AlfredoTurkey said:
I Disagree. Tom Kalinske has said that the key to success is based on the idea that to win, you must either do what the other guy isn't doing or is unwilling to do. Nintendo won that generation because they tapped into a consumer market that Sony didn't have the foresight to see. They outwitted them and did what they weren't doing. By the time Sony made the PS Move, it was too late. Far too late. Nintendo won because their guys were smarter than Sony's guys. |
I disagree with you. Look not only at the Wii, look at the 360, which was doing pretty well, basically on the same level than PS3. This gen though PS4 murders the XBO. Why? Well, Microsoft made some good decisions back then, while Sony failed out of the gate. The launch in the US and Japan was weak, and hadn't been the european launch much stronger, the negativity around the PS3 might have been no longer fightable. But in europe the strong brand name saved the PS3. Still, it struggled. Problems were the price, the complicated architecture with the cell that needed programming especially for PS3. I always say that a different CPU only needs recompiling. In the case of the Cell though workload from the GPU was transferred to the CPU and the additional units, which was completely new programming and thus was completely ignored in the beginning by gamedevs. That resulted in lower performance of multiplats on PS3 in comparison to X360. This changed later in the life of the PS3, as the gamedevs understood the cell and developed the tools to support it properly.
That Sony was able to steer the ship that was the PS3 in a different direction is a big success story by the way. But initial problems as well as the save was all Sony. If that hadn't happened, many of the early X360 purchases would have gone to Sony camp instead. The only reason was that the PS3 wasn't that attrective. You're right in a way though: if the alternative of the X360 wouldn't have existed, the impact on the PS3 hadn't been that bad.
