That said PS4 did have the best hardware, and PS2's competition wasn't that serious.
Which I also wonder how well the PS4 would have done (at least in US/UK) had MSFT not made so many mistakes.
I agree with your point that you don't need the best hardware. That said PS4 did have the best hardware, and PS2's competition wasn't that serious. I also wonder how well the PS4 would have done (at least in US/UK) had MSFT not made so many mistakes.
And PS4 was $100 cheaper. Good to see you write off Microsoft and SEGA are not that serious competition to PS2.
It would still have been $100 more expensive. The vast majority of gamers have zero comprehension of the technical capabilities of consoles and don't care. The just want to play games. Cost is the biggest barrier to that.
First of all are you just purposely inflating the percentage difference now? It's 18% power difference and that's a ceiling, realistically it won't reach that much due to other factors mentioned in my previous post. And where's that 2+TF Navi2 come from? Math tells me 12.14 - 10.28 = 1.86TF. The split pool ram is obviously a cost saving decision which in turn makes it a hindrance if game graphics require over 10GB and hell I'll bet my house games a few years down the line would more than likely go past that amount. Also this minuscule difference in CPU power is pretty much non existence when you're rendering over 1800p. Again, clock speed vs more CU is load dependent and how you program your engine to take advantage of such, DF actually mentioned it in their video and you just omitted that part like you always do. Look, there's a lot we don't know but for what we do know let's not inflate those numbers to suit your narrative shall we?
MSFT also handed them PR win after win before the current gen launch on top of the 2/3 GPU performance. That's not happening this time, quite the opposite.
Cell was theoretically more powerful
the brand was so strong it carried it.
My claim is that more powerful hardware doesn't outsell less powerful hardware and there is evidence everywhere b y virtual that the highest-end items in any product line never outsell models lower down the tier.
But even if you think my 'claim' lacks evidence, you disagreeing with it provides zero evidence that powerful hardware is more appealing than lower-powered hardware. The position I have maintained forever is that price is the most important factor. Typically less power = cheaper but not always.
And Sony handled Microsoft a PR win with PS3, the fact that Cell was theoretically more powerful (but that power largely went untapped or was used to compensate for the GPU) didn't stop Sony selling as PS3s as Microsoft sold 360s, launching 12-18 months later and at almost twice the price. How does make the case for power selling?
I introduced my own claim that its actually the time difference between the consoles that has kept the more powerful hardware from winning out and the two times in modern consoles when they launched at relatively the same time ( Saturn/PS , PS4/XO) the more powerful system won out.
where ? Where was the PlayStation $100 cheaper at launch? What system ? What do you consider its competition ? In the USA the Saturn launched first with a surprise launch in may vs Sept of the PlayStation. Yes the PlayStation had the e3 moment where they had a lower price point but by that fall when the ps launched the prices were the same with sega discounting the Saturn to compete. Or are we talking about in japan where sega launched the 32x within months of the Saturn. Or do you think it had to do with Sony being able to price their way into the market by pulling an epic store and charging less to publish on their platform ?Let's introduce some more facts. PlayStation and PS4 wee both $100 cheaper at launch. Also consider that PS4 Pro, more powerful than PS4, didn't outsell it. There is no data to support Xbox One X outselling Xbox One S. Help me with some data that demonstrates that given the choice, people will pay more for performance. Because I only see evidence that while performance is a factor, price seems to the heaviest and most consistent data point for commercial success measures by units sold.
*excitement intensifies*
We have data that shows PS4 outsells the pro and we know the gap between PS4&pro sales vs XBO&X sales % gap has not shrunk which would imply the X has not caused a wave of people wanting more power over ‘ the whole package’.where ? Where was the PlayStation $100 cheaper at launch? What system ? What do you consider its competition ? In the USA the Saturn launched first with a surprise launch in may vs Sept of the PlayStation. Yes the PlayStation had the e3 moment where they had a lower price point but by that fall when the ps launched the prices were the same with sega discounting the Saturn to compete. Or are we talking about in japan where sega launched the 32x within months of the Saturn. Or do you think it had to do with Sony being able to price their way into the market by pulling an epic store and charging less to publish on their platform ?
How would we even know the sales numbers of the Xbox one X and One S ? MS hasn't released them. So its a convenient place you've put yourself. Also why would 3 years of sales be higher than 7 years in sales.
If I recall the XBOX came a year late at $299 when the PS2 was already having lower price and all the super popular franchises that people have been enjoying on the PS1 as timed exclusives or full exclusives.PS2s competition wasn’t serious? MS threw a lot of weight behind Xbox including a certain highly anticipated title called Halo. They had the power and the features (Xbox live) too.
Brand is everything, the car crash PS3 sold over 80m, and that was a complete wreck from the build up, the reveals, the price, the super arrogance and the bad 3rd party versions!
Many retailers refused to sell the Saturn because the surprise launch happened only with specific popular profile shops. They boycotted it. It also didnt have enough games while those it had were unpolished. The PS1 launched immediately at an affordable price, polished games and was welcomed by all retailers. Not sure how fast the Saturn dropped its price. But Sony did everything right. Price, games, power, right release date, embraced by all retailers.where ? Where was the PlayStation $100 cheaper at launch? What system ? What do you consider its competition ? In the USA the Saturn launched first with a surprise launch in may vs Sept of the PlayStation. Yes the PlayStation had the e3 moment where they had a lower price point but by that fall when the ps launched the prices were the same with sega discounting the Saturn to compete. Or are we talking about in japan where sega launched the 32x within months of the Saturn. Or do you think it had to do with Sony being able to price their way into the market by pulling an epic store and charging less to publish on their platform ?
Why wouldn't you believe him out of interest?