Have You Noticed How Consoles With More Power Never Wins?

Sega Saturn vs. N64 vs. the PS1............WINNER PS1

Gamecube vs. XBOX vs. PS2................WINNER PS2

DS vs. PSP............................................WINNER DS

XBOX 360 vs. Wii vs. PS3....................WINNER __________. (You fill in the blank).

Notice a trend?

Why does this happen though? It's common sense to conclude that the console with the most power should destroy the competition but history proves that's not the case. The DS vs. the PSP is probably one of the biggest upsets in video game history. How can the weaker DS destroy the more powerful PSP? David and Goliath? Detroit Pistons winning the Lakers even when Lakers had Shaq, Kobi, Malone, and Payton?

This isn't really a system war question but it's more about understanding how all this works? How can a weaker system beat a more powerful one? And it looks like the PS3 is about to repeat history. Makes no sense at the same time, it does.

Opinions and discussions please.

Playstation 1 had good timing. Year head start. More developer support because of cd format. Sega saturn just dropped without any marketing. Dropped it the next day after it was announced and it was like 400 dollars.

Same with ps2...had good timing due to sega's death. Gamecube and xbox came a year later. And sony came with the dvd format.

and snes was technically more powerful than sega and they won eventually.

This time i don't know what is going to happen. You have a new format with sony but this time they came out a year later after the competetion
slystallion26

Most claim that the 360 is the most powerful.

Nike_Air

What about the SNES, it was the most powerful of it's gen and it won.Master_Hermes

Sega Saturn vs. N64 vs. the PS1............WINNER PS1

Gamecube vs. XBOX vs. PS2................WINNER PS2

DS vs. PSP............................................WINNER DS

XBOX 360 vs. Wii vs. PS3....................WINNER __________. (You fill in the blank).

Notice a trend?

Why does this happen though? It's common sense to conclude that the console with the most power should destroy the competition but history proves that's not the case. The DS vs. the PSP is probably one of the biggest upsets in video game history. How can the weaker DS destroy the more powerful PSP? David and Goliath? Detroit Pistons winning the Lakers even when Lakers had Shaq, Kobi, Malone, and Payton?

This isn't really a system war question but it's more about understanding how all this works? How can a weaker system beat a more powerful one? And it looks like the PS3 is about to repeat history. Makes no sense at the same time, it does.

Opinions and discussions please.

ASK_Story

Conceded, except possibly the first example, where it can be argued that the PS1 had superior technolog if for no other factor than its CD-ROM.

[QUOTE="Nike_Air"]Most claim that the 360 is the most powerful.

afroTunder

i love when logic backfires ;)

[QUOTE="afroTunder"][QUOTE="Nike_Air"]Most claim that the 360 is the most powerful.

useLOGIC

i love when logic backfires ;)

[QUOTE="useLOGIC"]

[QUOTE="afroTunder"][QUOTE="Nike_Air"]Most claim that the 360 is the most powerful.

AvinashTyagi

i love when logic backfires ;)

[QUOTE="useLOGIC"]

[QUOTE="afroTunder"][QUOTE="Nike_Air"]Most claim that the 360 is the most powerful.

AvinashTyagi

i love when logic backfires ;)

[QUOTE="useLOGIC"]

[QUOTE="afroTunder"][QUOTE="Nike_Air"]Most claim that the 360 is the most powerful.

AvinashTyagi

i love when logic backfires ;)

i think itll do well for a while... i just dont think wiimotes are practical for every game.

that is all opinion, imo
n64 vs ps1-winner-n64
gc vs xbox vs ps2-winner-xbox
360 vs wii vs ps3-winner-360
thefman

[QUOTE="thefman"]that is all opinion, imo
n64 vs ps1-winner-n64
gc vs xbox vs ps2-winner-xbox
360 vs wii vs ps3-winner-360
Japanese_Monk

since number of critically acclaimed games doesnt matter either

/sarcasm

[QUOTE="thefman"]that is all opinion, imo
n64 vs ps1-winner-n64
gc vs xbox vs ps2-winner-xbox
360 vs wii vs ps3-winner-360
R-Dot-Yung

[QUOTE="AvinashTyagi"][QUOTE="useLOGIC"]

[QUOTE="afroTunder"][QUOTE="Nike_Air"]Most claim that the 360 is the most powerful.

useLOGIC

i love when logic backfires ;)

i think itll do well for a while... i just dont think wiimotes are practical for every game.

[QUOTE="AvinashTyagi"][QUOTE="useLOGIC"]

[QUOTE="afroTunder"][QUOTE="Nike_Air"]Most claim that the 360 is the most powerful.

afroTunder

i love when logic backfires ;)

that is all opinion, imo
n64 vs ps1-winner-n64
gc vs xbox vs ps2-winner-xbox
360 vs wii vs ps3-winner-360
thefman

[QUOTE="AvinashTyagi"][QUOTE="useLOGIC"]

[QUOTE="afroTunder"][QUOTE="Nike_Air"]Most claim that the 360 is the most powerful.

carl2tan

i love when logic backfires ;)

correct if I'm wrong, but I thought PS1 was powerful than the Saturn.xxThyLordxx

Yeah, that is correct, however, you notice how usually, if not always, the winner is one of the first to the market? Therefore, by having less time to devolop, usually equals into less power...

Same goes for reason of why winners of Game Boy vs. GameGear, 2600 vs. Intellivision and NES vs. Master System were the ones put in bold.....they were one of the fist, if not the first, to the market...

By the way, if you are asking my opinion, while Dreamcast and Sega Genesis were indeed first to their perspective markets, the reason they did not become number 1, by worldwide basis, is due to the fact each of them launched while the life cycle of previous console(s) were still in their prime...and therefore...most people were not ready for "next generation" of gaming...

On side note, for those who say "but, Sega Genesis was succesful." Yes...yes, it was...however...on worldwide basis...SNES was the winner of the two (and whether or not you like it, worldwise numbers matters more than national, regardless of the fact whether or not USA status in the market).

Besides, while it was indeed successful venture, it did not really reach that point until launch of Sonic...about 2 years after the launch of the system...and more importantly...6 years after the NES had been released and some time before the release of the SNES...

In another words...from my perspective...its obvious that did not really reach success until the prime of the 8-bit era had reached end...

Yeah, that is correct, however, you notice how usually, if not always, the winner is one of the first to the market? Therefore, by having less time to devolop, usually equals into less power...

Same goes for reason of why winners of Game Boy vs. GameGear, 2600 vs. Intellivision and NES vs. Master System were the ones put in bold.....they were one of the fist, if not the first, to the market...

By the way, if you are asking my opinion, while Dreamcast and Sega Genesis were indeed first to their perspective markets, the reason they did not become number 1, by worldwide basis, is due to the fact each of them launched while the life cycle of previous console(s) were still in their prime...and therefore...most people were not ready for "next generation" of gaming...

On side note, for those who say "but, Sega Genesis was succesful." Yes...yes, it was...however...on worldwide basis...SNES was the winner of the two (and whether or not you like it, worldwise numbers matters more than national, regardless of the fact whether or not USA status in the market).

Besides, while it was indeed successful venture, it did not really reach that point until launch of Sonic...about 2 years after the launch of the system...and more importantly...6 years after the NES had been released and some time before the release of the SNES...

In another words...from my perspective...its obvious that did not really reach success until the prime of the 8-bit era had reached end...

 

Link256

actually, historically, the first to market was always the one who lost. TG16,Saturn,Dreamcast, all first all died. The winner has always been the one with the most games(3rd party support).

I've been posting this for years but, he with the most games wins.

That is it, cut and dry.  Casual gamers buy a system based on who has the most games.  More often than not they don't pay attention to who has more "quality" games, they don't come to sites as this, they don't read game magazines, they don't know scores, they buy a system based on 2 things: price of system and who has the most games.

If they go to a local store and system A has one rack and system 2 has 3 racks, they will choose system 2.   Let's face it, if you know nothing of games, you assume there will be something to apeal to you out of 3 racks more than 1 rack.

That would be the reason that usually he who launches first succeeds, because he also has the most games :)

PS2 pretty much owes all of it's success to this.  Both systems that came out later were better.  Yet Ps2 had a years jump (meaning a years more games), because PS2 had such a big market share, developers continued to make many games for the system, which led to new users buying the system.

It goes hand in hand, buyers equals games, equals new buyers ,equals more games etc etc etc

I actually think that graphics vs. price will have a larger impact on this gen. The wii has very inferior graphics compared to the ps3 and the xbox360, something which has almost never been the case in a console race. Also, the price points are really different, with around a 250% increase of price from lowest to highest point.

[QUOTE="Link256"]

Yeah, that is correct, however, you notice how usually, if not always, the winner is one of the first to the market? Therefore, by having less time to devolop, usually equals into less power...

Same goes for reason of why winners of Game Boy vs. GameGear, 2600 vs. Intellivision and NES vs. Master System were the ones put in bold.....they were one of the fist, if not the first, to the market...

By the way, if you are asking my opinion, while Dreamcast and Sega Genesis were indeed first to their perspective markets, the reason they did not become number 1, by worldwide basis, is due to the fact each of them launched while the life cycle of previous console(s) were still in their prime...and therefore...most people were not ready for "next generation" of gaming...

On side note, for those who say "but, Sega Genesis was succesful." Yes...yes, it was...however...on worldwide basis...SNES was the winner of the two (and whether or not you like it, worldwise numbers matters more than national, regardless of the fact whether or not USA status in the market).

Besides, while it was indeed successful venture, it did not really reach that point until launch of Sonic...about 2 years after the launch of the system...and more importantly...6 years after the NES had been released and some time before the release of the SNES...

In another words...from my perspective...its obvious that did not really reach success until the prime of the 8-bit era had reached end...mazdero

After all, hints why I said "you notice how usually, if not always, the winner is one of the first to the market. To be simple, one of the first does not necessarily mean the first...

Also, exception to the Sega Saturn, one of the main reasons most of those console failed, beyond lack of titles that you mentioned (among other factors), from my perspective, is due to the fact that they had bad timing.....they were trying to be "next gen" when people, at the perpsective time frames, were happy playing with the "current gen" hardware system(s) that was still consider to be in their prime.....

Sega Saturn vs. N64 vs. the PS1............WINNER PS1

Gamecube vs. XBOX vs. PS2................WINNER PS2

DS vs. PSP............................................WINNER DS

XBOX 360 vs. Wii vs. PS3....................WINNER __________. (You fill in the blank).

Notice a trend?

Why does this happen though? It's common sense to conclude that the console with the most power should destroy the competition but history proves that's not the case. The DS vs. the PSP is probably one of the biggest upsets in video game history. How can the weaker DS destroy the more powerful PSP? David and Goliath? Detroit Pistons winning the Lakers even when Lakers had Shaq, Kobi, Malone, and Payton?

This isn't really a system war question but it's more about understanding how all this works? How can a weaker system beat a more powerful one? And it looks like the PS3 is about to repeat history. Makes no sense at the same time, it does.

Opinions and discussions please.

ASK_Story

Most claim that the 360 is the most powerful.

Nike_Air

Sega Saturn vs. N64 vs. the PS1............WINNER PS1

Gamecube vs. XBOX vs. PS2................WINNER PS2

DS vs. PSP............................................WINNER DS

XBOX 360 vs. Wii vs. PS3....................WINNER __________. (You fill in the blank).

Notice a trend?

ASK_Story

This is why you never see scientists posting in a message forum.  They know that two piece of data correlate without actually being a cause/effect.

There are a dozen different reasons the most powerful console doesn't "win" and none of them have to do with being the most powerful.   Timing, amount of games, game diversity, price, mainstream appeal, consumer confidence, willingness to buy more than one console, support, etc, etc, etc.

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

Sega Saturn vs. N64 vs. the PS1............WINNER PS1

Gamecube vs. XBOX vs. PS2................WINNER PS2

DS vs. PSP............................................WINNER DS

XBOX 360 vs. Wii vs. PS3....................WINNER __________. (You fill in the blank).

Notice a trend?

Rosencrantz

This is why you never see scientists posting in a message forum.  They know that two piece of data correlate without actually being a cause/effect.

There are a dozen different reasons the most powerful console doesn't "win" and none of them have to do with being the most powerful.   Timing, amount of games, game diversity, price, mainstream appeal, consumer confidence, willingness to buy more than one console, support, etc, etc, etc.

[QUOTE="mazdero"][QUOTE="Link256"]

Yeah, that is correct, however, you notice how usually, if not always, the winner is one of the first to the market? Therefore, by having less time to devolop, usually equals into less power...

Same goes for reason of why winners of Game Boy vs. GameGear, 2600 vs. Intellivision and NES vs. Master System were the ones put in bold.....they were one of the fist, if not the first, to the market...

By the way, if you are asking my opinion, while Dreamcast and Sega Genesis were indeed first to their perspective markets, the reason they did not become number 1, by worldwide basis, is due to the fact each of them launched while the life cycle of previous console(s) were still in their prime...and therefore...most people were not ready for "next generation" of gaming...

On side note, for those who say "but, Sega Genesis was succesful." Yes...yes, it was...however...on worldwide basis...SNES was the winner of the two (and whether or not you like it, worldwise numbers matters more than national, regardless of the fact whether or not USA status in the market).

Besides, while it was indeed successful venture, it did not really reach that point until launch of Sonic...about 2 years after the launch of the system...and more importantly...6 years after the NES had been released and some time before the release of the SNES...

In another words...from my perspective...its obvious that did not really reach success until the prime of the 8-bit era had reached end...Link256

After all, hints why I said "you notice how usually, if not always, the winner is one of the first to the market. To be simple, one of the first does not necessarily mean the first...

Also, exception to the Sega Saturn, one of the main reasons most of those console failed, beyond lack of titles that you mentioned (among other factors), from my perspective, is due to the fact that they had bad timing.....they were trying to be "next gen" when people, at the perpsective time frames, were happy playing with the "current gen" hardware system(s) that was still consider to be in their prime.....

Well, less powerful = smaller price = more user buying that console = more 3rd party support for that console.haris12121212

Well, less powerful = smaller price = more user buying that console = more 3rd party support for that console.haris12121212

The PS2 was the most powerful at the time it came out, and it won. Sure, M$ and Nintendo joined later, but Sony had one hell of a machine that is still WELL ALIVE today, and outlasted the Xbox, GC, and Dreamcast, with plenty more AAA titles coming still!

That is just remarkable for those that gambled with the Early DVD rom adopting Sony.