Alkibiádēs said:
Soundwave said:
Even that is technically not true.
The Saturn was less powerful than the Playstation. The Dreamcast was less powerful than the PS2.
Being less powerful doesn't gauruntee you shit.
The home consoles that win their generation do so usually with the best third party support combined with good execution (ie: good pricing, marketing, etc.). The "power" stuff basically just boils down to one factor: can your hardware run the "big gun" software of its day that the masses really want to play. That's all.
Sony, like them or not, simply does this better than anyone else, it's why they've basically won 3/4 generations and won them easily, and even their worst selling console (PS3) would equate to sales that any one of Sega, Nintendo, or Microsoft would gladly take. When 85 million people still buy your "failed" console, lol, this is like the kid in school who thinks getting a B+ is the end of the world because they only get As.
|
I'm sure Nintendo wouldn't like to take the losses Sony made with the PS3. That's why it's a failed console.
|
The losses were largely due to the Blu-Ray format being forced onto the system by Sony's higher ups, not the game division.
Still says something when you can come back from a disastrous start and still end up selling 85 million. It means the consumer still values your product highly if that many of them are willing to buy it.
It's like a star athlete that has a "shitty game" by his standards but still ends up putting up a ton of points/yards/whatever that any average or even other good player would love to have a game that "bad".
And the PS1, 2, and 4 generations? Not even close. Not even competetive, Sony has just slaughtered the competetion in those gens. Have to give credit where credit is due.
