should xbox come up with there own handheld system

like the topic do you think they should make one.me even tho i like xbox360 i think they would end up messing the system up and screwing us out of money. but still it might be cool to see what it might look like

Should Microsoft come up with their own handheld system?No. Not only is it a costly investment, but it's dominated by Nintendo hand in hand. Sony has been the only real competition in the market and they succeeded just enough to get them by.

They should yes, it the developers said the titles and it had duel thumb sticks I think it could be a success. If it had some system like carried out your user with achievement I'm sure it would sell.

Replying to #3

psp2 is having all that

I was just wondering why the third console didn't have a handheld to go with it.

Let me point to Windows phone 7.
*points*

Replying to #6

windows phoone 7 looks sweet. specially because they will allow homebrew developers work on it

No they should not, the xbox should never have been invented. It caused a seismic shift in the focus of the console manufacturers and made the industry go in a direction it should never have gone in. prior to the xbox, the PS2 had the highest clock speed of all the consoles, at 400Mhz. Then came the xbox at 733Mhz and forced manufacturers to focus on clock speeds. Now we have multi-gigahertz multi-core consoles and has all that extra power improved the games we get? not really. At least sony and nintendo are still developing their own cpu architectures, unlike microsoft who are using stripped down PC hardware.When I started programming, every byte of ram and every cpu cycle counted. you would spend ages trying to optimise your code to free up a few more KB of ram, or reduce the number of cpu cycles need to run a piece of code. now, programmers can act as if both ram and cpu are unlimited, and for most practical purposes, both are. That is happening in the console world. But, as history shows, real innovation in software happens when the hardware is limited.

Replying to #8

The only thing why XBOX was made is, I think, for Microsoft to get more freaking money. Why else they call the first XBOX the HALOBOX?

Replying to #9

Fun fact, the Xbox doesn't really make that much money and investors aren't really interested in it since when at first release, the consoles sold come at lower than cost. Which is MS selling the console at a loss. While they make most of their profits through software (like Sony), Microsoft doesn't really have any developers left to make games for them.I can't see MS doing something that would make them lose even more money in the gaming sector, but also join into one that's so dominated by Nintendo. Looking at both of these I really don't see them joining Sony and Nintendo in the handheld department. It doesn't really have a potential of a profitable return.Also I cannot think of MS bringing anything new to the table if they join the handheld realm. If anything it'd be similar to the PSP, where it's less of a handheld and more of a console in your hands (which Sony has a handle on with the PSP and soon with the NGP). I don't really like that, if I had a console in my hands, I'd rather play it on my TV with better controls.

Loonylion · #8No they should not, the xbox should never have been invented. It caused a seismic shift in the focus of the console manufacturers and made the industry go in a direction it should never have gone in. prior to the xbox, the PS2 had the highest clock speed of all the consoles, at 400Mhz. Then came the xbox at 733Mhz and forced manufacturers to focus on clock speeds. Now we have multi-gigahertz multi-core consoles and has all that extra power improved the games we get? not really. At least sony and nintendo are still developing their own cpu architectures, unlike microsoft who are using stripped down PC hardware.When I started programming, every byte of ram and every cpu cycle counted. you would spend ages trying to optimise your code to free up a few more KB of ram, or reduce the number of cpu cycles need to run a piece of code. now, programmers can act as if both ram and cpu are unlimited, and for most practical purposes, both are. That is happening in the console world. But, as history shows, real innovation in software happens when the hardware is limited.

in short, developers are no longer being as conservative as they should be with their resources since xbox introduced higher clock speed?

I don't think so mainly because Nintendo is mostly little kids and casual gamers so no wonder they have the handheld market, sony has a mix of both but leaning to more hardcore..possible why the psp sucked but xbox is 100% hardcore and hardcore gamers really don't play handhelds so much so I think it would do worse than th psp, but who knows maybe it would kill ds...

Kage56 · #11in short, developers are no longer being as conservative as they should be with their resources since xbox introduced higher clock speed?

yes, and while resources themselves arent an issue with consoles, the fact that theres so much available means there isn't the need to be inventive in the way that there is when you're constrained by the system.

goodle101 · #12I don't think so mainly because Nintendo is mostly little kids and casual gamers so no wonder they have the handheld market, sony has a mix of both but leaning to more hardcore..possible why the psp sucked but xbox is 100% hardcore and hardcore gamers really don't play handhelds so much so I think it would do worse than th psp, but who knows maybe it would kill ds...

lololololololololololololololol.Nintendo isn't aiming for casual gamers or kids, they're aiming for everyone. Look at all the nostalgia bacon they've brought out lately, this isn't only to appease the kids or casuals, it's aiming at the people who played the originals on the NES/SNES. Not only that, there's a lot of games on the DS that aren't 'kiddy' even if they do seem like it. I doubt most kids would understand Professor Layton, or Ace Attourney. The fact that Nintendo made games have such a large mainstream appeal to them is a testament of how well made they are.Your perception of the Xbox being 100% hardcore makes me laugh, hard. Hardcore, in fact. I don't see how it can perceived as such, please tell me more.

Replying to #13

While I can see that having limitations in place can lead to innovation in terms of programming or coding, I don't see how this correlates to gameplay or quality of a game itself. Even though the PS3 and Wii have it's own different set of architectures, there's little in the way of innovation in terms of the games there too. While the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 it's gameplay experience is quite similar in a lot of ways.

goodle101 · #12I don't think so mainly because Nintendo is mostly little kids and casual gamers so no wonder they have the handheld market, sony has a mix of both but leaning to more hardcore..possible why the psp sucked but xbox is 100% hardcore and hardcore gamers really don't play handhelds so much so I think it would do worse than th psp, but who knows maybe it would kill ds...

100% fail.Nintendo doesnt actually aim at kids ethier, they aim at the whole family, thus why even their most mature games avoid being too graphic, they done this practice for years...Xbox is far from 100% hardcore...if it was, then why did they make the kinect?If anything they are trying to steal some of the family essense nintendo has with a "different" way to play.

Natewlie · #14While I can see that having limitations in place can lead to innovation in terms of programming or coding, I don't see how this correlates to gameplay or quality of a game itself. Even though the PS3 and Wii have it's own different set of architectures, there's little in the way of innovation in terms of the games there too. While the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 it's gameplay experience is quite similar in a lot of ways.

That is my point, all three systems have virtually no restrictions in terms of capability (aside from xbox/wii using DVDs but restricted storage hasnt often led to great innovations). an example of such an innovation stemming from hardware limitations would be realsound(tm). Back in the days before PC sound cards, a group of developers worked out a way of producing voices through the built in speaker in a PC. this speaker was only ever intended to produce beeps, yet realsound allowed voice acting in games despite the computers having no real audio capability. That is the sort of innovation I'm talking about. overcoming hardware limitations to make the games better. It's not going to happen on current gen consoles because their capabilities are not limited at all.

Replying to #16

While that is super cool and all (it really is interesting). If MS had not joined the console race with Nintendo and Sony, would clock speeds still have gotten faster? Why exclude PC gaming? Clock speeds would've have to have been near limitless before the Xbox came out.Your initial rhetoric was does this extra speed improve the quality of the games? Arguably it has in some ways and in others no. In terms of complexity console gaming has made games more streamlined, but this is not in terms of tech, this is in terms of the game itself. How about asking the opposite, would limiting ourselves in terms of tech improve the quality of the games? No, it would not. That would be limiting ourselves to both the possibilities of what we can to with more powerful hardware and placing an artificial barrier that only hurts development. While it would lead to innovation on that platform it wouldn't really innovate anything outside of it."The Xbox should have never been invented", if it hadn't then what about PC gaming? What about the advent of the PS3 with it's clock speeds? They would've gotten better regardless if the Xbox had come out.I'm not sure I'm getting this entirely or what. I'd love to hear would could happen at this point if the capabilities were limited. With the tech we have now, I can't really think of much.

yes speeds would have increased, but not at the rate they have. What we have now is consoles that are so powerful no-one knows what to do with them. The xbox was a massive jump in clock speed, it had nearly twice the speed of the PS2 in the same generation. that threw all the manufacturers into a clock speed race, which resulted in multi-gigahertz and multiple cores the generation after xbox. the hardware has advanced so far so quickly that the software hasnt kept up. companies are pumping out better and better graphics in an attempt to keep up with the platforms and the actual games aren't going anywhere.PC gaming is an entirely different question because PCs are primarily intended for business. There are different driving factors in the PC industry.

if they do which i dont think they will i dont think 2011 would be a good idea cause of the 3ds which is gonna control the hand held market and mostly 2012 because its never been done like that and nintedo has always controlled it but the idevice series are doing great 2 but i dont see microsoft beating them same with sony

goodle101 · #12I don't think so mainly because Nintendo is mostly little kids and casual gamers so no wonder they have the handheld market, sony has a mix of both but leaning to more hardcore..possible why the psp sucked but xbox is 100% hardcore and hardcore gamers really don't play handhelds so much so I think it would do worse than th psp, but who knows maybe it would kill ds...

You made me laughs. :PI play the Wii and I'm almost 20 years old. I usually like to play a little Mad World and get some blood on my face.And oh yeah. The PSP is one of my favorite handhelds, as long as you can hack it.