What wins a console generation? Power? *spawn

[Deleted member 13524]

'Most powerful console' rarely wins

Rarely?
We have 9 generations of consoles at the moment, where 2 of the first were really just a chaos of startups that mostly died off within a couple of years and most didn't transition to the next generation.
From the 7 remaining:

3rd gen: winner NES, not the most powerful
4th gen: winner SNES, arguably the most powerful because of faster CPU and graphics co-processors added to cartridges
5th gen: winner PlayStation, not the most powerful
6th gen: winner PS2, not the most powerful
7th gen: winner Wii, though at this point Nintendo decided to stop competing in the same market as Sony and Microsoft so it's questionnable whether Nintendo won or Microsoft did with a more powerful X360.
8th gen: winner PS4, the most powerful.

So out of 7 generations, the most powerful (i.e. the console capable of showing the prettiest graphics) won at least twice, and if we're to assume Nintendo isn't catering to the same market as the other two then it would be 3 out 7.
The most powerful console is getting between 29% and 43% of generational wins. Hardly what you'd call "rarely".

In fact, if we discount the Wii then in the last two generations (14 years) the most sold title went to the most powerful console, even to the point of breaking through the inertia of making people change sides.
The most powerful X360 stole tens of millions of PS2 gamers to Microsoft's side despite a much weaker lineup of exclusives, and then the most powerful PS4 stole tens of millions of X360 gamers to Sony's side.


Sure, it's not everything, but it seems to me people are clearly underestimating the ability to show the prettier pictures and videos in ads, plus the general word-of-mouth percpetion of being the most powerful to the ultimate success of a console.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

2 out of 7 is fairly rare, with with such small sampling meaning noise counts for a lot. And the 43% option is silly because 360 didn't win - it was too close to call, plus it's debatable which was the most powerful console, especially in consumer mindshare. If people thought the PS3 was the most powerful, whether it was or not, then that'd be a count against the most powerful winning. Or for, if you want to count PS3's faster selling and shorter time on market. Or less, if you want to count PS3 as less powerful...that generation is too muddled to have any meaingful interpretations.

The key point is putting out the most powerful console doesn't win you the market. Being able to say, "we have the most powerful console," does not get you the sales. Does it help? Course it does - every sales point helps. Does it secure you the win? No.

 

[Svensk Viking]

This is purely my thoughts and I don't have any data for it, but I do think that it's important to keep in mind the time between the consoles' releases, and how they were perceived at the time of release. The PS2 was released one year before the Gamecube and Xbox, and the average joe was generally impressed with the graphics, playing MGS2 or GTA3 had the wow-effect on people. When the competition eventually hit, people knew the Xbox was stronger, but few of the mainstream considered the PS2 as "weak". The same was true for the PS1.
My impression is that the Wii and Wii U were the only consoles everyone knew were genuinely weak already when they were released.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

And the 43% option is silly because 360 didn't win - it was too close to call,

IMO it's silly not to call X360's win a win.
With a previous 155 Million PS2 vs. 24 million XBox, during the 7th gen Microsoft moved that to 80 million PS3 vs. 84 million X360.
With the Wii being its own thing without most 3rd party giants, Microsoft successfully poached over half or the PS2's userbase.

plus it's debatable which was the most powerful console, especially in consumer mindshare. If people thought the PS3 was the most powerful, whether it was or not, then that'd be a count against the most powerful winning. Or for, if you want to count PS3's faster selling and shorter time on market. Or less, if you want to count PS3 as less powerful...that generation is too muddled to have any meaingful interpretations.

You're listing a number of questionable and subjective perceptions, whereas I'm talking about side-to-side comparisons of 3rd-party titles consistently showing noticeable better framerates and/or graphics on the X360 version.
There's nothing muddled when the heavy majority of 3rd party titles on side-by-side comparisons show either better framerates at similar IQ, better IQ at similar framerates or better IQ with better framerates on the X360 version.

The key point is putting out the most powerful console doesn't win you the market. Being able to say, "we have the most powerful console," does not get you the sales. Does it help? Course it does - every sales point helps. Does it secure you the win? No.

There's this say about sex in relationships.
Sex is about 20% of a relationship. Unless there's no sex in the couple's life, which then sex becomes about 80% of the relationship.

I think this applies to many things, and we should give it a pompous name like "Law of the Least Admissable Score on All Criteria".

A strong exclusive lineup is about 20% of the choice for a new console. Unless that console's exclusive lineup is so anemic (e.g. OG XBox) that you won't choose it no matter how strong it is in everything else.
The console's ability to draw pretty pixels is 30% of the choice for a new console. Unless that console is so underpowered and the graphics are so dated (e.g. Wii U) that you won't choose it no matter great it is in everything else.
One could say the Wii was the only exception, but I'd argue that the Wii didn't compete in the same terms and opened its own market for Nintendo (who eventually transitioned to tablets and smartphones).

 

[Nisaaru]

It makes no real sense to compare them without a real established console market till the the mid 2k. Before it were more or less chaotic with new comers, irregular timing and companies without the global resources.

Sega, Atari, Commodore all lacked cash to compete. I consider Nintendo's Wii a freak accident which was a blatant cash grab by reselling the Wii HW but apparently its gimmick attracted some. Afaik it only really made money for Nintendo games than with licenses.

To me only 360/PS3 and followups really count here.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You're listing a number of questionable and subjective perceptions, whereas I'm talking about side-to-side comparisons of 3rd-party titles consistently showing noticeable better framerates and/or graphics on the X360 version.

I'm happy to accept XB360 was the most powerful. However, I don't think the buying public, those who didn't follow this new Digital Foundry thing and instead heard about the supercomputer-on-a-chip Cell, considered 360 the most powerful and bought it because it was the most powerful.

And when it comes to XB360's victory, as I say, it's hugely muddled (ignoring even the unclear sales numbers and fact they were close enough that it doesn't matter who inched out in the end). PS3's price was a massive factor. If XB360's wasn't the most powerful and the graphics situation was reversed, it'd almost certainly have still sold in the 80 million ballpark because of price, games, and services.

I think this applies to many things, and we should give it a pompous name like "Law of the Least Admissable Score on All Criteria".

Doesn't that effectively state that the most powerful console isn't necessarily a win? As long as you aren't grossly underpowered, you provide a viable option.

And as Wii illustrates, a better law is the value of one part is immaterial next to the value of the whole. People buy a console, a full game experience from the shape and colour of the box to the price to the controllers to the interface to the games and library to the graphics to the connectivity to the game services to the peripherals and anything else I've missed. No one factor can trump all the others and there's no point considering any in isolation when analysing past victories in an attempt to predict what makes a winning machine. I mean, 43% of generation winners had the strongest Southern European Plumber presence - does that not mean that continental blue-collar workers are makes a successful console? 3/7 consoles were grey and one was white. Does that mean the palest console wins?

 

[zed]

Microsoft moved that to 80 million PS3 vs. 84 million X360.

PlayStation 3 Sony 2006 >87.4 million [note 1]
Xbox 360 Microsoft 2005 >84 million [note 3]

From wikipedia

 

[bgroovy]

IMO it's silly not to call X360's win a win.

I think it's silly to award the third place console the win.

 

[Rangers]

The answer to the OP is "no", but I believe it's not that simple. I think it's more that:

-Given decent market penetration and third party support, launch timing (this kind of disqualified 2001 Xbox, as MS was just getting into the market and introducing themselves to consumers etc)
-Decently similar pricing IE, not more than $100 either way
-We are talking about Xbox and Playstation gamers, what I call "core" gamers. Not Nintendo.
-Sony also has a built in brand advantage overseas

Power then is the most important thing, and there's not a close second.

It's almost disheartening in fact how dominant that one factor is. I'd think noone would care by now, in an age of diminishing returns. Or that 5 or 10% difference wouldn't matter. But it's still just so overwhelming.

But it makes sense, if we ignore exclusives, and I think they are A) very overrated as sales forces (NPD top 10 sellers of 2019 contained no Sony/MS exclusives last I checked) B), viewed by consumers as substitionary (best evidence for this IMO is how easily 360 toppled playstation that gen in the USA). I think a average core consumer sees "Last of Us 2" or "Halo Infinite" as either one works. I think a consumer sees Uncharted or Halo and will be happy with either, it wont make his decision. So, if we ignore exclusives, then if two consoles are priced similarly and you weed out a couple other factors (friends, controller), then the question becomes why on earth WOULDNT you get the most powerful, even if it's only 5%? Thus, even 5% becomes very important.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I'm happy to accept XB360 was the most powerful. However, I don't think the buying public, those who didn't follow this new Digital Foundry thing and instead heard about the supercomputer-on-a-chip Cell, considered 360 the most powerful and bought it because it was the most powerful.

The buying public didn't follow digital foundry. They just googled "PS3 vs X360 myfavoritegame" and several specialty websites that showed comparisons would say the same thing most of the time.

Doesn't that effectively state that the most powerful console isn't necessarily a win? As long as you aren't grossly underpowered, you provide a viable option.

Correct. That was my point.

And as Wii illustrates, a better law is the value of one part is immaterial next to the value of the whole.

I think most of the Wii userbase is gone forever from home consoles. Nintendo managed to capture the casual market and that was great, but those are all gone using ipads and smartphones.
The Switch's waggly stuff is capturing any substantial market, otherwise they wouldn't be launching the Switch Lite. The Switch is just very conveniently alone in the handheld console market.

People buy a console, a full game experience from the shape and colour of the box to the price to the controllers to the interface to the games and library to the graphics to the connectivity to the game services to the peripherals and anything else I've missed. No one factor can trump all the others and there's no point considering any in isolation when analysing past victories in an attempt to predict what makes a winning machine. I mean, 43% of generation winners had the strongest Southern European Plumber presence - does that not mean that continental blue-collar workers are makes a successful console? 3/7 consoles were grey and one was white. Does that mean the palest console wins?

This is very a different statement from "most powerful console rarely wins".

PlayStation 3 Sony 2006 >87.4 million [note 1]
Xbox 360 Microsoft 2005 >84 million [note 3]

I think it's silly to award the third place console the win.

That 87 million PS3 total sales is from 2017. The 84 million X360 is from 2014 and the console continued to be produced up until 2016.
On more equal terms, the PS3 reached 80 million sales in November 2013, whereas the X360 reached that number in the earlier month.

With the PS3 Sony got 56% of PS2's sales. X360 got 350% of OG Xbox's sales.
The X360 was a definite win for Microsoft as it more than tripled Xbox's userbase. The PS3 was a definite loss for Sony as it almost halved Playstation's userbase.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The buying public didn't follow digital foundry. They just googled "PS3 vs X360 myfavoritegame" and several specialty websites that showed comparisons would say the same thing most of the time.

I doubt they (the majority) Googled anything beyond XB360 vs PS3 at best. Mostly they likely asked friends or read articles on their websites of choice such as the Guardian, which didn't go into details of graphical differences. But even if they did, and we accept the populace considered XB360 the most powerful, it didn't particularly win. At best, it was very close - we don't have exact figures and can't be certain which won, and any 'winning' was by such a small margin it barely counts. We can only reliable count 2 out of 7 generations where the most powerful console won.

This is very a different statement from "most powerful console rarely wins".

Why ignore the other half of my sentence?

'Most powerful console' rarely wins; it's a whole bunch of factors​

The only difference in arguments is the one you say is a very different statement explicitly lists a whole bunch of those factors.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I doubt they (the majority) Googled anything beyond XB360 vs PS3 at best. Mostly they likely asked friends or read articles on their websites of choice such as the Guardian, which didn't go into details of graphical differences.

You think the majority of gamers looked at articles from the Guardian or other mainstream media instead of googling for comparisons?
In 2006-2012? Nah.

At best, it was very close - we don't have exact figures and can't be certain which won, and any 'winning' was by such a small margin it barely counts.

The X360 tied on absolute number of consoles sold and achieved a massive victory on market penetration. The PS3 tied on absolute number of consoles and lost almost half of its PS2 followers.

We can only reliable count 2 out of 7 generations where the most powerful console won.

And 2 out of 7 is rare?

Why ignore the other half of my sentence?

'Most powerful console' rarely wins; it's a whole bunch of factors

It's two separate statements, hence the usage of a semicolon. The way it's phrased makes it sound like you're suggesting that having the most powerful console is somehow detrimental to that console's success, since it's "rare" for a console with that title to win a generation.
I still object to that statement.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And 2 out of 7 is rare?

That's semantics. I'm not going to argue my choice of word that really isn't important as it wasn't the meat of my argument. If you want to call it 'uncommon' or whatever, makes no difference to me and doesn't change the point I was making - just making the most powerful console doesn't net you the win and it's dependent on a load of factors.

It's two separate statements, hence the usage of a semicolon.

It's one sentence, the semicolon showing that the second statement is part of the whole idea. If it wasn't, I'd have used a full stop to separate them into two comments.

I still object to that statement.

Okay. That wasn't what I was trying to say. I phrased it in a way that failed to convey my meaning to you. Hopefully this subsequent discussion has clarified it better.

 

[RDGoodla]

Rarely?
We have 9 generations of consoles at the moment, where 2 of the first were really just a chaos of startups that mostly died off within a couple of years and most didn't transition to the next generation.
From the 7 remaining:

3rd gen: winner NES, not the most powerful
4th gen: winner SNES, arguably the most powerful because of faster CPU and graphics co-processors added to cartridges
5th gen: winner PlayStation, not the most powerful
6th gen: winner PS2, not the most powerful
7th gen: winner Wii, though at this point Nintendo decided to stop competing in the same market as Sony and Microsoft so it's questionnable whether Nintendo won or Microsoft did with a more powerful X360.
8th gen: winner PS4, the most powerful.

I think we must clarify that PS and PS2 are most powerful consoles for a period of time.

Just like PS4 which is most powerful only before 2017, not for the whole generation.


So basically we have 4 generations led by most powerful consoles.

 

[Rodéric]

Isn't the answer to the question marketing ?
ie what you manage to get people to think.

 

[goonergaz]

A) very overrated as sales forces (NPD top 10 sellers of 2019 contained no Sony/MS exclusives last I checked) B), viewed by consumers as substitionary (best evidence for this IMO is how easily 360 toppled playstation that gen in the USA). I think a average core consumer sees "Last of Us 2" or "Halo Infinite" as either one works. I think a consumer sees Uncharted or Halo and will be happy with either, it wont make his decision. So, if we ignore exclusives, then if two consoles are priced similarly and you weed out a couple other factors (friends, controller), then the question becomes why on earth WOULDNT you get the most powerful, even if it's only 5%? Thus, even 5% becomes very important.

a) it's the sum of the exclusives and their overall availability...this gen in particular PS4 exclusives have shifted substantial numbers, but as much of the having the exclusives it's the missing out - I don't want to miss out on LoU2, I don't want to miss out on the next Spiderman etc
b) it easily did it for many reasons, launch date, price, exclusives and I dare say a bit of brand loyalty with it being a US product

No-one really cares about performance, least of all 5%, outside a minority of folks like us...if they did X would be selling much better than is has.

That 87 million PS3 total sales is from 2017. The 84 million X360 is from 2014 and the console continued to be produced up until 2016.
On more equal terms, the PS3 reached 80 million sales in November 2013, whereas the X360 reached that number in the earlier month.

So (in context) X360 got to 80m a whole month before PS3 even though it launched a year earlier, had that whole period with no direct competition and was substantially cheaper?

With the PS3 Sony got 56% of PS2's sales. X360 got 350% of OG Xbox's sales.
The X360 was a definite win for Microsoft as it more than tripled Xbox's userbase. The PS3 was a definite loss for Sony as it almost halved Playstation's userbase.

I shall remember the next time I see my side completely dominate a team who score the winning goal with their only shot of the game that we actually won.

 

[goonergaz]

Isn't the answer to the question marketing ?
ie what you manage to get people to think.

If it was an easy question to answer no-one would have a choice in which products they buy because someone would have cracked the formula and we'd all buy x brand (dependant on the product).

 

[Nesh]

Rarely?
We have 9 generations of consoles at the moment, where 2 of the first were really just a chaos of startups that mostly died off within a couple of years and most didn't transition to the next generation.
From the 7 remaining:

3rd gen: winner NES, not the most powerful
4th gen: winner SNES, arguably the most powerful because of faster CPU and graphics co-processors added to cartridges
5th gen: winner PlayStation, not the most powerful
6th gen: winner PS2, not the most powerful
7th gen: winner Wii, though at this point Nintendo decided to stop competing in the same market as Sony and Microsoft so it's questionnable whether Nintendo won or Microsoft did with a more powerful X360.
8th gen: winner PS4, the most powerful.

So out of 7 generations, the most powerful (i.e. the console capable of showing the prettiest graphics) won at least twice, and if we're to assume Nintendo isn't catering to the same market as the other two then it would be 3 out 7.
The most powerful console is getting between 29% and 43% of generational wins. Hardly what you'd call "rarely".

In fact, if we discount the Wii then in the last two generations (14 years) the most sold title went to the most powerful console, even to the point of breaking through the inertia of making people change sides.
The most powerful X360 stole tens of millions of PS2 gamers to Microsoft's side despite a much weaker lineup of exclusives, and then the most powerful PS4 stole tens of millions of X360 gamers to Sony's side.


Sure, it's not everything, but it seems to me people are clearly underestimating the ability to show the prettier pictures and videos in ads, plus the general word-of-mouth percpetion of being the most powerful to the ultimate success of a console.

I agree. Power is important. At least the perception of it.
The PS1 was viewed as the most powerful when it was released. The N64 came later and it's hardware choices hindered it. The PS1's marketing revolved around the most powerful CD based and 3D capable console in the market. It had the games to support it's claim and the shift to the next generation.
The PS2 was the most powerful when it was released. Marketed for it's supposed "supercomputer"-like capabilities. Made people go nuts for it's close to the "cg-like" visuals
The NES was maybe the most powerful when released. It's capabilities and quality controls after the mediocre "Atari upgrades" show that it's performance was a game changer. The supposedly more powerful competition came after.
The Wii is like an outlier. I wouldnt say that it competed face to face the rest of the consoles. It managed to tap into a new casual market. The PS3's markleting as the most capable console contributed to it's adoption and anticipation. If it released simultaneously with competition and at the same price it would have obliterated the 360 faster.

In all cases power is important. But it has to blend properly with the rest of the factors that establish success. Price, games, launch date.

 

[goonergaz]

I agree. Power is important. At least the perception of it.
The PS1 was viewed as the most powerful when it was released. The N64 came later and it's hardware choices hindered it. The PS1's marketing revolved around the most powerful CD based and 3D capable console in the market. It had the games to support it's claim and the shift to the next generation.
The PS2 was the most powerful when it was released. Marketed for it's supposed "supercomputer"-like capabilities. Made people go nuts for it's close to the "cg-like" visuals
The NES was maybe the most powerful when released. It's capabilities and quality controls after the mediocre "Atari upgrades" show that it's performance was a game changer. The supposedly more powerful competition came after.
The Wii is like an outlier. I wouldnt say that it competed face to face the rest of the consoles. It managed to tap into a new casual market. The PS3's markleting as the most capable console contributed to it's adoption and anticipation. If it released simultaneously with competition and at the same price it would have obliterated the 360 faster.

In all cases power is important. But it has to blend properly with the rest of the factors that establish success. Price, games, features and launch date.

Tweaked (added features) because the DVD aspect of PS2 definitely helped it shift numbers as did BC.

Thing is, unless PS5 was a Wii esq drop in power then it will be my console of choice.

 

[cheapchips]

I think that ultimately software wins, you just need enough to be close enough on hardware power and have parity on price.

PlayStation constantly wins on software. Playstations have fantastic 3rd party support and high profile first party titles. XB360 had both for the first half of it's life until MS lost interested in first party. Very few PS owners would have noticed or cared in those instances where Xbox 3rd party games look better.