Some observations of market leading consoles

[Viper1]

dunno001 said:

HappySqurriel said:

After Sony’s recent comments about Microsoft and Nintendo’s next home consoles beating the PS4 to the market (and the discussion following about whether that was a good strategy) I began thinking about what were some of the characteristics of market leading systems. I focused my attention on the modern (post crash) console market, at here are some of my observations:

Of the 8 market leading systems (NES, SNES, Playstation, PS2, Wii, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance and Nintendo DS) 4 were successors to the market leading system.

Of the 8 market leading consoles only 2 (SNES and Wii) were released a year or more after a system that survived the entire generation; and these are also the only 2 generations where the market leading console did not dominate third party support

Of the 8 market leading consoles, only 2 (Wii and Nintendo DS) were online capable out of the box; and no system market leading system has had online functionality at launch.

None of the market leading home consoles launched for more than $300 (US).

While you could argue that the Playstation’s CD playback counts, only one system (the PS2) had significant multimedia functionality.

Only one home console (the Wii) supported 4 controllers by default

All 8 systems were more powerful than the previous market leading console

None of the 8 market leading systems were the most powerful systems of their generation; and some (Wii, Gameboy Advance, and Playstation) could be argued to be not dramatically more impressive than the most advanced system of the previous generation. 

None of the 8 market leading consoles had superior screen resolutions to their competition

Now, I’m certain other people have significant observations about the market leading systems.

While I fully admit that there will always be some wildcards, the picture I have started to see emerge indicates that you don’t want to release a system a year or more after the market leading console especially if you believe that processing power, media functionality or multiplayer game play will help your system sell well. 

I'd actually like to extrapolate on a few of these, myself, based on observations I've also seen:

-Technically, there were a few games on a few systems that supported 4 players without a multi-tap. On the NES, I recall Anticipation supporting 4 human players with 2 controllers, and I know that the DS can support 4 (or more) systems wirelessly without need for additional dedicated multi-player hardware, or, in some games, even extra cartridges. You did need the systems, but they would be replacing the need for the extra controller on the Wii.

-Most powerful of the generation is a tough one; I take it that means you put the Neo-Geo in the same gen as the 16-bit era, then? Of the 16-bit systems, the SNES was the most powerful, actually. I'm also curious as to what system from the portable gen prior to the GBA you consider to be close to it? Turbo-Express and Wonderswan were both 16-bit, whereas the GBA was 32.

Nonetheless, it's interesting to see others thinking about this. I've done some thinking myself on it, but never bothered to compile everything. I'll keep thinking on it, though.

- That's just 2 controller.  He said 4.

- The Neo Geo is 4th generation so yes, it's included.  However, it's not the only console more powerful than the SNES.  The Genesis had a more powerful CPU and better GPU when you include all the attachements.  The TurboGrafx 16 (or PC Engine) and CD-i were also more powerful either outright or in many facets.  As for previous generation portable that holds up against the GBA, try the Sega Nomad.  The Turbo Express was 2 generations back, not 1.

And don't always look at CPu bit depth as a meausre of power.  PS2 is 128 bits while GC and Xbox (both more powerful) are 32/64 bit hybrids.