By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Sony did with PS3 what history told it not to do.

perpride on 16 May 2009
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
outlawauron said:
Jereel Hunter said:
SmokedHostage said:
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?

It's like the PS2/GC debate. While the GC had better tech, PS2 games still looked better.

F-Zero GX would like a word with you. As would Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime.

 

MGS3, FFXII and God of War 2 say hello back.



Around the Network
Majin-Tenshinhan on 16 May 2009
perpride said:
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
outlawauron said:
Jereel Hunter said:
SmokedHostage said:
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?

It's like the PS2/GC debate. While the GC had better tech, PS2 games still looked better.

F-Zero GX would like a word with you. As would Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime.

 

MGS3, FFXII and God of War 2 say hello back.

I've played all three of those games, and I certainly don't think they look better graphically. Possibly MGS3...



NJ5 on 16 May 2009

You can't compare God of War graphically with most games. It has a fixed/sliding camera, which greatly eases the addition of detail to the scene (the back side of objects doesn't have to be drawn, and probably a lot of other optimizations based on the assumption that the camera can only be in a number of places.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

freedquaker on 16 May 2009
SmokedHostage said:
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.

 

   N64 can be considered more powerful than PS1, but it was very hard to utilize the whole potential out of it.

 - Its GPU was more powerful but didnt have the polygon power ps1 had. Games usually looked too soft & blurred due to extreme compression (again because of capacity limitations), and memory limits. The environments also lacked variability.

- Its CPU was far more poweful but confined by the limitations of its GPU, memory and capacity

- Its Sound capabilities were as good as PS1 but this hardly ever showed up due to cartdridge limitations.

- Many multi-platform games sucked at N64 due to capacity limitations (like missing levels, inferior sounds, no cinematics etc.)

 

   Saturn is not more powerful than PS1 in absolute terms, though it was superior and inferior in some aspects.

- Its double cpus were more powerful together but most programmers used only one of them, which made it look inferior.

- Its sound capabilities were better but didnt make much difference in that day's environment.

- Its GPU memory was superior, but this was hardly ever used due to poor 3D performance of the system.

- Its loadings were considerably lower due extra buffer memory, and slightly faster CD-rom drive.

- Its GPU had better 2D performance (which is why there were a lot of first gen. 2D fighting games) but it need heavy utilization of both CPUs to get a similiar 3D performance (which rarely happened by third party firms) due to much weaker 3D performance of the GPU.

 



Playstation 5 vs XBox Series Market Share Estimates

Regional Analysis  (only MS and Sony Consoles)
Europe     => XB1 : 23-24 % vs PS4 : 76-77%
N. America => XB1 :  49-52% vs PS4 : 48-51%
Global     => XB1 :  32-34% vs PS4 : 66-68%

Sales Estimations for 8th Generation Consoles

Next Gen Consoles Impressions and Estimates

GameAnalyser on 16 May 2009
morpheusx said:
dolemit3 said:
I didn't know that N64 was more powerful than PS1, how so?

Not only was the N64 "graphically" more powerful then the PS1, but the Sega Saturn was as well.

Sony locked up the right exclusives (the ones that mattered) that generation (tomb raider, Crash Bandicoot, MGS, as well as introduced some great franchises like Gran Turismo)

The only way the PS1 beats the N64 was in the storage department as a CDROM holds alot more data as the largest cartridge.

If u consider the statements in bold above, the same can be applied for the two current gen consoles. Removing  Nintendo this time from them, we can guess  which are those 2 consoles. Leaving it to the fanboys!! 

 



Around the Network
mjc2021 on 16 May 2009
account2099 said:

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......


The biggest problem with the N64 was it used cartridges. Publishing games on it was much more expensive and a bigger risk. If it used CDs it would have had much more support and success.

The PS1 dominating the market paved the way for PS2 to be a success. It was launched at a fair price, it had a DVD player, and once again it had the best 3rd party support.

The PS3 didn't fail because its the most powerful machine, it failed because its too expensive. They should have just made it equal to the 360 had won another console war. PS1 and PS2 launched for $300 and were $200 after about a year or two. The PS3 has been out for about 3 years and it's still more expensive than the PS1 and PS2 launch price.



ctk495 on 16 May 2009

The Wii was the weaker system and it won.



mjc2021 on 16 May 2009
ctk495 said:
The Wii was the weaker system and it won.

Its the control and reasonable price that really sells the console. Doesn't seem to be doing a good job moving 3rd party games though. At least not nearly as well as the HD consoles.

outlawauron on 16 May 2009
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
perpride said:
Majin-Tenshinhan said:
outlawauron said:
Jereel Hunter said:
SmokedHostage said:
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?

It's like the PS2/GC debate. While the GC had better tech, PS2 games still looked better.

F-Zero GX would like a word with you. As would Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime.

MGS3, FFXII and God of War 2 say hello back.

I've played all three of those games, and I certainly don't think they look better graphically. Possibly MGS3...

Shadow of Colossus also doesn't want to be left out.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Acevil on 16 May 2009
Dgc1808 said:
If we go by History, they were screwed no matter what...

You win twice then you're done... the next gen...

Atari 2600
Atari 7800
NES
SNES
PS1
PS2

 

Good thing this rule doesn't apply to the handhelds.