| account2099 said: N64 was more powerful then PS1. PS1 won. Xbox was more powerful then PS2. PS2 won. History has shown that the most powerful tech doesnt win because it usually leads to a higher price point. Sony was smart to make decent but not the best tech so it was mass market friendly and not as costly as optimizing for the more powerful consoles. Now Sony seemingly spits in histories face with PS3. They make the most powerful tech and therefore have the highest asking price. To make it worse they came out a year after 360. I dont understand why Sony didnt stick to their winning formula. My guess they thought the Bluray war was more important then video game market share, I dont know...... |
The biggest problem with the N64 was it used cartridges. Publishing games on it was much more expensive and a bigger risk. If it used CDs it would have had much more support and success.
The PS1 dominating the market paved the way for PS2 to be a success. It was launched at a fair price, it had a DVD player, and once again it had the best 3rd party support.
The PS3 didn't fail because its the most powerful machine, it failed because its too expensive. They should have just made it equal to the 360 had won another console war. PS1 and PS2 launched for $300 and were $200 after about a year or two. The PS3 has been out for about 3 years and it's still more expensive than the PS1 and PS2 launch price.
