Forums - Gaming Discussion - The strongest and more expensive console will win this generation, it never happened before.

Ka-pi96 said:
Price cut doesn't really matter. The Xbox One still started out as the most expensive console, so no the most expensive console still won't win.

Most powerful though? Yeah, it's the first time but that's not a bad thing. Previous consoles won because they had great games, not because of power. Hopefully when all is said and done we can say that the PS4 won because of great games as well.


The SNES won the 4th gen, and it was the most powerful console.



Around the Network
super6646 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Price cut doesn't really matter. The Xbox One still started out as the most expensive console, so no the most expensive console still won't win.

Most powerful though? Yeah, it's the first time but that's not a bad thing. Previous consoles won because they had great games, not because of power. Hopefully when all is said and done we can say that the PS4 won because of great games as well.

The SNES won the 4th gen, and it was the most powerful console.

The Neo Geo was definitely more powerful than the SNES. And even if you don't want to include that I thought the Mega Drive was widely considered to be more powerful than the SNES as well.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Mandalore76 said:
petroleo said:

The Wii was an a atrocity to game developers and to the game industry in general, yes it sold like hell but to which audience ?, games weren't selling, only Marios and Pokemons were selling there, so selling millions Wii didn't mean nothing to the game industry, it actually was hurting cause PS3 released its superior Wii mote , the expensive Kinect on the xbone, probably Sony or MS never got back their investment on those things.

The winners last gens were the PS3/PSP and the 360 cause they maintain the game industry for all people.

This time the PS4 is once again building a console for every one unlike the Wii U or the xbone, MS is trying hard to maintain their boat afloat but they blew it in the specs and their general design, their only way to them to succeed is to release a lot I mean alot of games but that I mean exclusive games, but we all know the sad story about that.

User moderated for this post -RavenXtra

This is off topic, but I just want to address the Wii bashing I see in this thread for a second.  Wii actually moved software pretty well on par with 360 and PS3 last gen.  Not Mario-only or Pokemon (that fact that you even infer that Wii was flooded with Pokemon games should be enough to prove you don't know what you're talking about) titles either as you claim, since their were quite a few million+ sellers on the system from 3rd Parties.  For example, Call of Duty 3 sold over 2 million on Wii, outselling both PS2 and PS3 versions.  And a couple of the Madden titles (07 & 08) outsold or sold on par with their PS3 counterparts.  But, you people can keep telling yourself that Wii contributed nothing to the 7th gen video game industry.  Whatever helps you sleep at night.


Look at the list of 3rd party developers who went out of business last gen due to increased budgets making PS3/360 games and somehow Wii was the one that was bad for the industry? I don't understand some people's thought process.

Also here are some of the terms used to negatively describe Wii, novelty/gimmick/casual

novelty-the quality of being new, original, or unusual.

gimmick-a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.

casual-relaxed and unconcerned.

So basically when people say these things about Wii, they are calling it a device that uses new, original ideas to attract attention and allow people to play games while relaxing. That sounds like an awesome product to me.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Ka-pi96 said:
super6646 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Price cut doesn't really matter. The Xbox One still started out as the most expensive console, so no the most expensive console still won't win.

Most powerful though? Yeah, it's the first time but that's not a bad thing. Previous consoles won because they had great games, not because of power. Hopefully when all is said and done we can say that the PS4 won because of great games as well.

The SNES won the 4th gen, and it was the most powerful console.

The Neo Geo was definitely more powerful than the SNES. And even if you don't want to include that I thought the Mega Drive was widely considered to be more powerful than the SNES as well.


Sorry. I forgot lol. Anyway i just knew the SNES was more powerful than the Sega Gensisis.



Ka-pi96 said:
super6646 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Price cut doesn't really matter. The Xbox One still started out as the most expensive console, so no the most expensive console still won't win.

Most powerful though? Yeah, it's the first time but that's not a bad thing. Previous consoles won because they had great games, not because of power. Hopefully when all is said and done we can say that the PS4 won because of great games as well.

The SNES won the 4th gen, and it was the most powerful console.

The Neo Geo was definitely more powerful than the SNES. And even if you don't want to include that I thought the Mega Drive was widely considered to be more powerful than the SNES as well.

I'm pretty sure SNES was more powerful than Genesis overall, although Genesis did outperform it in certain areas like CPU speed or "Blast Processing"



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
zorg1000 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

The Neo Geo was definitely more powerful than the SNES. And even if you don't want to include that I thought the Mega Drive was widely considered to be more powerful than the SNES as well.

I'm pretty sure SNES was more powerful than Genesis overall, although Genesis did outperform it in certain areas like CPU speed or "Blast Processing"

The SNES was indeed more powerful overall, and yes, the clock speed of the CPU was only about half of the one that was in the Genesis/Mega Drive. But with the rest of the SNES being much more capable than Sega's console, it's really no contest.

Although Ka-pi is right that Sega's console was widely considered to be more powerful. Gamers are gullible.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

foxtail said:
DonFerrari said:


The gap between the launch of ps2 and gc was big so they having the cut at the same time shows gc dropped faster even though being 100 (33%) cheaper. That didn't help it against ps2 and not even against the newcomer Xbox.

The $100 PS2 price cut was an aggressive move initiated by Sony to stop the Gamecube and Xbox from gaining any momentum.  It was even called an aggressive move in Sony's own press release.

Nintendo and MS had no choice but to follow suit with price cuts of their own.  The PS2 had sold 28.68 Million worldwide as of March 31 2002.

The PS2 price cut was made on May 14th, 2002.  The Gamecube price cut was made on May 21, 2002 - the Xbox price cut was made on May 15, 2002.  Sony caused the deep price cuts early on in the life of the Gamecube and Xbox, not Nintendo or MS.

Almost outselling their Lt even before the pricecut.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
foxtail said:

The $100 PS2 price cut was an aggressive move initiated by Sony to stop the Gamecube and Xbox from gaining any momentum.  It was even called an aggressive move in Sony's own press release.

Nintendo and MS had no choice but to follow suit with price cuts of their own.  The PS2 had sold 28.68 Million worldwide as of March 31 2002.

The PS2 price cut was made on May 14th, 2002.  The Gamecube price cut was made on May 21, 2002 - the Xbox price cut was made on May 15, 2002.  Sony caused the deep price cuts early on in the life of the Gamecube and Xbox, not Nintendo or MS.

Almost outselling their Lt even before the pricecut.

And that is somehow relevant?



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

DonFerrari said:
foxtail said:

The $100 PS2 price cut was an aggressive move initiated by Sony to stop the Gamecube and Xbox from gaining any momentum.  It was even called an aggressive move in Sony's own press release.

Nintendo and MS had no choice but to follow suit with price cuts of their own.  The PS2 had sold 28.68 Million worldwide as of March 31, 2002.

The PS2 price cut was made on May 14th, 2002.  The Gamecube price cut was made on May 21, 2002 - the Xbox price cut was made on May 15, 2002.  Sony caused the deep price cuts early on in the life of the Gamecube and Xbox, not Nintendo or MS.

Almost outselling their Lt even before the pricecut.

The PS2 had been out 24 months by March 31, 2002 (when it had sold 28.68 M) - a full 2 years on the market.  

By the time the Gamecube was launched in each region (i.e. Japan, N.A. and Europe), the PS2 had already sold 24.18 Million units total (WW) within those regions (6.85-JP/8.55-NA/8.78-EU).

From the time of Gamecube's WW launch dates to the date of March 31, 2002, the PS2 sold only 4.5 Million units more (28.68M minus 24.18M = 4.5 Million).

In that same timeframe by March 31, 2002 the Gamecube sold 3.80 Million units Worldwide.

4.5M PS2 sold minus 3.8M Gamecube sold equals  0.7 Million difference. (4.5 - 3.8 = 0.7).

With only a 0.7 Million difference in sales between the PS2 and Gamecube Sony had something to worry about.  That's the reason for the aggressive $100 price cut from Sony.



zorg1000 said:
DonFerrari said:

Almost outselling their Lt even before the pricecut.

And that is somehow relevant?

If the Idea was to point that lower price is the biggest reason for sales then ps2 selling at 299 more than gc would sell for life while being Always alot lower than that is quite telling.

 

Also when WiiU in 1 year at 299 lose to ps4 399 in like 4 months you know the concept is wrong. You can say the better perceived value matters, price just can't be excessive. And this also disproves gc was cheaper to make. Unless you believe they dropped 66% of the price on like 2 years and also disprove Nintendo never sell hw at a loss (which they done with 3DS). Is just that they learnt that playing pricewar with PlayStation is useless.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994