Nate4Drake said:
Many factors come into the equation when it comes to the success of a Console; PSX won its generation VS Sega Saturn and Nintendo64, and it was not the most powerful hardware; actually, if I'm not wrong, Saturn when fully pushed, could technically be more competitive overall(2D and 3D games), but much harder to develop for. Nintendo64 was the most powerful, but it was released almost 2 years later(basicly 22 month later); PS2 userbase was already very well established, together with a "special" partnership with third-party developers; Nintendo released a console with an unusual storage format, and a bit too late, plus other factors, which have determinated the victory of Sony. XBox and GameCube, again, were more powerful, but they were released much later, respectively 20 and 18 months later than PS2; even here, talking about specs and hardware is amiss, and can't be used as an argument when talking about PS4 and X1, which were released at the same time-frame, and say :"look!", the best hardware never determined the victory in the previous generations; every generation makes history apart, and what determines or contribute to the success in a generation, could instead be irrelevant in other generations. 360 VS PS3 was further more another scenario : 1 year head start for MS, which pulled out an incredibly powerful and friendly to develop for hardware, while PS3 was too expensive with a complex-unfamiliar architecture. And what about Wii ? Nintendo took the casual road, and with a motion controller they have obliterated the competition for 3 years. Shall we use the "specs argument" again to validate the "SPECS DO NOT MATTER" statement when we talk about PS4 vs X1 or PS5 vs Anaconda ? Of course specs alone means nothing, and there are so many other factors which will determine the succsess of a Console; but on the other hand, we cannot use the "SPECS DO NOT MATTER ARGUMENT" whatever is the situation, referring to other generations, where consoles were released in different time frame, and cater different audience. To conclude, I don't get why some are assuming that Anaconda will be more powerful than PS5, just for the brags, much like the X. MS released XBox One X to save their face, after losing big from Sony. So they wanted at any cost to take "something", the most powerful console, native 4K where possible and the best 3rd party experience. They had to do something to save the XBox image, and bring a breath of fresh air after a rather disappointing presentation. We cannot assume Anaconda will be more powerful than PS5 because XBox One X is more powerful than PS4 PRO. We know why X was so powerful ↑↑↑, and it was released one year after PRO, it cannot be an argument. |
Your misunderstanding my point. They had a 2016 system in mind that would launch along side the pro but decided to give the pro a year head start just to release a more expensive console a year later. That cost them in sales and surely, R&D.
They digged into their deeper pockets to have the most powerful console and will do so again. Why wouldn't they? It would make the saving of face this generation for nothing. They'll build upon their improving brand image moving forward.
