Quote:
Originally Posted by Red X
I don't think history favors weaker consoles. All the consoles you named were out before their competition...The NES over Genesis, Playstation over N64, Gameboy over Gamegear, PS2 over Gamecube and Xbox...
All the systems that were "winners" or the most successful that gen were usually the first ones out that's why they were "weaker" But that shows us that usually the system with the larger installed fanbase and the one with the most games and the best games wins. 360 was out first yes, but the wii has already sold more...because they are entirely 2 different systems.
This is the first gen were Nintendo has actually tried something different to separate themselves from the crowd, rather than directly compete with it...and it's working.
Sony did mess up with the strategy of the PS3, the launched a year after the 360. With hardly any games and a higher price tag. They made a lot of mistakes and are now trying to play catch. They totally switched their marketing on the console. To me these mistakes cost them their crown this gen...after reigning 2 generations in a row. Sony made a misstep and it shows now. They are finally moving more consoles with the price drop, but they were suppose to be a higher end gaming console...but they quickly found out no one wanted to pay that much for a console that had like 3 games worth getting in it's first year.
We will see if SONY can pull ahead and finally start competing with the sales of at least the 360.
|
The Genesis came out before the SNES, and I believe Sega's Master System came out before the original NES (not sure about that one though). I mean, there's other factors to consider, but it's interesting to think about. If you go by whichever one came out first, the Dreamcast also beat the PS2 to the market.
With the original Playstation, Sony had a great product design (largely because they didn't design it), but they pulled ahead mostly because of Nintendo's arrogance and being very short-sighted.
The PS2 and DVD owe each other much. Some people say that PS2 pulled DVD along, and some say the opposite is true. I don't think either is true, both simply benefited greatly from the other's existence.
I don't think Sony's brand name is anywhere near as strong as it used to be; their computers get thrashed in reviews, everyone knows the PS3 and PSP are getting slaughtered. I don't think it's enough anymore. There was also Sony infecting PCs with a rootkit creating security holes in however many PCs (in the millions perhaps?). Sony losing the copyright infringement suit from Immersion (and the appeal). Remember Sony saying that rumble was, "Last generation's feature" (direct quote even) and that the PS3's lack of rumble had nothing to do with the lawsuit? Now the Dual Shock 3 features rumble... Then there were major layoffs... tax evasion...
They thought the brand name was enough for the PSP. I think the Sony image has taken a beating in the past few years.
And in truth, it's really a shame, as the PS3 is a good system; which surprises me as the PS2 was just poorly designed. It tries too much though, Sony's taking on too many opponents and their systems don't really have any identity. Remember when the PSP came out? They were pushing it as an ipod killer and a DS killer. The same is true with the PS3, it's competing with the 360 and the Wii to be sure, but that's only the beginning. It's also competing with HD-DVD, but since it's pushing Blu-Ray as the "next" movie format, it still has to topple the current one, so it's also competing against standard DVDs.
