One of my problems with the thought processes behind articles like this is they never seem to consider there being any trade-offs or limitations to what console manufacturers will do ...
In theory, Nintendo could have produce a system that was 32 times as powerful as the Wii U had they wanted to; it would cost thousands of dollars to manufacturer, sit in a tower case bigger than any desktop most people have ever owned, have multiple large fans running whenever it was on, heat up any room as well as any space heater, and the game development costs to push visuals on the system to their limit would have forced games to be sold at $80. Sounds like something marketable doesn't it?
Beyond that, there is nothing saying Sony and/or Microsoft have to cater to the hardcore audience like they did in the previous generation. Sony and Microsoft saw their best sales after their systems were below $300 and after they released new controller-types. Sony and Microsoft actually don't care wether they have the "coolest" userbase, they really just want the largest userbase and most overall game sales they can get.
Finally, there are multiple examples demonstrating that newer/more-advanced systems don't seem to have a significant sales advantage. The most recent example is the 3DS vs. the PS-Vita, the Nintendo DS vs PSP is also a pretty good example, as is the PS2 vs. the Gamecube/XBox and the Playstation vs. the N64. Releasing a year later with more processing power isn't necessarily a very strong strategy if you look at the history of consoles.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
