MS Expects to Sell 3M Xboxes within first 90 days

Maybe he meant N64 pushed lower polys than PSX. Still that doesn't mean N64 wasn't the most powerful console in the 32bit gen. N64 had the more powerful version of CPU that went into PSX. Polygon is only one factor. I could easily say Saturn is the most powerful fillrate-wise and cite Virtua Fighter2 (640*480, 60FPS) as an example and ask for any PSX or N64 games that can also push the same framerate at said resolution while pushing the reasonable polys as VF2.

And I don't believe Xbox has gotten the most sales in 2004. I'll need to see some sales figure to be proved wrong. I can also be selective and argue the opposite, saying Genesis was also ahead of SNES during 1991~1993.

 

The console that wins is the one with more pipes. SNES must have had more pipes than Master System. Only logical reason for it selling better...

 

I'm pretty sure it was Allard. Here's one of the reasons...

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsArticle.aspx?type=technology&storyID=nN08621231

Edit: found the Allard quote...

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200510/N05.1005.1820.37210.htm

 

* Warning - Spong! *

http://news.spong.com/detail/news.asp?prid=9291

 

Not true.

My point is you cannot point to a single factor and claim that's what will make the system win. They ONLY factor that has ever been consistent is one that cannot be determined until the end of the generation, not before it even starts.

Any single factor you point out and claim "this is what will make it win" and I can give you an example of the exact opposite being true.

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say 'the winner has the most games' and on the other say 'there's no one deciding factor'. Most games alone doesn't decide which platform a person buys, but at the end of a generation the most popular platform has the most games because it had the biggest market for developers to tap. Which seems to be what you're saying, and PARANOiA's saying, only you say to PARANOiA 'not true'.

 

Course they do. Well in my case I bought a PS2 for tekken 5 as I knew it wouldnt ever be coming out for my Xbox. I'm sure there are many many peeps who bought a console purely on a single game

 

That's not most games. IT wasn't the fact PS2 had the most games that you bought it. It's that it had the game(s) you wanted. Anyone who wanted to play Mario and MP wouldn't have bought a PS2 because it has more games than GC.

 

Yeh true... cant argue with that, its the system with the most number of games people want not the total number in itself !!!
PLaying all these PS2 RPG's that I never could find on my xblox, ohhh its like RPG dweeb heaven for me

 

There is no one deciding factor that can be claimed before the generation even starts. There is only one factor that holds true, and it won't be known until the end of the generation.

Conversational context.

The whole coversation can be broken down to this:

The rest was just clarification of what I meant, which is again, no single pre-launch factor determins a systems success. Power is not the deciding factor because quite often it's the less powerful console that wins, such as the PS2 last gen. There is no deciding factor. The only factor that is constant is one that isn't known until the decision has been made.

 

Right. Which is what I read PARANOiA as saying.

 

The system that sells the best will have the most games of a type that most people want to play.

Sure anyone who wanted a Mario game bought a GC, but if only 10% of the gaming market wants a Mario game, well....

You have to have lots of games for lots of different gamers taste. You have to have every genre, every sex, and every age group covered with a wide selection of games tailored for them, and yet most of your game library should appeal to most of the gaming market, which is composed of adult males in their mid-20's.

And the only you can do that is by having the most games.

 

^^ I agree.

It's easy to say "i only had 20 games this generation and my friends too".

There are millions upon millions of people out there playing PS2 games. 7000 games doesn't sound that much when compared to the number of people out there, all of different age, sex, culture and everyone with slightly different taste than the next one.

Sure within those 7000 games there are a LOT of crappy ones, but that's not the point.

Personally i don't think i've seen even 1000 games for PS2 (or know of more than 1000 games), so that's even less.

Japan gets many games that are only released there, not sure how many exactly though.

 

Nothing personal, but it seems every thread is about marketing and sales...

I think a 'console hardware' next to the 'console software' forum might clean things up.

Or leave this one for the hardware and add a new forum for 'console wars / PR / marketing / blah' or something.

Hm?

 

Sonic and Vysez tried to focus all PR/marketing posts into specific threads, but well unsurprisingly it all went pear-shaped.

 

With a total dearth of hardware to talk about, we fall back to anything even vaguely related such as marketting. Blame Sony and Nintendo for not releasing tasty tech details for us to dissect!

 

Atari had the most games when the bottom went out of the console market in '83, much good it did them...

 

Gee Guden, that was 22 bloody years ago!! (I'M 23!!)
That's almost as bad as the car engine comparisons that keep coming up on the forum!!

 

The thread (and the post) could have ended right there. This is the only answer. If more people want to play the Halo(s) than the MGS4(s) or vice versa, over the lifetime of the system it will win.

 

Yep. Just imagine if MS hadn't turned down publishing GTA3