By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Will the power = defeat trend continues?

mai on 09 December 2010

PullusPardus said:

 wasnt Ps2 cheaper than xbox and GC when they came out?

Well, I see other people have already answered the question, but there's always place for some comprehensive charts:

PLATFORM LAUNCH PRICE BUYING POWER CONVERTED PRICE A2600 (1977) $200 $3,71 $742 INTV (1979) $300 $3,19 $957 CV (1982) $175 $2,30 $403 A5200 (1982) $270 $2,30 $621 NES (1985) $200 $2,05 $410 A7800 (1986) $140 $1,98 $277 SMS (1986) $200 $1,98 $396 TG16 (1989) $200 $1,79 $358 GEN (1989) $190 $1,79 $340 NG (1991) $650 $1,61 $1 047 SNES (1991) $200 $1,61 $322 3DO (1993) $700 $1,52 $1 064 JAG (1993) $250 $1,52 $380 SAT (1995) $400 $1,44 $576 PS (1995) $300 $1,44 $432 N64 (1996) $200 $1,41 $282 DC (1999) $200 $1,32 $264 PS2 (2000) $300 $1,28 $384 GC (2001) $200 $1,24 $248 XBOX (2001) $300 $1,24 $372 X360C (2005) $300 $1,13 $339 X360P (2005) $400 $1,13 $452 PS3B (2006) $500 $1,10 $550 PS3P (2006) $600 $1,10 $660 WII (2006) $250 $1,10 $275

 



Around the Network
Metallicube on 09 December 2010
fallen said:
Lucas-Rio said:

Gamegear more powerful but defeated by Gameboy

Nintendo 64 more powerful but defeated by the Playstation

Gamecube and Xbox more powerful but defeated by the Playstation 2

PSP more powerful but defeated by the Nintendo DS

PS3 and XBOX 360 more powerful but defeated by the Wii
Lucas-Rio said:

Gamegear more powerful but defeated by Gameboy

Nintendo 64 more powerful but defeated by the Playstation

Gamecube and Xbox more powerful but defeated by the Playstation 2

PSP more powerful but defeated by the Nintendo DS

PS3 and XBOX 360 more powerful but defeated by the Wii

 

With the talk of the PSP2 trying to be as poweful as the PS3 , I think that we are here for another victory for the less powerful console, the Nintendo 3DS.


You're looking at it wrong, PS3 and 360 are essentially the same console, minus a few exclusive games. I and others sometimes refer to them as the "HD twins".


The HD twins are beating the Wii, worldwide, handily, and that trend has accelerated a lot recentely. So the most powerful console(s) did win.

 

If there were two motion console, the Wii and the Apple iWaggle, hypothetically, and they split the motion/casual market in half, and 360 sold the exact same (which would put it higher than Wii and iWaggle seperately), would people say the 360 was crushing the opposition?

 

Also handhelds are a different beast. If you value graphics you will play a console anyway. So all the handhelds dont count.

 

The most powerful console, or at least close, has always won. Playstation was more powerful than N64 despite what people claim, or close enough. Xbox would have beaten PS2 if given enough time, and really did great only because it was more powerful, and also beat the vastly more entrenched Gamecube simply because it was more powerful. I remember back in that day the Nintendo fans constantly talked about how GC would crush Xbox once game X came out (zelda, mario, etc), but this never happened. Nintendo had one billion times more powerful software library than Xbox that gen (MS has no software at all, zero, to start, versus countless huge Nintendo franchises), but still lost to it simply because Xbox was more powerful.

 

Also Dreamcast lost to PS2. Saturn lost to Ps1, Jaguar lost to PS1/N64/Saturn, 3DO lost to PS1/N64/Saturn, all these were directly because they were less powerful.

That's just stupid.. You know as well as I do that it isn't fair to pit two consoles against one.



d21lewis on 09 December 2010
Beuli2 said:
mai said:
PullusPardus said:

no, Expensive = defeat.

That's plain not true.

It's has not been proven untrue yet.


PS2, PS1, Snes.....



CatFangs806 on 09 December 2010
Lucas-Rio said:
fallen said:
Lucas-Rio said:

Gamegear more powerful but defeated by Gameboy

Nintendo 64 more powerful but defeated by the Playstation

Gamecube and Xbox more powerful but defeated by the Playstation 2

PSP more powerful but defeated by the Nintendo DS

PS3 and XBOX 360 more powerful but defeated by the Wii
Lucas-Rio said:

Gamegear more powerful but defeated by Gameboy

Nintendo 64 more powerful but defeated by the Playstation

Gamecube and Xbox more powerful but defeated by the Playstation 2

PSP more powerful but defeated by the Nintendo DS

PS3 and XBOX 360 more powerful but defeated by the Wii

 

With the talk of the PSP2 trying to be as poweful as the PS3 , I think that we are here for another victory for the less powerful console, the Nintendo 3DS.


You're looking at it wrong, PS3 and 360 are essentially the same console, minus a few exclusive games. I and others sometimes refer to them as the "HD twins".

 

The HD twins are beating the Wii, worldwide, handily, and that trend has accelerated a lot recentely. So the most powerful console(s) did win.

 

If there were two motion console, the Wii and the Apple iWaggle, hypothetically, and they split the motion/casual market in half, and 360 sold the exact same (which would put it higher than Wii and iWaggle seperately), would people say the 360 was crushing the opposition?

 

Also handhelds are a different beast. If you value graphics you will play a console anyway. So all the handhelds dont count.

 

The most powerful console, or at least close, has always won. Playstation was more powerful than N64 despite what people claim, or close enough. Xbox would have beaten PS2 if given enough time, and really did great only because it was more powerful, and also beat the vastly more entrenched Gamecube simply because it was more powerful. I remember back in that day the Nintendo fans constantly talked about how GC would crush Xbox once game X came out (zelda, mario, etc), but this never happened. Nintendo had one billion times more powerful software library than Xbox that gen (MS has no software at all, zero, to start, versus countless huge Nintendo franchises), but still lost to it simply because Xbox was more powerful.

 

Also Dreamcast lost to PS2. Saturn lost to Ps1, Jaguar lost to PS1/N64/Saturn, 3DO lost to PS1/N64/Saturn, all these were directly because they were less powerful.

That's wrong. You are quite deluded.

 

XBOX360 and PS3 are not the same. They are both HD consoles but they are not twins and should be counted together.The fact is that the Wii beat the 360 easily which beat the PS3. The power = defeat trends has been working at the full effect.

Nintendo 64 was more poweful than the Playstation, there is absolutely no debate here? It's a fact.

Gamecube and Xbox had around the same power and sold the same. Neither of them had any chance to beat the less powerful PS2.

You need to check your facts before contradicting me.

I didn't believe you at first, but apparently the Nintendo 64 was the most powerful system of the fifth generation of consoles. I think the reason the graphics looked worse than PS1 games was due to the cartridge capacity, the same problem the Gamecube had. It limits the amount of textures and data that can be fitted onto one unit.



Mr.Metralha on 09 December 2010

Actually

Good = victory

Not so good as above = defeat

 

that's the way it always work.



Around the Network
Kantor on 09 December 2010

Fear leads to hate.

Hate leads to anger

Anger leads to power

Power leads to victory

Victory leads to conquest

Conquest leads to eventual defeat.

So, yes.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Mr.Metralha on 09 December 2010
Kantor said:

Fear leads to hate.

Hate leads to anger

Anger leads to power

Power leads to victory

Victory leads to conquest

Conquest leads to eventual defeat.

So, yes.

And defeat leads to fear?

You have to close the loop, dude.



Immortal on 09 December 2010
fallen said:

You're looking at it wrong, PS3 and 360 are essentially the same console, minus a few exclusive games. I and others sometimes refer to them as the "HD twins".

 

The HD twins are beating the Wii, worldwide, handily, and that trend has accelerated a lot recentely. So the most powerful console(s) did win.

 

If there were two motion console, the Wii and the Apple iWaggle, hypothetically, and they split the motion/casual market in half, and 360 sold the exact same (which would put it higher than Wii and iWaggle seperately), would people say the 360 was crushing the opposition?

 

Also handhelds are a different beast. If you value graphics you will play a console anyway. So all the handhelds dont count.

 

The most powerful console, or at least close, has always won. Playstation was more powerful than N64 despite what people claim, or close enough. Xbox would have beaten PS2 if given enough time, and really did great only because it was more powerful, and also beat the vastly more entrenched Gamecube simply because it was more powerful. I remember back in that day the Nintendo fans constantly talked about how GC would crush Xbox once game X came out (zelda, mario, etc), but this never happened. Nintendo had one billion times more powerful software library than Xbox that gen (MS has no software at all, zero, to start, versus countless huge Nintendo franchises), but still lost to it simply because Xbox was more powerful.

 

Also Dreamcast lost to PS2. Saturn lost to Ps1, Jaguar lost to PS1/N64/Saturn, 3DO lost to PS1/N64/Saturn, all these were directly because they were less powerful.

Honestly, like it or not, HD twins are not the same console. The 360 or PS3, without the presence of the other, would be at no more than 55-60m, and that's optimistic. Also, if an "iWaggle" released, the market would not be split in half. Apple would appeal to some other people and many would get both (as is the case with HD), most likely not reducing Wii sales to below 65m. Wii sales would still be making a mockery out of PS360 sales.

Also, you've got to be kidding! The N64 was a generation ahead of the PS1. Why the heck do you think it released so late? Also, the Xbox would have never even got close to the PS2. It could've topped 40m, but not much more. Oh, and you seriously think that the Xbox won 'cause of power? It won 'cause of Microsoft's money! Third party support, Halo, appealing to Americans... Those were the reasons ehy Xbox won, not power.

Finally, Dreamcast lost because nobody (third parties, disappointed Saturn owners, "betrayed" retailers from Saturnday confusion) liked. Sega and because everyone was simply waiting for the PS2, the quality of which was guaranteed for them. The Saturn lost because it angered third parties and retailers and because it was a complete and utter mess to code for. And 3DO, really? Honestly, none of these had anything even remotely to do with power. The Saturn actually lost partially because its six processors were too confusing to code for, which I'm assuming has something to do with having too much power.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

Viper1 on 09 December 2010
CatFangs806 said:

I didn't believe you at first, but apparently the Nintendo 64 was the most powerful system of the fifth generation of consoles. I think the reason the graphics looked worse than PS1 games was due to the cartridge capacity, the same problem the Gamecube had. It limits the amount of textures and data that can be fitted onto one unit.

I still think you are confused.   Outside fo pre-rendered CGI cutscenes, the N64 always held a visually perceptible graphics advantage over PS.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

MrT-Tar on 10 December 2010

storage size has little to do with how a game looks graphically (bar textures).  A clear example of this is Jett Rocket on WiiWare, despite fitting within Nintendo's stingy 42mb WiiWare size limit it is among the best looking games on the system.  Consider that most Wii games come on a single layer DVD and you know what I mean.