Oh please you can play your Halo 3 with superior 3D graphics while I'll be rampaging with GTA 4. It's all about the games.

*Not a flame, he invited trouble with words like those.

I look forward to playing those both. I'm more worried for Nintendo. Of the three systems (which I have all of), it recieves by far the least amount of playing time (I don't even keep it hooked up anymore).

I hear ya man. I'm worried about the PS2 because I play that console the least. I don't even keep it hooked up anymore.

What gets played is perspective. My Xbox received so little playing time I sold it. However, I have no question Microsoft will fight Sony to the bitter end. If it takes spending 10 billion, they will do it to win the video game war. Xbox 2 vs PS3 will be interested. However, until 2005 gets here I'm done with the Xbox and its mediocre exclusives.

Weird, I thought you were just being funny. I will also be enjoying both. Is GTA4 already a confirmed PS2 exclusive?

What about the comment about the market supporting 3 consoles? I'm sure two can survive modestly, like Sega and Nintendo did for all those years. Any one have any idea why MS and Sony or Sony and Nintendo can't live in peaceful harmony? I figure one will have to die eventually. And yeah, I think MS will stop at nothing to dominate the console market, which I don't really mind. The more competition, the better. Just fueling capatalism; hopefully it will push each company to put out better products.

Is there even a need to ask that question? or did you mean it as a rhetorical question .

Nope, something tells me that won't stay Sony exclusive forever unless Sony buys Rockstar.

So why can't the economy support all three consoles? How come no one even considers this possibility? The video game industry is growing by leaps and bounds every quarter and many people have all three consoles. Why not all three? I don't see MS giving up soon with their deep pockets. I don't see Nintendo giving up with the GBA and loyal followers and first party games. I don't even need to mention Sony.

IGN reported this rumor so take it for what its worth

GTA: Sin City or San Andreas or Both?
Only a week after Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto: Vice City hit the shelves (on October 29), a Rockstar representative was interviewed on TV station CNN talking about the next two games in the series. He mentioned both GTA: Sin City and GTA4 as the next games in the series. This confirmed SCEA's announcement at E3 that Rockstar would make the next two games in the series exclusively on PS2.

Looking back on the very first game, GTA, however, we got to thinking. If the GTA3 was based in Liberty City, and GTA: Vice City was based in Vice City, then based on the map provided in the first GTA, there is another city that hasn?t been explored, the third city on the map, San Andreas. Is GTA: Sin City based in San Andreas? And does it take place in the '70s? Will we be pulverized by '70s music -- i.e. disco, Bowie, punk and the Eagles? Woooaaaahhh?

If they announced it at E3, wouldn't Vice City count as one of the exlusive games? Thus making GTA4 a free agent?

Oh yeah, Sin City has to be Las Vegas. I mean Las Vegas is called "Sin City", wtf does San Andreas have to do with "Sin"?

The GTA games were released in this order: GTA, GTA2, GTA London, GTA 3, GTA VC, so I would assume GTA4 will come before GTA Sin City.

Not if they plan on exploiting the GTAIII engine one last time and milking it for all its worth.

Which wouldn't surprise me the least bit.

All things considered I think the Xbox is a big success for the first year of a first-time console maker. Easily better than the first year of the PS2 IMO. Losing money does not mean they are a failure (except in Japan), it means that they are taking a short term loss in the hope that it will translate into a long term gain.

As much as some people hate to admit it MS is winning people over with great games and a killer online gameplan. I was skeptical as hell about the Xbox from day one, but MS delievered in areas that Sega, Sony and Nintendo haven't.

If MS is still losing massive amounts of money two years into the Xbox 2 then it's time to worry. Until then I'm going to just enjoy all the great games.

I'll take Halo over GTA every time without hesitation.

Within 6 months of Halo 2's release, once game footage starts hitting the net, stores like Electronics Boutique have playable demos, and every video game magazine in the world is running 30 page Halo 2 preview spreads, the hype surrounding GTA releases is going to look like barely a blip on the screen.

Don't get me wrong, I love the GTA games, but I have no fewer than 5 friends who've bought XBoxes solely on their experiences with Halo multiplayer and the promise of Halo 2 and it's full online support. I've never known anyone to feel that the GTA's are worth buying the system for, and while I have many friends who love coming over and playing them, that's stil very different from someone willing to buy a $200 system, $50 game, $50 live package, and in some cases sign up for a high speeed internet service just for the promise of one great game, which, by the way, will be the greatest video game in the history of video games.

Did you know that the guys at Bungie say 90% of Halo was created in the 6 weeks before it's release date? They said they started serious development on Halo 2 as soon as Halo 1 was completed, because that final surge of creativity and programming really made them aware of what they were capable of. If they can create the greastest video game ever in 6 weeks, can you possibly imagine what they're going to do with 100+ weeks to develop Halo 2?

I get light headed even thinking about it.

That's crazy talk. GTA and Halo are 2 completely different games. People will be playing the next GTA no matter what the next Halo looks like. GTA just gives you something that no other game can give you. You can find replacements for Halo all over the place though.

I'm glad. As a PC Gamer, I could have played Halo, Buffy, and numerious other games on my PC, until Microsoft bought them out and made them exclusives to their box.

Basically telling me if I want to play the games I'd been anticipating anytime soon, I'd have to shell out more cash for a system that was technologically inferior to the one I already owned.

Screw that. Didn't they also buy out Rare from Nintendo? way to make enemys. Great online play? I've been playing online for 6 years now, 4 of those years have been broadband.

There's really no reason for me to ever get an X-Box. PS2 and Nintendo at least have a lot of different styles of games which are more rare on a PC.

Of course, lots of people don't know how to use a computer, and so an X-Box is a way for them to play PC styled games.

My video of Halo from 6 months before it was released says otherwise. Of course, I'm sure when Microsoft bought them out they had to change a bunch of stuff to make it X-Box compatable

I don't believe for a second that 90% of the game was completed in 6 weeks.

Look how long it took for Internet Explorer to take off, and they still don't charge anything for it! Netscape used to be shareware.

Anybody who thinks the Xbox could be going away anytime soon isn't thinking straight. They have too much invested into Xbox Live to pull the plug on it. Plus those rumors last week about Microsoft looking to buy Sega.

They will turn it into a Tivo before they dump it, no matter how bad it's selling.

I thought Halo was in development for 3 years.... If 90% of the game was done in 6 weeks, as Microsoft, I would sure like to know what the hell happened to the 150 weeks....

I felt the same way when Sony ponied up the cash to secure exclusivity for GTA3 in the console market.

Nintendo had the opportunity to keep Rare by their site, and they declined. Nothing underhanded about the acquisition as far as I know. How are they making enemies?

To a great extent, it's apples and oranges. I can see why a service like XBox Live may not appeal to some users and (particularly) many developers, but it has a lot of great features that really sets it apart from much of anything else.

Maybe I'm just daft, but all of the consoles seem to offer the same sorts of games. Lots of first person shooters, racing games, sports games, platformers, whatever...

Ive been playing online since you were in diapers!
Cheating ruins every good game that comes for the PC. Live is a closed system. That alone trumps PC gaming. Hot swaping games when a friend comes on? That kicks ass. Not to mention full built in voice support and no laggin 56k-ers. All those little details add up. Its just a more pleasant experience than PC gaming. And as far as being "technologically inferior " does that really matter if theres not a game on the shelf that utilizes it?

I have been playing online games using 2 cups and a string! Beat that!

innovation, that is what MS is all about.

1. they created a video game system that has its own hard drive for data storage.

2. they created a video game system that has the ability to store mp3's, which can be incorporated into the sound tracks of some games.

3. they created a system that requires ZERO hardware addons for broadband access.

4. they created the x-Box live network, providing an easy solution for the normal "joe video gamer" to access broad band games

5. they created a system where almost ALL the games take advantage of 5.1 surround sound technology

6. the gave us all really long contollers cables! yeah baby!

they essentially took:

A. what was lacking in the previous video gaming marketing (#1,2,3)
B. combined it with what was good from the PC gaming market (#4)
C. added good stuff like 5.1, 1026 video format, etc

====================
While i will agree that Sony has done some impressive inovations themselves. I would HATE to see the world if only Nintendo was around, and Sony never entered the competition!

What has Nintendo done? Aside from pushing Marioesque games with increasingly better graphics. Then re-push its older games on hand held consoles.

Dont get me wrong, i own systems from all three companies and i enjoy all three.

Comments like GTA are better, Metriod Prime is better, Halo Rocks, etc are realy childish fanboyish comments. That distract from the issue at had. Can the xBox survive, can it compete with PS2. and will the children of xBox and PS2 compete togthere, or will one survive?

If you look (from outside the anti-MS box) at what xBox has borught to gaming, there is allot of good things, not offered by the competitors. I and i believe it is much, much more then nintendo.

I must admit that with current user base of the PS1/PS2 and the fact that the PS3 will play all PS games, MS does have a BIG ass hill to climb.