Microsoft might get away with weak hardware and still sell well because of other stuff and that makes me sad...

[STRYKIE]

Raven722 said:

Seece said:

cheesecake said:

Raven722 said:

novasonic said:
The most powerful console of each generation has never ever ever been the top seller.

Look at what the more powerful consoles were though. Either they were the most expensive (sometimes way overpriced), beaten to the punch by a console that was already highly successful, or had no previous history in the industry. The PS4 is the most powerful and is not the most expensive, was not beaten to the punch by a successful console (relatively speaking), and has a brand history.

well, GC was more powerful and cheaper than PS2, didn't stop it from selling only 20m units though...

Indeed, and PS360 sales will end up on par with Wii's, so what does that mean?

Power on any level means jack shit when it comes to winning.

Only historically for the industry has power not appeared to matter because it was never the "most powerful" that won. However, that doesn't mean power didn't have a part to play. The Super NES was more powerful than the Genesis from what I remember and thus was able to have games the Genesis couldn't match. The Xbox may not have even sold as many consoles as it did if it didn't have the power to run games the PS2 couldn't. Same goes for the PS3 versus its competition. So if the PS4 being the most powerful means it can run games that the other two cannot (which won't really happen versus X1 until down the road) then that power could very well be a big factor. Being the most powerful is never an actual disadvantage. It only is if the price reflects it.

Been tooting this whistle since my first post in this thread.

Although I'd say the PS3's power advantage wasn't drastic enough, even without the whole 599 US DOLLARS launch debacle and the 360's year headstart, it still would've been the namesake first and foremost that kept it on top.