| Squilliam said: It's just because most of the winners in a console generation were released before the losers when talking about the major competitors, moores law dictates that later consoles would typically on average be more powerful. The fact that the most powerful consoles haven't won is more a result of other factors.
|
What the hell? SQUILLIAM'S BACK!!!
| Squilliam said: It's just because most of the winners in a console generation were released before the losers when talking about the major competitors, moores law dictates that later consoles would typically on average be more powerful. The fact that the most powerful consoles haven't won is more a result of other factors.
|
yup that is why the Genesis, Dreamcast, 360, Epoch Cassette Vision and TurboGrafx-16 won because they launched first it is obvius now
But yeah graphics is only one small factor in the grand schem of things
@TheVoxelman on twitter
| goforgold said: if the wii was as powerful, nevermind more, it would have twice as many sales as it currentlys has, and there wouldn't be a single 3rd party that wouldn't be supporting it the shit out it. It'd have BETTER support than the ps2 and ps3 would have been in real deep shit |
Wouldn't it have lost it's price advantage in that case?
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)
| Squilliam said: It's just because most of the winners in a console generation were released before the losers when talking about the major competitors, moores law dictates that later consoles would typically on average be more powerful. The fact that the most powerful consoles haven't won is more a result of other factors. |
1st and 2nd gen are complicated, Atari was the winner/loser at the same time and the rules were different...
3rd GEN: NES and Master Systems were the only ones available worldwide, NES launched first and made people in the US play VGs again, this is the only gen besides the previous ones that the 1st one won.
4th GEN: SNES was the last to launch (Turbografx and Genesis launched 1st)
5th GEN: PS1 was the second to launch (Saturn launched 1st)
6th GEN: PS2 was the second to launch (Dreamcast launched 1st)
7th GEN: Wii was the last to launch (360 launched 1st, PS3 launched 2nd days before)
If performance and price were the only factors then it would actually make sense to compare them say on an X/Y graph. However the whole picture is complicated and no matter what rules are used to define the actual console market exceptions will arise. In the end it really is based on a value judgement and people will obviously hold different values which makes real discussion on this topic difficult. Overall computer performance matters to a point with every console released, however it's probably only important within a certain range, somewhere between a console being powerful enough or significantly more powerful.
Tease.
My main point with this thread was trying to show people that you can't always expect the very latest technology for home/ handheld consoles. The expectation that it should be as good as a gaming PC is just too damn high. The price wouldn't be consumer friendly and the console would probably end up not being as successful as it would if lesser technology was included.
Many people here don't want to count the Neo Geo in the 4th generation of home consoles. To me this is a perfect example of what happens when you have the latest tech in a system. Neo Geo wasn't looking to compete with Nintendo and Sega. They made money because they didn't sell it at a loss but they didn't sell too many because it was very expensive for the system and games. They released this system in 1990 in Japan and 1991 in USA around the same time the SNES was released. It was more powerful than the SNES. "The Neo Geo was ranked 19th out of the 25 best video game consoles of all time by the video game website IGN in 2009." (wiki) It seems most people consider it a video game console and part of that generation. It was released during the 4th generation. It is apart of that generation.
Fast forward to this generation.... PS3 should have been the clear winner (which everyone thought was going to be the case). They dominated the previous two generations and had tons of loyal consumers. They then release the PS3 with a 499-599 price tag loaded with latest technology (cell, blu-ray, etc). It appears most people aren't willing to drop 500-600 dollars for a home console system. Who would of thought that? Were could they have realized that it wouldn't fly well with the consumers? CD-i, 3DO, and Neo Geo say hello! They sold the PS3 at a loss even with that high price tag. If they priced it to the actual price then even less people would have bought it in the beginning. If you release a video game system that cost 600 dollars and it is being sold for a loss then something is terribly wrong. You tried to squeeze too much latest tech into that system is what it means.
It just seems that gamers have the expectations that their consoles needs to be good as the current high end gaming PC. It will never be that good. They need to use parts that are somewhat dated but within a price range to make their consoles launch at a price 200-400 at the most. Nintendo knows this, Sony learned their lesson, and I am pretty sure Microsoft knows this. I have no intentions of spending more than $350 for a video game console ever. Price is only one factor like I have said many times.... However, launch price is a pretty big factor when dealing with most consumers looking to upgrade. You think a parent is going to buy their kid a 500-600 dollar video game system for Christmas? Maybe if they are rich, but most people I know have a limited budget. No matter how much technology you stuff into a machine the launch price has to be within most people's budget.
| goforgold said: if the wii was as powerful, nevermind more, it would have twice as many sales as it currentlys has, and there wouldn't be a single 3rd party that wouldn't be supporting it the shit out it. It'd have BETTER support than the ps2 and ps3 would have been in real deep shit |
The relationship between the cost of increasing power for a platform and the value people see in that increase is (generally) pretty well understood. On the low end of the processing power scale the cost to increase processing power is low and the value people see in that increase is high, while at the high end of the scale the cost associated with increasing processing power is high and the value people see from that increase is low. This is the reason why the HD console's this generation were so heavily subsidized; people saw less value in the processing power than it cost to implement it, and the systems couldn't sell for their true cost of production.
With this in mind, the Wii (probably) could have benefitted from increased processing power but long before they matched the capabilities of the HD consoles the benefit consumers saw would be minimized. It is difficult to know what the ideal performance would be, but I suspect that the Wii would stop seeing sales benefit at 2 to 4 times its current processing power.
HappySqurriel said:
With this in mind, the Wii (probably) could have benefitted from increased processing power but long before they matched the capabilities of the HD consoles the benefit consumers saw would be minimized. It is difficult to know what the ideal performance would be, but I suspect that the Wii would stop seeing sales benefit at 2 to 4 times its current processing power. |
I agree with you with the Wii could have increased sales if it had 2-4 times more power. Maybe they could have made it a little more powerful thus ending with a 300 price tag at launch. However, I think Nintendo really wanted to stay in the mid 200 range (and not sell the system at a loss). When people started dissing the Wii at launch saying it was like 2 GCN ducktaped together, I was like hell give that to me since 2 GCN duck-taped together would mean that it was 2x the power of the GCN. I was already pleased with GCN graphics. I suppose the expectations on power/graphics for next generation machines has gone up. Back during 8,16,32,64 bit days most manufactures just had to worry about doubling the power. Now I guess it is more 4x-8x.
sethnintendo said:
|
actually since the 4th gen each generation has averaged around 8x more powerful than the last and even the 3rd to the 4th was around 4x
@TheVoxelman on twitter
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
