Mnementh said:
STRYKIE said:
Mnementh said:
STRYKIE said:
Mnementh said:
The Wii and the PS2 were also underpowered compared to the competition. So specs are as irrelevant for home console as for handhelds. What matters is: is it a good overall proposition. And in that specs may have a place as a factor, but not as a major one. |
Terrible comparison. The Wii didn't exactly have anything on the scale of GT3, MGS2, GTA3 etc. for it's time. Granted, being European, I suppose I have a little bit of a biased view since we didn't get the original Xbox until 2002, but the difference is, the PS2 was still the most powerful system on the market by a substantial margin with the headstart it had.
|
Uh, Gamecube and XBox both overpowered the PS2 by a lot. Look at Resident Evil 4 for a comparison.
And Wii didn't had GT3, MGS2 and GTA3 - but still dominated in sales. The thread was about why specs matter or not matter for sales. So what is your point regarding the Wii?
|
You'd have to be an absolute mark to compare the disparity of the PS2 and GC to that of the Wii and PS3/360. And how many times am I gonna keep hearing RE4 for christ's sake? I've played nearly every version thoroughly. Look up the Splinter Cell games on the original Xbox and then compare them to the GC/PS2 versions. People didn't even need a comparison to see how monumental the difference was back then. That's an example of a system completely crushing the competition, so by your own terminology, the GC was equally lacking.
But my point was, the PS2's hardware capabilities did play a part in it's initial success. This (or the last, depending on how you want to look at it) generation is arguably the only one where hardware capabilities have had nothing to do with the way the market share turned out. Even if the PS4 wins the next generation, I think it's fair to say it'll be because of the brand power Sony have sustained over the years and righted all the wrongs that made a considerable chunk of the market bitter towards the PS3 at launch. It'll simply be a coincidence that it's the most powerful of the three.
|
I'm a bit confused by your reply. I was saying the PS2 was underpowered and you agreed, while stating the XBox was more ahead. it's irrelevant, the PS2 was still underpowered. Also against the GC. The success of PS2 had a lot of reasons, but not that it had better graphics. Brand power was very important, also all the 3rd-party-support.
I agree that other factors are important for the probably coming success of the PS4. I think how you change the perception of the system in peoples mind does have an important impact on the success. Sony did that very well this last months.
|
Well in that particular scenario, it was more that the original Xbox was overcooked in the respect it may have been TOO powerful, not that that's a bad thing, but it did take a lot of unnecessary risks with the accolades of a built-in HDD, ethernet/LAN capabilities, internal online infrastructure, Intel Pentium based architecture etc., and only retailed at under $300 to stay competitive, which Microsoft had the financial backing to do so more than SNK did with the Neo Geo. And I guess I'm just tired of hearing the RE4 argument as some sort of grounds for the PS2 being a weak console for it's time when the original Xbox left both with egg on their faces, I don't view either as weak consoles with the exception of the Gamecube's relatively limited storage medium.
But I can honestly say I'd never witnessed anything like GT3 in 2001 beforehand, and this is coming from someone who was trying to relentlessly downplay the PS2. Now compare that to the Wii being behind Gears of War 1 for the entirety of it's lifespan.
