CGI-Quality said:
Zoombael said:
Technically its wrong no matter what angle. The one reason why PS3 wasnt as successful as Sony hoped was the launch price, resp. the need to push a new expensive, physical medium and the huge losses it caused. The PS3 was the most expensive Playstation system and the most expensive commercially successful console. Something that was absent with all the other systems. So it cant be the price making the PS4 we got so much better than this imaginary, hypothetical, non existent alternative. Hypothetically, if Sony hadnt had to deal with a crisis of historic proportions, the choice of hardware could ve been different, could ve been subsidized, a little bit more juice...
I'm under the impression, the gamer of today is heavily brainwashed into deeming everything else more important than what really counts. The games. And what we see now with PS4 is the continuation (partially literally) of preceding generations. Hardly, this cant be it either.
Accessibilty? Sony was fully aware of the fact that game development became more and more complex, time and money consuming, since, you know, they are themselves heavily involved in producing videogames. Maybe not same approach to make the lifes of devs easier... maybe just... continuation of what was already available.
...
|
What you say has a lot of thought put into it, but it doesn't actually defeat the bottom line. No matter how you slice it, Microsoft's advantages over Sony had a profound impact on how they approached the PS4. You can surf for every excuse in the book, or proclaim what would have been different had Sony done A instead of B. Fact is, those things happened and most of it (the key variables that caused the PS3 [and Sony] so much grief) were Sony's own fault. Microsoft (and Nintendo) capitalized on their missteps - forcing them to rethink their business.
That is where he had a point.
|
Except it wasnt the point.
I qoute:
"The lack of domination Sony was used to with the PS3 surely helped themake a much better console with PS4. Turns out competition is good."
Asserting, without the "good competition" the PS3 successor wouldnt be as good as what we have now. As a matter of fact "helped themake a MUCH BETTER CONSOLE".
I proclaim? It is you and LudicrousSpeed who proclaim what we got now is much better than what could have been if it wasnt for MS (and enter Nintendo - whoops.. where did they come from all over sudden) without providing a sound base to your claims. Nothing official or substantial logic and reasoning. I repeat myself: elaborate.
I on the other do provide at least logical, comprehensible arguments, not based on looking into a crystal ball, but on what Sony actually did the preceeding three generations, from the moment they entered the business.
flashfire926 said:
AlfredoTurkey said:
I don't think you can compare a console from 2013-17 and a console from the early 90's without adjusting for the size of the industry. Selling 40 million units in 1993 would be like selling 150 million or something now.
so selling over 40 million consoles is a failure.....
whatever you say man.
Yes, it is. As always, it has to be put into relation. MS planned to sell 200 mio. And this wide gap between vision and realtity makes it a fail.
- 
