| Generic Username 01 said: Disruptive strategies always pay off. In every generation except one, the winner has been disruptive. The exception is the 16-Bit Generation, which resulted in the destruction of Sega and the crippling of Nintendo. Every other generation was won by the disruptor. The Atari was disruptive because it was cheap and the first. The NES was disruptive because it was easy (compared to computers) and fun, and didn't require complex knowledge (like the computers then). The Play Station was disruptive because it relied on quantity of software and hardware and third-party support, rather than low quantity and high quality. It was also untarnished by the console war. The Play Station 2 was disruptive because it relied on low price rather than high specs and also on domino effect: the popularity of console boosts sales. Its time of competition only with the Dreamcast gave it all the third parties and ensured a huge quantity of software. The Wii is disruptive because it is the only system that evolves gaming. The PS3 and 360 can claim improved graphics and processing, but they are not radically different to the PS2's and Xbox's in the same way that the 64-bit N64 was not noticably more powerful than the 32-bit Play Station. There is a huge graphical difference between the PS1 and PS2 compared to the difference between PS2 and PS3. Also, people have now experienced 20 years of the same since the last major shake-up (the NES). They want something new. |
The PS2 wasn't disruptive in the slightest. IT was the successor to easily the most successful console of the 5th generation.
I would argue that from a gaming perspective, the ONLY console you listed that was disruptive was the Wii. It is the only one that evolved gaming outside of the "lets make graphics better" mantra."
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
