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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The most powerful systems are never the sales leader

I decided to make this thread due to almost everyone being a graphics whore now.  Do I like good graphics?  Of course....  However, graphics shouldn't be the main focus of gamers.  Game-play, controls, and play balance should rank higher than graphics.  Graphics can add a lot to the gaming experience yet you can have a very beautiful graphical game play terrible.  Anyways, I just wanted to point out that the most powerful system has never won a generation for home console and handheld in their respective generations.  Main reason?  I would have to say price due to the higher technology probably prevented most from not selling more (sure there are exceptions like the N64 being cheaper launch price than the PS1, however the games for N64 were more expensive).  I remember back in the 16-bit era when I thought Neo Geo was a very bad ass system.  Who has 200-300 to drop on every game and pay $650 when it first came out?  Not many people did...  Same case can be made for the Game Gear, PS3, 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, PSP, etc...  You can make your system all powerful but if it puts the price out of league with consumers then your system is limping out of the gate.  I know it isn't only about price that sets systems up for success or failures (there are a lot of other areas such as game libraries, battery life, etc) but it can't help coming out with a $500-$700 system. 

So by demanding the most powerful system possible for the time (which a lot of gamers are guilty of these days) gamers are setting themselves for prices in the $500-$700 range.  I would rather see that systems at least stick to the $200-$400 range.  If you are going to drop $700 for a home console system then you might as well build yourself a gaming PC.  Also, if manufacturers have to produce these power machines then they either have to sell them at very high price or take losses on systems sold.  Selling systems for a loss isn't very good business practice.  If the system doesn't take off and you sold them for a loss then good luck on making your money back from game royalties. 

Most of what I discussed is pretty basic common knowledge for people that have grown up with the Atari 2600 or NES.  However, I believe the younger generations need to wake up and realize where they might being leading the video game industry. 



Around the Network

April Fools?



19:44:34 Skeezer METAL GEAR ONLINE
19:44:36 Skeezer FAILURE
19:44:51 ABadClown You're right!
19:44:55 ABadClown Hur hur hur
19:45:01 Skeezer i meant
19:45:04 Skeezer YOU ARE A FAILKURE
19:45:08 Skeezer FAILURE*
A Bad Clown said:

April Fools?

Silly ABC....we all know xbox was stronger!



 

A Bad Clown said:

April Fools?

You do realize the GCN and Xbox were more powerful?



CGI-Quality said:

I wouldn't say never, as the SNES was the most powerful of it's gen. But it's usually the case.


Neo Geo is put into the same generation as the SNES and Genesis.  Neo Geo was more powerful.



Around the Network

No PS2 was not the most powerful of the 6th generation. I believe the Xbox was, I could be wrong.



Acevil said:
A Bad Clown said:

April Fools?

Silly ABC....we all know xbox was stronger!

Just because the controller was larger and and it had a giant X doesn't mean the XBox was a memeber of the X-Men!



19:44:34 Skeezer METAL GEAR ONLINE
19:44:36 Skeezer FAILURE
19:44:51 ABadClown You're right!
19:44:55 ABadClown Hur hur hur
19:45:01 Skeezer i meant
19:45:04 Skeezer YOU ARE A FAILKURE
19:45:08 Skeezer FAILURE*

Yeah the SNES sold more than the Megadrive..

End/thread lol =p.



 

CGI-Quality said:

I wouldn't say never, as the SNES was the most powerful of it's gen. But it's usually the case.

Edit: NVM!



PS2 wasn't the best graphically but it's pretty much inargueable that the PS2s library laid waste and total decimation to the competition.