Captain_Tom said:
|
The PSP and the PS3 weren't what you'd exactly call "successful". Microsoft has yet to make a console that dominates and nintendo is known for floundering on the console space. Very few consoles become a market leader and that's what he'd call successful. Another thing that irked me about him was how he thought the N64 was competitive with the PS1 in north america when in reality it wasn't even a match with the PS1 having a 2:1 ratio.
I usually agree with malstrom's assessment of each console manufacturer's business but that post had some pretty strange reasons as to why those consoles were successful. His first reason was about macroeconomic conditions being better which I do agree with partly but that alone cannot make consoles win like the failures known as sega saturn and N64. Another thing I disagree with is playstation not expanding gaming "socially". I guess time flies by really quickly for him to forget that it PS1 games were cheaper to produce than N64 games. Playstation expanded the gaming audience tremendously with CDs and gaming altogether became more accessible because of it. It doesn't matter who had the CD drives first in their consoles. What mattered most was using it as an advantage and sony won in that department.
