Quantcast
The PS4 Won The Console Generation By Being Boring: Can The PS5 Do The Same?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The PS4 Won The Console Generation By Being Boring: Can The PS5 Do The Same?

Dulfite said:
KLXVER said:

The PS2 was the first to use DVDs. Does that make it a less traditional console?

The NES and SNES introduced a lot of game changing stuff as well. Not sure what you think a traditional console is...

Something that basically repeats what the past versions of itself did. The PS controller hasn't really changed a lot since PS1, or at least not the drastic kind of changes we are used to with Nintendo controllers. And the GameCube one was a very unique kind of disc, not the typical dvd like PS uses, which is why I included that bit of information. Regardless, the other parts I mentioned were far more revolutionary.

Well all consoles improves in different ways over its predecessor. The PS3 ditched the memory cards and had internal memory. The PS4 had the touch pad etc. 

Both the N64 and the GC were way more powerful than the previous gen. They were traditional consoles. The Wii and WiiU were not.



Around the Network
Dulfite said:
It's weird but the safer Sony is, the more successful they are. The riskier Nintendo is, they either fail miserably or hit success as well.

Gameboy made portable gaming a thing.
Gameboy color had color.
Virtual boy...
64 changed movement abilities.
GameCube had 3d technology designed for it that was never used.
DS had Touchscreen.
Wii had motion controls.
3ds had 3d without glasses.
Wii U had gaming around your house.
Switch has gaming completely on the go while still connecting to the TV.

Nintendo hasn't made a normal, PlayStation like device since the SNES. I don't even know what they'd sell like if they did, it's been so long.

I mostly agree with you, except I don't think the Gamecube pushed the boundaries too much.  The N64 definitely did though since it was the first to do 3D and rumble.  The Gamecube was kind of like the Super-N64.  By that time it was orthodox rather than new, and as you said the 3D tech potential it had was never used.

Overall I'd say you make a good point though.  The only consoles where Nintendo played it safe were the SNES, Gamecube and Gameboy Advance.  Everything else tried to be extremely innovative whether that be good or bad.



Zoombael said:

There is no truth behind the DRM claim. End of 2012 a patent entry surfaced that was the base for speculations. But...

A) Sony gave a clear answer to wether they will integrate the system or not in Feb. 2013

b) market for used games in Japan

---

We will never know for sure however Sony did change the Ram size from 4gig to 8gig and went to GDDR5 once they realized the X1 had 8gig of Ram, so taking out DRM wouldnt be too far fetched either if the rumours were true.

Either way, the PS4 is the safest console to release this gen focusing mainly on traditional gaming while the X1 was trying to market as an all in 1 box and the WiiU trying something incredibly new for a home console.

Both Nintendo and MS failed to market there consoles and not only failed but backfired, Sony than used the bad press to boost there own marketing for there console. The X1 and WiiU had arguably a better line up of games going into there first couple of years and even having debatably a better line up couldnt sell the consoles. Sales come from majority of the marketing. The better you market something the higher the chance of selling more. Especally when you have no competition this boltsters the sales even further.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 01 May 2019

Azzanation said:
Zoombael said:

There is no truth behind the DRM claim. End of 2012 a patent entry surfaced that was the base for speculations. But...

A) Sony gave a clear answer to wether they will integrate the system or not in Feb. 2013

b) market for used games in Japan

---

We will never know for sure however Sony did change the Ram size from 4gig to 8gig and went to GDDR5 once they realized the X1 had 8gig of Ram, so taking out DRM wouldnt be too far fetched either if the rumours were true.

Either way, the PS4 is the safest console to release this gen focusing mainly on traditional gaming while the X1 was trying to market as an all in 1 box and the WiiU trying something incredibly new for a home console.

Both Nintendo and MS failed to market there consoles and not only failed but backfired, Sony than used the bad press to boost there own marketing for there console. The X1 and WiiU had arguably a better line up of games going into there first couple of years and even having debatably a better line up couldnt sell the consoles. Sales come from majority of the marketing. The better you market something the higher the chance of selling more. Especally when you have no competition this boltsters the sales even further.

No MS didn't have a better line up of games. Both PS4 and Xbox One was lacking in the first year or so. Please don't do that. Wii U didn't have a lot either. I got them all at launch and remember the droughts.



PSN ID- Rafie27

XBL Gamertag- RAFIE82

NNID- RAFIE82/ Friend Code: SW-6006-2580-8237

YouTube- Rafie Crocheron

Dulfite said:
KLXVER said:

I would say the N64 and GC were "normal" consoles. 

Why? The N64 introduced rumble pack, a mid-generation upgrade part to put in the slot with DK64, a controller that was drastically different than anything they did prior or have done since.

GameCube was originally designed to have 3d and internet (from what I've read), had wireless controllers, was disc based rather than cartridge, introduced c-stick (their first attempt at dual stick), memory cards to take your save files to another person's device, etc.

None of things separate it from its competitors. PS1 and PS2 had far more distruptive change than either of those platforms.



Around the Network
outlawauron said:
Dulfite said:

Why? The N64 introduced rumble pack, a mid-generation upgrade part to put in the slot with DK64, a controller that was drastically different than anything they did prior or have done since.

GameCube was originally designed to have 3d and internet (from what I've read), had wireless controllers, was disc based rather than cartridge, introduced c-stick (their first attempt at dual stick), memory cards to take your save files to another person's device, etc.

None of things separate it from its competitors. PS1 and PS2 had far more distruptive change than either of those platforms.

Actually none of those platforms were disruptive.  PS1, PS2, N64, Gamecube...none were disruptive.

Disruptive means that functionality suffers so that you can improve some other aspect: reliability, convenience or price.  For example Google Stadia is potentially disruptive because the games all look like they perform worse, but you don't have to buy a console.  So functionality suffers but people save money compared to what came before.  

PS1, PS2, N64, and Gamecube were not disruptive, because they improved the specs compared to the previous generation and the prices all went up.  It's just that with Playstation the hardware was more expensive but with the N64 the cartridges were more expensive.  As a whole, both systems were more expensive compared to the SNES, the leader of the previous generation.  That is the opposite of disruptive.



Doubtful.

Two key factors for the PS4's victory were that Nintendo and Microsoft messed up so much. That made the decision for the market easy. If the next Xbox is better than the Xbox One - which is very likely, because it's such a low bar - many gamers in the USA and the UK will opt for Xbox again, because that's the brand they'd rather buy. The consequence of that is a reduction in PS sales.

Nintendo's console is already a known entity and keeping pace with the PS4. This means for the PS5 to win the generation, it has to sell as well as the PS4 at least. That's a tall hurdle when Sony's competitors don't do Sony as big of favors as they did in the previous generation. Sony may execute the PS5 as well as the PS4, but the factors that are out of their control don't and likely won't align as favorably again.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

The article is just silly really. Why do they need to do something different? If the traditional home console is something people really want then why is that bad? I'm all for innovation but, innovation just for the sake of it is dumb.



The_Liquid_Laser said:
outlawauron said:

None of things separate it from its competitors. PS1 and PS2 had far more distruptive change than either of those platforms.

Actually none of those platforms were disruptive.  PS1, PS2, N64, Gamecube...none were disruptive.

Disruptive means that functionality suffers so that you can improve some other aspect: reliability, convenience or price.  For example Google Stadia is potentially disruptive because the games all look like they perform worse, but you don't have to buy a console.  So functionality suffers but people save money compared to what came before.  

PS1, PS2, N64, and Gamecube were not disruptive, because they improved the specs compared to the previous generation and the prices all went up.  It's just that with Playstation the hardware was more expensive but with the N64 the cartridges were more expensive.  As a whole, both systems were more expensive compared to the SNES, the leader of the previous generation.  That is the opposite of disruptive.

Disruptive can also mean that it's a new feature or capability that when introduced changes how the industry works. It disrupts the status quo of the industry. The most disruptive thing we've seen this generation is the concept of GaaS, which has completely changed how so many games are designed and developed.



The_Liquid_Laser said:

Most of the time Sony has an advantage, but if you think about it carefully, then you'll see that Sony does not have the advantage this time.  Here is how it breaks down:

1) If all of the big 3 do a traditional strategy (playing it safe) then Sony wins.  This is what happened in Generation 6 and Sony had it's best performance yet.
2) If Nintendo or Microsoft try something different, but it's a bad idea, then Sony wins.  That is what has been happening in Generation 8 with the XB1 and Wii U screwing up.
3) If Nintendo does something different and it's a good idea, then Nintendo wins.  This is what happened with the Wii in Generation 7.
4) If Sony competes against Nintendo's handhelds, then Nintendo always wins.  Nintendo is undefeated in the handheld market.  They have defeated countless competitors including everything Sony has thrown out there.


This time the PS5 is competing against the Switch.  We already know that we are in situations 3 and 4.  Nintendo is trying something different and it's successful.  Also the Switch is a handheld.  But this handheld is special, because it is also a home console.  It already will get the entire handheld market, but it will also get some of the home market too.  That is the problem with Sony playing it safe.  If they do so, then Switch is just going to take all of their customers away. 

Everyone is acting like the PS5 is competing against the Wii U again.  Nope.  Switch is a much tougher competitor than the Wii U.  Switch is a high powered handheld that can also act as a home console.  Sony needs to worry that they won't get a repeat of the PSP vs DS.  The PSP was a very solid system with a lot of great games and it still lost to the weaker DS.  The same situation can very easily happen with the PS5 and Switch.

I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine a person "upgrading" from PS4 to Switch as opposed to from PS4 to PS5.