Lulz, by the TC's logic thats a bullseye. thats why topic = failed.

I'm sorry but proccesing power has no relation to sales . Price point and functionality which are in some ways related to processing power may but your not going to find any real corelation between processing power and sales performance.

Well, I'm not sure about how you're judging 'power' but yes history shows simply having 'power' doesn't mean win for consoles.

What I find interesting with PS3/360 is they seem to have pushed console power the most compared to PCs. As such I feel both were 'too' powerful to have much chance of winning when they launched, and that both are actually gaining a fair number of ex-PC players rather than scoping up lots of PS2 owners. Judging by sales many of those have gone with a Wii or are still on their PS2.

The thread proves there is a lot more to winning the generation the console power, but that is true in everything, Beta max was technically better than VHS but VHS one, Apple VS Windows, Apple is a better operating system but Windows one, its true in a lot more places than gaming that the best dosent always win

The PC-Engine (Turbografx in US and EU ) was weaker that the Snes and MD.And it didnt win .

And Ipod was never the mp3 player with the best specs but look how that turned out

playstation 1 was not the weakest its was very powerful in that past gen

Its true ...the generation of the PSX-Saturn-N64 also had other runners as the 3DO ,Atari Jaguar ,Commodore CD32 ,Nc Pc-FX ....the PSX was the second best of the generation after the N64 (and only because the N64 appeared a whole 2 years later) not the weakest .And ,having in count it had a geometric coprocessor (the Reality Syntetizer ,oddly enough named the same as the PS3 one) for 3D graphics it could be argued its processing power was way beyond the Saturn.

Out of the main 3 it WAS the weakest. I already explained it in my first post. If you count smaller consoles that didn't even pass 1mln sales then no it wasn't the weakest, but out of the PS, Saturn, and N64 it was.

The PSX was way more powerful that the Saturn.Everybody just adds the two Saturn CPU to make it compete with the PSX single CPU ,but everybody seems to forget the PSX had a geometric 3D processor to make 3d graphics and the Saturn had none.And that the two Saturn CPUS could hardly be exploited toghether.Even if they could ,the PSX 3d coprocesor just made the machine more powerful ,and it shows ....look at all the multiplattform games of the time ,the PSX version was always a better ,more solid version ....except in some 2d games in wich the Saturn used its extra Ram cartridge and managed some extra details and frames (very slight benefit specially compared to the very sensible diference in 3D games ).