Sony did with PS3 what history told it not to do.

[GameAnalyser]

Stefan.De.Machtige said:

GameAnalyser said:

History says that it's not the console specs or techs that determine the success, but the mass-market appeal for S/Ws that it produces, entertaining the consumers. For the last two consecutive gen, it was PS1 and PS2. Xbox was launched a year later than PS2 with better features like even a Hard-drive and superior specs, but it went out to fail miserably. Why? It failed to attract many consumers who were only brand-conscious, whilst PS2 had already established itself with it's decent S/W library, all credited to 3rd party dev-supporters. The Xbox eventually lost hold of 3rd party support and winded up with a LTD of 24 mn gross.

This time, PS3 has come under the scrutiny, involving itself in the format war to hinder Blue-Ray Progress. Altthough it won the war, Blue-Ray has apparently failed to attract the mass for which Sony had to pay the price. But since the media is not meant for HD movies alone, which most of us ignore, it's like the CD-ROM of PS1 allowing higher data storage for games than it's competitors. Although PS3 has failed to attract mass with it's current technology, it can continue to add momentum along with 360 till market saturation is reached. On the other hand, 360's progress was hindered due to the H/W failure rate around 2007. If this hadn't happened, a lot many consumers who were price-value concious would've bought it more, thus accelerating the sales. We need to wait and see which of the 2 consoles, both coming of losses, breath their last this gen.

The Wii has to be ignored, as it's S/W line-up doesn't attract hardcore gamers at all. It's success needs to be discussed out of this context, as it's not capable of delivering what ps3 and 360 are currently doing.This was not the scenario in previous gen, where consoles like GC, PS2 and Xbox were capable of delivering more or less same S/Ws end products.

You do realize that the pS2 had a great numbers of casuals, right? I wouldn't be surprised that of the 145 million maybe 90 - 100 million were casuals. By the logic that you discard the wii, you should also discard the PS2 and PS1 from the previous generations. Didn't they win by mass-appeal?

First you talk about mass-market appeal (where the big majority would be casuals, right?) as the winning factor. And then you say the wii has to be ignored because it mainly attracts casuals, and not hardcore. That makes absolutely no sense.

You can hardly define the mythical 'hardcore' gamer. It's just a matter of opinion. Still you would discard the absolute winner of the current gen, because it does not fit your opinion of a 'real' console. Geez, the wii won. Deal with it.  

The PS360 aren't able to produce what the pc produces. Also irrelevant then? They fall seriously short by what i see on my gaming pc.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, although it goes out of sense here, u shall consider how it was in the previous gen, when all the three consoles particularly GC, Xbox and PS2 were able to deliver the same type of S/Ws. PS2 had casual gamers on it's side. Also taking into account it's previous gen of N64, ps1 and Sega Saturn. I owned PS1, my friend whom I remembered having N64, sold it for ps1!! I used to njoi his N64 before receiving my PS1 as gift. PS1 with games like Crash bandicoot , Tekken,GT, Tomb Raider bombarded off attracting many gamers. As I stayed in the Middle-East, PS brand being so popular there and even now, used to have my intermediate school friends truly njoing PS1. All of them were N64 and Sega Saturn owners, who looked for better games.

In a nutshell, both PS2 and PS1 had delivered stuff entertaining casual gamers and hardcore as well. Now would u expect someone to sell 360/PS3 for Wii? Instead most gamers will look down upon it and might trade it for a cheaper Elite 360 or PS3 after it's price-cut.

And PC is something that can never be defeated by consoles, to which I fully agree however irrelevant it may be.