A Solid Line-up is EXTREMELY important, but isn`t everything for a console

[invetedlotus123]

Miyamotoo said:

invetedlotus123 said:

Power on those systems wasnt a heldback. The balance betweent power/hardware reliability/price is important to not heldback sales, is like a triangle that has to be really well distributed. If it get unbalanced things cant get very ugly, like x360 RROD, ps3 launch price or Saturn lacking power for 3d games. People tend to think power isn important, but think if Nintendo ever cameback to making NES hardware and saying "our development efforts are now focused on NES hardware again", they would get a huge backlash. What im trying to say is, power just stop being important when they are not holding anything back.

Switch is around 3x weaker than PS4 and costs $300 without game while you can buy currently PS4 1TB LE console with one game for same price, but Switch like hybrid devaice has great value despite its weaker and actualy more expasive than PS4. Using NES like example is lame, but for instance Wii was literally upgraded GC, while PS3/Xbox360 were 20x stronger than Wii and Wii outsold both much more powerful consoles. It easy to see that power is not important if you offer something different compared to competition (again Wii and Switch are examples), but if you have two almost identical consoles for same price of course that power will be important (XB1 and PS4).

 

d21lewis said:

That's cool. I don't want to argue. Let's hug!

Hug. :)

But the market was literally divided between Hardcore and casual that gen, and both x360 and ps3 did well and at later in the gen started outselling Wii and getting more revenue from software sales. Im not saying Wii wasnt a huge success, but it wasnt a dominant force like PS2 was in its gen that catered for both casual and hardcore. And what I mean by using NES example is that the idea that power isnt important is flawed in itself, graphical power stop being important when its "just enough" for the moment the console comes out.