| danasider said: I'm sure it's been stated before, but I didn't want to read through 250 comments. First thing that came to mind was Nintendo. Was on top of the world for 2 generations then lost to Sony with the N64 and to both Sony and Microsoft with the Gamecube. Then Wii hit and spanked both of them with tech that was a generation too old. At one point, Nintendo surpassed Toyota as Japan's number 1 company in value because of the Wii. Not a Nintendo fanboy and own every Sony home console (and plan to buy PS4), but I gotta give it to them. The Wii's surprising dominance in its infant years was way more impressive than PS3 coming back from the ashes, because it didn't have something the PS3 did: huge brand momentum from PS1 and especially PS2. |
Another good argument.
I think it's all a matter of perspective, if one looks at it with out much or any bias (hard to come by).
Wii was a tremendous success breaking records left and right after two unsuccessful home console generations. Then again, the wii never really struggled, so one could argue that it wasn't that impressive or surprising, so it shouldn't be called a comeback.
Similar case with ps3. It was selling terrible for a ps home console, people declared it dead and were convinced that it would be discontinued or never top 30m and in September 2009 (or whenever slim launched- that's when I got mine), it made an amazing comeback and is now close to outselling 360 (not that it really matters) and in some areas even the wii. It managed to do sth unprecedented for a home console. Then again, there's a perfect counter argument: it's still third and even if it finishes 2nd or even 1st, it won't matter this late in the generation (won't affect software sales) and it was also a financial failure for Sony.
If you look at it without any bias, you'll realize that there is a counter argument for anything called a comeback. Also, people need to realise that the word is used differently by almost each person, as it is very vague, just like the word flop or even success.
