Maybe it would be more useful talking about what makes a successful console in general, not just that which makes them a market leader.

I thought about taking that approach, but outside of market leading consoles it is very difficult to determine which systems should be considered successes or failures. So few trailing consoles have turned a profit and grown their user-base (or market-share) that the results of a trailing console seem to be fairly mixed.

It seems that in a nutshell none of the leading systems in terms of technology have really been at all that remarkable relative to the rest of the major consoles at the time. Nor have they really stood significantly apart from the other consoles. I suspect the major reason for console success is because a console is already successful due to the catch 22 of needing both developer support and consumer support.

I wonder if we could similarly track the circumstances which led to the change of leading platforms?  That is, what factors led to the Playstation taking over the SNES position, and were there similar circumstances present this gen when the PS3 launched?

While I'd think hubris has something to do with previous market leaders eventual downfall (ie Nintendo sticking to the cartridge format, and Sony believing the PS3 would sell at any price), I wonder if there are more quantifiable or discrete factors that could be picked out fromrummaging through the data.

Interesting stuff.

- That's just 2 controller.  He said 4.

- The Neo Geo is 4th generation so yes, it's included.  However, it's not the only console more powerful than the SNES.  The Genesis had a more powerful CPU and better GPU when you include all the attachements.  The TurboGrafx 16 (or PC Engine) and CD-i were also more powerful either outright or in many facets.  As for previous generation portable that holds up against the GBA, try the Sega Nomad.  The Turbo Express was 2 generations back, not 1.

And don't always look at CPu bit depth as a meausre of power.  PS2 is 128 bits while GC and Xbox (both more powerful) are 32/64 bit hybrids.

Great question. Personally, with the evolution of video gaming, I just cannot see the Xbox 720 or the PS4 being less or equally powerful than their predecessors. Out of the two, I believe Sony may again push for another cutting edge piece of hardware around the $400-600 range with the express intent of using it as a platform to sell their other products such as 3D television.

I don't see Microsoft making the same kind of boondoggle Sony did with the pricing and technology of the PS3. Microsoft does not have the multi-product line of business comparable to Sony and Microsoft is not big enough to take the financial loss until it "becomes profitable" as had been the case with the PS3 until very recently.

I am bit skeptical of MMORPGs having the same impact on console gamers as they have had on PC gamers for a few reasons:

1. Expectations. Console gamers expect at least 2 to 4 must have titles every year.

MMORPGs do not make money when people cancel their $15/month subscriptions in order to put aside $120 to $240 in order to buy those must have titles.

2. Attention span. Console gamers do not have the attention span to make a console MMORPG as successful as the World of Warcraft.

The console gaming market has too many good games and new releases for any title along the ambitions of WoW to dominate it and shut the market down for 4 years while the MMORPG makers reap in the profits. Look at PC gaming before WoW and after WoW. Much less quality and quantity of games after WoW.

In other words, MMORPGs are not good for the market if you expect refreshing new titles year after year. Conversely, they are every Bobby Kotick wannabe's wet dream.

3. Network Support.

A content patch for the World of Warcraft is already a long and arduous process consisting of at least 3 months of waiting and testing. Imagine trying to do all the beta testing over the Xbox Live network. Complete logistical nightmare full of approval required upon approval required upon approval required from Microsoft.

Putting all the finer details aside I think what sunk Atari, Nintendo and Sony was that each of them became too focused on a particular competitor; Atari on Intellivision, Nintendo on Sega and Sony on Microsoft.

-First point: Okay, yeah, I misread that; I do that on occasion in when analysis mode. That would be my bad.

-Second point: I asked about the Neo-Geo because some people consider Neo-Geo, CD-i, etc, to be a "lost" generation. Nothing from those systems really generated much traction, which is why I asked. As for your Genesis point, not quite. First of all, I am looking at stock systems, not ones decked out with add-ons. The N64, for instance, I would look at without the memory expansion, and so on. But with the Genesis, while the CPU cycle was faster (it could do about 2 cycles to the SNES's 1), it was considerably weaker, with the SNES being able to get 4x the work done in a cycle to a Genesis one. So in raw work units, the Genesis would do 2 (1 x 2 cycles) where the SNES would do 4 (4 x 1 cycle). The TG-16 was fairly close to the SNES also, but it also had some similar issues.

-Second, part 2: Again, this is an assumption on generational divides I made based on the OP. The Game Boy Color was not brought up as a generation victor, so I went from the GB gen to the GBA gen. I do consider the GBC as seperate, going against things like the original Wonderswan. The Nomad I don't consider with the portables, but either way, is not as powerful as a GBA. And this leads to...

-...the third point. I hate using just the CPU bit depth myself. But it is the easiest to explain, and the most recognized one out there, so I use it. You will also notice that it was the prior generation where they stopped really referring to the bits, as they were learning other ways to push the systems. The prior generation, known as the 32/64 bit gen, showed how that wasn't the only metric in measuring things. The generation you are citing, with the PS2, was ALSO a 32/64 bit gen, with the XBox being the only one still using 32-bit. (The PS2 was not a 128-bit system. Not even high-end PCs are 128-bit, look at the 64-bit push with Windows 7.) Of course, at this point, CPUs on consoles had already caught up to computers, and needed other things to distinguish them. Needless to say, you're already aware of these, by your citing a 32-bit system (XBox) as correctly more powerful than a 64-bit system (PS2).

Dunno001,

Never heard of this 'lost generation' before.  Those consoles are considered in the generation of consoles I compared them with by everyine in the industry.

The Gameboy Color is to Gameboy as the Gamboy Advance SP is to Gameboy Advance or DSi is to DS.  Same gen.  And why don't you consider the Nomad a portable?  It fits all the qualifying definitions to be a portable console.

We're both off a bit on the PS2 bit depth.

PS2 is a 64 bit CPU and a 128 bit GPU just like the Dreamcast.  Though it only has a 32 bit memory adressing system.
The Xbox and GC had 32 bit CPU's and 64 bit GPU's.  But even then there different bit depths inside the CPU and GPU.   Marketers would label their console with the higher bit depth number in the console regardless of its relevancy to performance or similarity to other comporability to other bit depths in other consoles.   

Not sure if this was mentioned but it seems like to break a winning streak disruption is needed, sony disrupted with the original playstation by changing the whole distribution model allowing sony to react to sales trends quicker than their competitors. This was probably the most important game changer. Wii's disruption is obvious.