torok said:
generic-user-1 said:
Sega saturn would have sold alot better. and sega wouldnt have been so broke.
the PS got lucky and the saturn didnt, thats all. sony didnt do much for this succes, they were there when first nintendo fucked it up and than sega fucked it up.
the games that pushed the PS the hardest would have been made anyway. |
PS got lucky? Saturn was a terrible hardware project, while N64 was simply "average". And claiming that Sony only managed to do an impact because the competitor fucked up is absurd. With PS1, they outsold their competitor combined by 2:1. With PS2, they did it by 3:1. With PS4, they are almost beating then combined. It takes a lot more than luck to reach these kind of dominant results.
The first sentence is simply obvious. The TuboGrafx-16 would have sold much better to if there wasn't an SNES and Genesis on the market. Saturn was beaten not because of bad luck, but because it was more expensive, weaker, didn't had a Sonic game, complicated to develop for, hard to cut manufacturing costs, etc. Add that to the fact that it was almost a mockering of all the people that bought 32X and Sega CD and you get why Sega went down. As much as I am a Sega fan, I know that they simply didn't do anything right for almost 5 years before quiting the console business.
|
why did the PS win? Cds and 3rd party support. the saturn had cd and would have had 3rd party support if sony wouldnt have entered the market. sony hadnt any 1st party killer apps, the tech wasnt better or cheaper than the rest. sony was just at the right place at the right time and didnt made stupid mistakes.
sure the gaming market would be different with sega and nintendo at the top and many others that try to make a good console but it wouldnt be much smaller, and it would be alot stronger and not in a crisis like todays gaming industrie(the 3rd party developer are bleeding a lot of money)
