twintail said:
| Wyrdness said:
No I said the GBA decline happened because of the PSP in general.
Mega Drive sold around 40m units, a full 30m more units then its predecessor, it wasn't just potential it was Sega gearing up to eventually become market leader in the long run. The SNES sold about 50m, when you factor in the sales of Master System to NES was 10m to 60m they closed the gap heavily and it highlights the was another viable platform, Mega Drive also ended its run in 94 as opposed the SNES ending its run in 96 the latter was active for an extra two years.
Again storage is a fundamental problem yes but it's not the sole source of the PS1's triumph, the cause of it was simply that it got what other platforms didn't a clear shot at success due to both Sega and Nintendo cocking up. Sony began making those deals because they were taking note of the situation, they saw the Saturn sink like a stone leaving them the only platform for 3D games, those deals highlight the format alone was not the main factor in moving developers early on even with its advantages as the Saturn also used CDs.
They were smart enough to realize that developers may still opt for the N64 regardless because of their legacy so began doing those deals, when the PS1 achieved mainstream success it was easier for developers to move over to PS1 after all 30m at the launch of the N64 is over half of what the SNES had sold.
|
*shrugs* If you dont think Nintendo/ DS played a strong role in the GBA decline then I guess you are free to belive that.
SNES launched 2 years later too so ultimately that evens out. Genesis did a good job but Nintendo still retained its major 3rd party support.
Saturn was selling well in Japan. SEGA's issue was rying to get ahead of Sony in the US market and rushed out their launch.
SEGA went to E3 in 1994 and announced the Saturn would be available the very same day. Sony said they would be 100$ cheaper later in the year.
What screwed over SEGA was the cheaper PS1 price but also no one besides SEGA themselves knowing of the quick Saturn launch. That is how they lost dev and pub support. It is how they lost retailer support. Sony were acquiring 3rd parties well before they launched the PS1 because they had no real internal studios. So no, you are wrong in thinking that Sony 'saw the Saturn sink like a stone' because that is not true.
Of course the format alone was not the sole reason. But it played the major role. Which is true.
There is no real evidence that a 2 year led to the failure of the N64. It is part of a larger equation but a small part.
Genesis and SNES proves that Nintendo could be 2 years late and still be competetive.
When you have a dev like Square actively say they switched because of the format N64 chose, and would go on to making some of the most defining titles for the PS1 and the generation, you can see where the issue lay for Nintendo. Games move hardware. And devs were just finding it easier to put their games onto CD's at that point.
|
You're right, actually people need to understand this in the 80s/90s the Ninendo brand was what the Playstation brand is now, basically.
Nintendo = the most games, the most developers, the most software support.
You bought a Nintendo because you did not want to be locked out of key franchises.
Even with the N64, a lot of my friends didn't understand why it didn't have the range of games the NES and SNES had ... because they didn't understand the differences in cartridge to CD-ROM technology as far as the business model went. A lot of people bought an N64 thinking it would be similar to the Super NES and why not, they had no reason not to think that.
