N64 was more powerful then PS1. PS1 won.

Xbox was more powerful then PS2. PS2 won.

History has shown that the most powerful tech doesnt win because it usually leads to a higher price point. Sony was smart to make decent but not the best tech so it was mass market friendly and not as costly as optimizing for the more powerful consoles.

Now Sony seemingly spits in histories face with PS3. They make the most powerful tech and therefore have the highest asking price. To make it worse they came out a year after 360. I dont understand why Sony didnt stick to their winning formula.

My guess they thought the Bluray war was more important then video game market share, I dont know......

I didn't know that N64 was more powerful than PS1, how so?

History has shown that PlayStation always wins in the console market...

Oh wait...

 a 64 bit console vs a 32 bit console? cmon man...............

Your quess was mentioned before in other threads for the likely reason. I agree. They won one war and lost another because of it.

 they won with a mass market price and decent but not the best tech. PS3 is the polar opposite of what PS1 and PS2 stood for.

So ya ur kinda aggreeing with me.

What do you mean how so? It just is. Just like PS3 is more powerful than Wii. And GC is more powerful than PS2. They're facts.

The N64 and Saturn were more powerful than the PS1.. BUT!

The N64's catridge format was limiting, also the N64's cache was its Achille's heel.

Also the Saturn was too difficult to program on and few developers used all it's processing power.

So I'm still unclear, are you trying to back up his argument or oppose it?

I'll just leaving you guessing.. for the fun of it.