Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
If we ignore the Switch and the XBoxOne. You know, its only two competitors...
Importance of being the most powerful console *spawn
- Thread starter Magnum_Force
- Start date
If we ignore the Switch and the XBoxOne. You know, its only two competitors...
¬_¬ I was just doing what vipa did in his post when he excluded the Dreamcast to say that the PS2 was the weakest of the generation. You know, sarcasm.
Last edited:
¬_¬ I was just doing what vipa did in his post when he excluded the Dreamcast to say that the PS2 was the weakest of the generation. You know, sarcasm.
I'm not saying it wasn't the weakest of the other consoles but the DC. Again, I repeat, I replied because it wasn't the weakest of the three by far, as you said.
Like i said before it was by far weaker then xbox, there are discussions about this here on b3d.
It is not true. If 2 consoles are really similar in many aspects, then any advantage will become more important for consumers.
When the most powerful console fails, it's only because it has a lot of other negative aspects such as a much higher price or a bad release date, etc.
Last edited:
What's not true? There wasn't lots wrong with XB1 beyond power? Putting out the most powerful console does win you the generation? 40+ years of consoles shows the most powerful console wins? Engineers have to chase the most powerful console target because without that, they'll fail?
How do you create a more powerful console without it costing more??
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This again? 
I agree but your message sounded like if power wasn't an important factor. Yes it is, all things being equals... and that's why manufacturers will gladly market their console as the most powerful of the market if they can.
The power has always been a marketing argument in any field : computers, phones, cars, anything. Why would it no count for consoles ?
Each gen, there's a lot of bullshit about power and Sony did it with the PS2, their most sucessulf console. They tried to sell it as some super tech, etc.
It's possible. You can have performance variations at a similar price.
Its not the power, its brand name (everyone wants playstation), timing of release date, software and with that exclusives, and price to top it off. PS2 had all of these and dvd and backwards comp with psx games and hardware.
All this BS with emotion syntheses, ballistic rocket launching, 128bits processing sure had some impact but im guessing not as much as the things i named above.
All this BS with emotion syntheses, ballistic rocket launching, 128bits processing sure had some impact but im guessing not as much as the things i named above.
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
A la carte data can support any position. The most powerful console hasn't always won, but sometimes it has. Being first to market doesn't always assure victory, but sometimes it does.
But it's a mistake to say that, because these facets don't singularly guarantee victory, they have no impact. If power, timing, and first party exclusives didn't matter, you could release the NES today and reasonably expect it to go toe to toe with the PS4 and XBoxOne.
But then, apart from the exclusives, that's pretty much what we've seen Nintendo do with the Switch: old, bland tablet hardware, with nice controllers and TV out, released in the middle of the generation. And it's doing reeeeeally well.
We don't really have any firm rules. Of course we don't, otherwise everyone would follow them, and Atari, Sega, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft would have been first-equal for the past 20 years.
But it's a mistake to say that, because these facets don't singularly guarantee victory, they have no impact. If power, timing, and first party exclusives didn't matter, you could release the NES today and reasonably expect it to go toe to toe with the PS4 and XBoxOne.
But then, apart from the exclusives, that's pretty much what we've seen Nintendo do with the Switch: old, bland tablet hardware, with nice controllers and TV out, released in the middle of the generation. And it's doing reeeeeally well.
We don't really have any firm rules. Of course we don't, otherwise everyone would follow them, and Atari, Sega, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft would have been first-equal for the past 20 years.
Blast Processing, 64 bit graphics, Cell Broadband Engine, Emotion Engine, Blu Ray for next gen high def graphics, Dual Processor hidden sauce (Saturn), CD Rom, high bandwidth memory, Full HD, 4k etc
These are marketing tools. People love them
Graphics have always been a serious subject in heated console debates and its directly tied to the hardware. Regardless of the real capabilities of a console people discuss, argue and consider it as serious factor in their purchasing decision. How many times members of B3D have been trying to unearth some senario that made PS2 more powerfull than XB, or the Saturn more powerful than PS, or the DC more powerfull than PS2, or how the eSRAM on XB1 could compensate for the lower memory bandwidth etc? The answer is many
Console manufacturers have never been shy to market their hardware capabilities and troll competition despite their own shortcomings?
It is one of the many factors. Sometimes an awesome looking game is enough to convince the average joe that the weakest console has a secret sauce that makes it more powerful.
Resi 4 on the PS2 was not a perfect port but it was close enough to eliminate the perceived gap for the average joe. Who cared what racers the XB had when GT4 looked so realistic on PS2? You show a game like Silent Hill 3 on PS2 and it is perceived as the most realistic looking game on a console despite the shortcuts and tricks.
The SNES was overall more powerful than Genesis but with Sonic's super speed graphics thanks to BLAST PROCESSING why care for the slow boring Mario?
They need to have some ticks on a check box to market the thing as a bargain.
MS tried to do so by ticking the 4K upscale res and video playback on XB1S and the 4K graphics on XB1X after the market's rejection of non gaming features and performance sacrifices. There were people who actually believed the XB1S actually run games at 4k res. Meanwhile Sony still has the most powerfull standard console and the hollywood style visuals to demonstrate it with games like GOW and Spider Man. The average joe looks at Spider Man and suddenly the XB1X becomes irrelevant. The PS4 becomes the most powerful console. Super Mario Odyssey and Zelda visials wouldnt cut it. No matter how much people love tbeir indie games on these consoles they want their blockbaster visuals
Power is an important factor even in cases when it is nothing more than just a smoke screen
These are marketing tools. People love them
Graphics have always been a serious subject in heated console debates and its directly tied to the hardware. Regardless of the real capabilities of a console people discuss, argue and consider it as serious factor in their purchasing decision. How many times members of B3D have been trying to unearth some senario that made PS2 more powerfull than XB, or the Saturn more powerful than PS, or the DC more powerfull than PS2, or how the eSRAM on XB1 could compensate for the lower memory bandwidth etc? The answer is many
Console manufacturers have never been shy to market their hardware capabilities and troll competition despite their own shortcomings?
It is one of the many factors. Sometimes an awesome looking game is enough to convince the average joe that the weakest console has a secret sauce that makes it more powerful.
Resi 4 on the PS2 was not a perfect port but it was close enough to eliminate the perceived gap for the average joe. Who cared what racers the XB had when GT4 looked so realistic on PS2? You show a game like Silent Hill 3 on PS2 and it is perceived as the most realistic looking game on a console despite the shortcuts and tricks.
The SNES was overall more powerful than Genesis but with Sonic's super speed graphics thanks to BLAST PROCESSING why care for the slow boring Mario?
They need to have some ticks on a check box to market the thing as a bargain.
MS tried to do so by ticking the 4K upscale res and video playback on XB1S and the 4K graphics on XB1X after the market's rejection of non gaming features and performance sacrifices. There were people who actually believed the XB1S actually run games at 4k res. Meanwhile Sony still has the most powerfull standard console and the hollywood style visuals to demonstrate it with games like GOW and Spider Man. The average joe looks at Spider Man and suddenly the XB1X becomes irrelevant. The PS4 becomes the most powerful console. Super Mario Odyssey and Zelda visials wouldnt cut it. No matter how much people love tbeir indie games on these consoles they want their blockbaster visuals
Power is an important factor even in cases when it is nothing more than just a smoke screen
Maybe the SNES had more powerful graphical capabilites, but wasn't the 68000 in the Genesis/Megadrive more powerful than the CPU in the SNES?
Thats what I ve heard.
Agreed. Performance is just one of the many variables that influences sales. And there hasn’t been a point in history where performance was the sole differentiator between two competing consoles. And there probably never will be, unless first party titles go multiplat, and brand loyalty and a host of other variables in the console space become a moot point.
We need to be more specific about how powerful they are compared to the direct competition. If we're excluding outliers like Nintendo since their hardware philosophy and game design is so different to the "mainstream" aka Sony and Microsoft, then it all comes down to how much better they are at playing multiplats. In my opinion a 10-20% power difference at launch is not overly concerning since that wouldn't even warrant a res bump but 30-50% is where you shit the bed.
See PS2 could get away with a big power difference with the Xbox because back then the Sony console pretty much cleaned house with the majority of the 3rd party support and exclusivity, it didn't need to worry about the new kid Xbox which was just establishing its turf, so obviously PS2 was pretty much the only place to play all the main AAA titles. Since 3rd party exclusivity is almost non existent nowadays gamers can afford to choose the best performing or looking platform to play them on, so power becomes a big factor directly.
Now comes the "play where your friends are" or the Ecosystem argument, yes it's a legit point but think about how all those came to be in the first place? If you and your friends bought your consoles based on the best multiplat experience then there wouldn't be much of an ecosystem for the weaker console would it.
As for the first party exclusives, yes they matter a lot and are console sellers but what if your competition also stepped up their game if not exceeding you in time? Not to mention the majority of the sale comes from 3rd party titles, this is not a matter one should easily overlook nowadays.
Price is really not that big of a factor if the hardware and return are justifiable.
Now all these are assuming they're launching at the same period, one year head start is a whole another story tho
.
See PS2 could get away with a big power difference with the Xbox because back then the Sony console pretty much cleaned house with the majority of the 3rd party support and exclusivity, it didn't need to worry about the new kid Xbox which was just establishing its turf, so obviously PS2 was pretty much the only place to play all the main AAA titles. Since 3rd party exclusivity is almost non existent nowadays gamers can afford to choose the best performing or looking platform to play them on, so power becomes a big factor directly.
Now comes the "play where your friends are" or the Ecosystem argument, yes it's a legit point but think about how all those came to be in the first place? If you and your friends bought your consoles based on the best multiplat experience then there wouldn't be much of an ecosystem for the weaker console would it.
As for the first party exclusives, yes they matter a lot and are console sellers but what if your competition also stepped up their game if not exceeding you in time? Not to mention the majority of the sale comes from 3rd party titles, this is not a matter one should easily overlook nowadays.
Price is really not that big of a factor if the hardware and return are justifiable.
Now all these are assuming they're launching at the same period, one year head start is a whole another story tho
.Remembering last E3, MS seems to be aiming for exclusives, their main policy is pc too but its console exclusive.
If both ms and sonys next console have intresting exclusives hardware becomes more important.
PS2 had gta3, vice city and sa as timed exclusives, sure were system sellers.
If both ms and sonys next console have intresting exclusives hardware becomes more important.
PS2 had gta3, vice city and sa as timed exclusives, sure were system sellers.
Yeah, the power situation is a little different these days because cross-platform is a thing where it didn't much used to be.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Maybe, maybe not. The economics of consoles are in licensing fees paid by publishers for their games to be available on your system. This is a literal licence to print money for the manufacturer so it's really about ecosystem lock-in with hardware being the mechanism to date. But hardware is a double-edged sword, while you profit wildly on peripherals there are many costs sunk into console development and while the goal is sell all hardware at a profit it's not always possible initially so you're carrying R&D, manufacturing, shipping and marketing costs before a single game has been sold. Equally, customers having to buy a fairly expensive piece of equipment which is significant barrier to entry.
Now imagine replacing the hardware cost barrier with a BYOD approach, like Netflix, or PlayStation Now, and whatever it is Microsoft keep hinting at. You need a controller, but that's it - and the controller is a high-profit item.
Sounds like a winner to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
