or comment about them in the Discussion page.
Estimated hardware sales
* North America: 1 million
* Europe: 0.5 million
* Japan: 2 million
* Worldwide total, 3.5 million
I don't know how familiar you are with capitalism, but, if a product is not making money for it's company, then that product is not a success and is justifiably discontinued. It doesn't matter how many units it sells. If it's not making a profit for the company, for whatever reason, even if that rason is poor money management on the part of the executives, then that product is not a "success".
It had nothing to do with money.
The Dreamcast failed for ONE SIMPLE REASON. Every single gamer in the entire world said to themselves: "Instead of spending $200 on this console, I'll wait and see what the PlayStation 2 is like."
No amount of marketing cash could POSSIBLY have EVER reversed this viewpoint for the vast majority of the people. Those on whom the marketing DID work for (hardcore gamers who buy every console anyway, and Sega fans) would've bought it even if Sega didn't promote the console at all.
If there's anything you can compare the Xbox 360 to here, it's that many people have already said to themselves: "Instead of spending $300 on this console, I'll wait and see what the PlayStation 3 is like."