Well, that's the disadvantage of launching first, or launching last with an unproven platform 
PS2 outselling XBox 360
- Thread starter SPM
- Start date
TheChefO said:I'd say some in the media have questioned and not fully accepted Sony's "Ps3 Hype" in the following instances:
cgi renders e3 2005
"videos" e3 2006
"ps3 is a computer"
"Bluray = DVD 2.0"
"ps3 online = xbox live - $"
hdmi 1080p!
hdmi 1080p x2!
hdmi 1080p x2 @ 120fps!
etc...
Not that these things are "not possible to be fulfilled in PS3 lifetime", but maybe taken with a grain or two of salt and taken in context of where these statements came from.
Last gen people ate this kinda stuff up from Sony (Kuta) before PS2 launched and quickly killed off Dreamcast sales before it could even get a foothold. Everywhere you went that sold games, the "experts" behind the counter were spouting off that "you should wait for ps2 because it's going to crush DC!". I can't tell you how many times I'd seen people interested in DC then asking the "experts" about it only to have ps2 get brought up as the second coming. It's impossibe to guage how impactful this hype was on the overall success of ps2, but I'd say it had a not so insignificant impact specifically on early sales where the very lackluster early games library looked like crap compared to DC.
Other elements obviously played into the end result success of ps2, but early on - Hype.
I think this is a very accurate assessment on how DC vs. PS2 initially played out.
Serenity Painted Death
Regular
DC had incredibly sales early on. PS2 didn't kill it, btw, Sega's lack of money killed it, and would have killed it irrespective of PS2.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
rabidrabbit said:
To add to Chef's list:
http://1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151712
Future Proof?
Nah, that's not unfounded hype.
What killed it was that PS2 was more powerful.
Lets not mince reasons here. That is what killed it. The rest was just extraneous.
Once PS2 came along the jig was up, there is no point in fighting a superior funded console when that console is also technically superior, and Sega knew this. Continuing to fight with DC would have only delayed the inevitable.
scooby_dooby
Legend
sonyps35 said:
yes, but what if the funding wasn't superior? I think that's the point. If Sega had been more secure financially, it could've lived out a long life. At least, that's what it looks like to me when I look at the sales figures, Dreamcast was still selling just fine.
sonyps35 said:
That was part of it. But by that argument the xbox should have trounced the ps2. Superior technology with more funding backing it up. Lack of 3rd party support and lack of confidence in the Sega brand by consumers and 3rd parties like EA killed it. Also the power of the ps2 was hyped to unbelievable levels ( synthesizing real human emotions, render SW:episode one vfx in realtime, guide ballistic missles, etc) and it had a killer app in the dvd-drive. Sega just wasn't big enough to support the console by themselves. People at the time were wanting a $300 worth of tech instead of a $200 stop gap. Sega's battle plan was more geared toward 1994 than 1999. They didn't realize they needed quality 3rd party support from the beginning. Piracy didnt help them either. i knew alot of DC owners who had entire libraries of non-purchased games. Sega of the 90's had a parallel fate of Commodore of the 80's.
Also I dont consider the DC a flop, (like 32x, 3d0, CDi, Jaguar, 5200, 7800) just a console that never lived up to its expectations.
ALSO: DC never had a must play game like Halo or GTA3. SC was close.
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
Sis said:
You're probably right, I was just basing off my loose memory of the sales figures I'd seen.
Back in the day, I'd never even heard of Dreamcast.
Pozer said:
Soul Calibur, Resident Evil: Code Veronica (the first all 3D Resident evil!), 2k sports titles, Jet Grind Radio, Skies of Arcadia, Shenmue, PowerStone, PSO, Virtua Fighter and all of Capcom's 2D fighters like Marvel Vs. Capcom, etc... were all must play games in my book
Not to mention the only console with a built-in modem for online gaming out of the box! Plus a web browser (they atleast tried to fulfill all the promises that Sony made with the PS2).I just think a lot of it had to do with the marketing. Sega had nowhere near the money that Sony did. I rarely ever saw a DC ad. And not to mention the hype that Sony built for the PS2 (even though launch games didn't look anywhere near as good as DC titles at the time). It was really sad to see that system go, I had more fun with it than any of the current consoles.
Hardknock said:Soul Calibur, Resident Evil: Code Veronica (the first all 3D Resident evil!), 2k sports titles, Jet Grind Radio, Skies of Arcadia, Shenmue, PowerStone, PSO, Virtua Fighter and all of Capcom's 2D fighters like Marvel Vs. Capcom, etc... were all must play games in my book
I just think a lot of it had to do with the marketing. Sega had nowhere near the money that Sony did. I rarely ever saw a DC ad. And not to mention the hype that Sony built for the PS2 (even though launch games didn't look anywhere near as good as DC titles at the time). It was really sad to see that system go, I had more fun with it than any of the current consoles.
Those were all great games but none of them were system sellers. SC was closest thing. Walk up to any gamer browsing in walmart games section and ask them if they ever heard of Skies of Arcadia. Then ask them about GTA, halo, or metal gear, big difference.
Pozer said:
This comment speaks more to the lack of advertising/sales/acceptance of DC than lack of system seller. There were a handful of people I knew that were not even into gaming at the time but when they saw nfl2k they picked up a dc. How many people went into the stores, saw the incredible games for dc on display and were turned around by a sales clerk saying "you think that's something? Wait till you see ps2! It'll be like plugging into the Matrix!". The console itself was fine tech-wise and has been pointed out, how powerful the machine is/was is largely irrelevant. As long as it is comperable to it's competition. I'd say DC was comperable to ps2 et al. One look at SC/Shenmue should tell you that.
{looking into sales figures}
.Melchiah.
Regular
Hardknock said:
Have you actually played PS2 launch games, like SSX and Tekken Tag Tournament? They both look good even today, and were definitely on par with anything Dreamcast had to offer (I actually had rented DC with RE: Code Veronica, Soul Calibur, Zombi Revenge and Quake Arena before I bought PS2).
No, it's definetely not that easy, or else the N64 would have outsold the PSone or the GC and the Xbox would have outsold the PS2, or the Game Gear, the Lynx, the PC-Engine GT would all had sold more than the Gameboy.sonyps35 said:
The factors behind the market success of a videogame product are numerous, and all of them have their own different impact on this success. But what's is certain is that technical superiority alone is not a determinant element.
In the facts, it seems that the only Market Segment that do really care about such thing is the core market: the hardcore gamers.
And even in this case I wouldn't say that technological superiority is the main driving element for the pruchase of a videogame system.
By the way, what is the exact point of this thread?
PS1 and PS2 sold so well because Sony know how to get into people's houses. Just look at their latest success, the Bravia LCD TVs. They're great sets, they are more expensive than the competition, and they're best sellers. Technical power plays a very small part in the success of a brand. The Bravia LCD TVs just happen to be among the best HDTVs out there, but their success is due to Sony's uncanny eye for marketing. It's all about marketing. PS1 won because Sony got some really amazing games on it, and with that built an amazingly effective marketing campaign. PS2 was more of the same formula, and it worked.
It will be very interesting to see how the expensive PS3 will do when it's released. Sony will have to get their brains into gear again and make sure that people see the PS3 as the console to have, like they did with PS2 and PS1 before it.
It will be very interesting to see how the expensive PS3 will do when it's released. Sony will have to get their brains into gear again and make sure that people see the PS3 as the console to have, like they did with PS2 and PS1 before it.
I don't know exactly what the point of this thread is, but to me it seems to be asking the question; Why is Sony so successful with playstation? (and ps2 to be specific).
To me I think LB hit the nail on the head. Sony Marketing is top notch. They speak to their core demographic and get systems sold. I disagree with their methodology but I can't argue with their results! One thing I would disagree with though is the thought that ps2 is/was following the formula for success that ps1 did.
When ps1 hit, they launched with AMAZING developer support and a easy to develop system.
(ps2 - amazing developer support - but not so easy to develop for)
This lead to great games early in the ps1 lifecycle and made it easy to market. The thing practically marketed itself. All they had to do was show some (AAed) screenshots of the launch titles and they imediately had your attention if you were a gamer (and even caught a few eyes that weren't gamers).
Contrast this with ps2's launch library and realisticaly ps2 should not have sold anywhere near the numbers they did early on. One word - Marketing.
To me I think LB hit the nail on the head. Sony Marketing is top notch. They speak to their core demographic and get systems sold. I disagree with their methodology but I can't argue with their results! One thing I would disagree with though is the thought that ps2 is/was following the formula for success that ps1 did.
When ps1 hit, they launched with AMAZING developer support and a easy to develop system.
(ps2 - amazing developer support - but not so easy to develop for)
This lead to great games early in the ps1 lifecycle and made it easy to market. The thing practically marketed itself. All they had to do was show some (AAed) screenshots of the launch titles and they imediately had your attention if you were a gamer (and even caught a few eyes that weren't gamers).
Contrast this with ps2's launch library and realisticaly ps2 should not have sold anywhere near the numbers they did early on. One word - Marketing.
croc hunter2
Newcomer
Marketing will only get you so far. If you marketed shit well there'd be people that would buy it but that will only get you so far.
The PS2 sold (initially) on the promise of a game library that rivalled the PS1s. People were happy with the PS1 experience and brought the PS2 on that trust basis.
The PS3 is in the very happy position of having even more trust from the consumers given that the PS2 library pretty much caters for any and all gaming tastes. Seriously if you can't find at least a fair number of games on the platform that you find entertaining, you can probably give up on buying any console. Most people that have a PS2 will have a positive impression of it and the number of games available to them that interest them.
So the PS3 hits the market with this vast amount of trust and goodwill from the gamers that brought one or both of the first two Playstations. They would expect the PS3 to deliver much the same again. IF it does the PS4 will be very difficult to stop,even for MS.
The PS2 sold (initially) on the promise of a game library that rivalled the PS1s. People were happy with the PS1 experience and brought the PS2 on that trust basis.
The PS3 is in the very happy position of having even more trust from the consumers given that the PS2 library pretty much caters for any and all gaming tastes. Seriously if you can't find at least a fair number of games on the platform that you find entertaining, you can probably give up on buying any console. Most people that have a PS2 will have a positive impression of it and the number of games available to them that interest them.
So the PS3 hits the market with this vast amount of trust and goodwill from the gamers that brought one or both of the first two Playstations. They would expect the PS3 to deliver much the same again. IF it does the PS4 will be very difficult to stop,even for MS.
Yep. As I've mentioned before, pschologically once you've established yourself as a good entity, it takes a lot for people to change their minds, and you can capitalise on that. I very rarely go to the cinema. So why did I go and see XMen3, when all the talk was that it wasn't much good? Because the two previous films had won me over, and I was expecting things to continue. Even when the news comes in 'don't waste your money' I went to watch the film, and was bitterly disappointed. But because of prior success, they were good to milk me for another iteration. Once PlayStation is associated with a good product, natural product loyalty will see people assume that as the first choice continuing previous buying decisions, and it would take a lot to change the loyalty (a lot may be $300!croc hunter2 said:
). And don't confuse loyalty with fandom. Loyalty is more about just sticking with known quantities. Building reputation is important to be able to ride it out and use it to support subsequent brand development (in all areas, business, politics, yadayada) and PS managed that to begin with by being a worthwhile product well managed, and PS2 continued that by overcoming certain shortfalls to provide a robust platform, somethng for everyone, and continued massive appeal.Similar threads
