AsGryffynn said:
The PS2 doubled as a DVD that didn't need an add on to read movie and music discs (unlike the Xbox at the time). In between that, the reputation of its predecessor, the lack of variety and versatility in the Gamecube and the Xbox's expensive price tag, it enjoyed an advantage comparable to that of the Wii during it's gen.
The PS3 was the better equipment only on paper. Most devs actually couldn't code for the damned thing, so most games actually performed worse on the PS3 unless it was an exclusive developed for the console. However, the potential meant that the PS3 had a longer lifespan than the older X360 which lacked the Blu ray player and extra computing power that could be tapped into if devs bothered to try (most didn't).
It makes no sense for people to support the Xbox 360 and suddenly shift over to the PS4 unless the PS4 had more to offer. In between the DRM fiasco, lack of power, initially more expensive price tag and the smaller game library because of a combination of the aforementioned, a lot of former 360 owners jumped ship. If the Xbox One had been faster, cheaper and had a larger game library than the PS4, people wouldn't have jumped ship. Especially since Sony actually had a bad reputation for the PS3 having been a hassle. Sure, the RROD problem helf Microsoft bad, but it shouldn't have been this bad otherwise.
Whether a lot of Outcasts used to be PS2 gamers who were apalled at the PS3's price tag and performance is meaningless, since the audience will flock back to the place with the best system. The point is the system cannot rely solely on power. Power, price tag and variety need to be satisfied, as well as a release date. If a better machine is offered at a lower price on the same day, there's no reason to buy the inferior one.
|
