starcraft said:
totalwar23 said:
starcraft said:
Kasz216 said:
It's never been about the specs. Even back with the NES.
The Sega Mega Drive was a failure in Japan because of the NES. The thing was dead in Japan before the SNES ever came out. Japan, you've got to have the goods upfront.
Ironically the Genisis was the HD console of it's era. As even then the other companies tried to paint Nintendo as kiddy... partially due to Nintendo backing down to the senators, while Sega kept it bloody and invented terms like "Blast Processing" to suggest the Mega Drive was way more impressive. The whole thing worked... with the teen audience. But failed elsewhere... and eventually the SNES prevailed in America. Sega I believe captured the undeveloped Europeon market though. Europe's never really been Nintendo land. |
I agree. I think MikeB believes that the slimmest of processor advantages over the Xbox 360 is going to result in some sort of enormous eleventh hour boost for the PS3 to the detriment of Microsoft and Nintendo, but making this assumption belays everything we know about how the industry works and the success-breeds-success principle.
|
What, that's not what he told me. According to him, the PS3 will win because it's on a ten year plan and by the time the next generation consoles will come out, the PS3 will hold an advantage over those more powerful consoles due to being cheaper to develop for (due to its lower specs) and having a higher install base but the PS3 won't be harmed by the Wii because people want more powerful consoles to play more technically impressive games. Go ahead and read his posts, that's what I got from him.
|
He says both things, both in this thread and in others. Each are fundamentally illogical assumptions. The former ignores the fact that the most powerful console hasn't won in the last two generations, and the latter (and this is quite a contradiction) attempts to make a comparision between the PS3 and the PS2 with regard to lifespans and sales. The problem is MikeB is assuming the PS3 will have the same kind of tail the PS2 did saleswise, even though every indicator (be it sales, price or third party support) we have dictates that this will not be the case. |
Sales indicators show that the PS3 is tracking not all that far behind PS2 and favorably vs PS1, even with PS3's higher price and competition out alone for a year ahead of it. What's that tell you about tails, again?
Re: "most powerful console hasn't won"...you're right, the Sony console has. If we're just stating history. Wii will sell more units than PS3 this time, but income from PS3, games, Blu-Ray victory, PSN movie downloads, will be quite significant.
