Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- From: The alMIGHTY N <natlee75@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:08:13 -0700
On Sep 11, 2:27 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The alMIGHTY N <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While it's true that there really isn't a whole lot of real incentive
for a company to make a game exclusively for the PS3 (outside of Sony
paying them an exclusivity fee), big companies like EA can easily
afford to produce all of their big franchises for both the 360 and the
PS3.
Which is a bad thing for the PS3 which is still more expensive than the
360, and arguably offers no better graphics than the 360.
There's no argument - the Xbox 360 pushed to its max is capable of
better graphics than the PS3 pushed to its max. The PS3 has a weaker
GPU and less graphics memory bandwidth.
At least the
original Xbox had more powerful hardware than the PS2, so its games - even
the quickly done ports - looked better than the PS2's. This at least was
an incentive to buy your multi-platform titles for the Xbox if you had a
choice of versions.
This assumes that the consumer in question has both the Xbox 360 and
the PS3. Multi-platform titles mean that if you don't have to worry
whether you have one system or the other.
It's not as though Sony has ever been to the market first anyways. That
certainly didn't hurt the PS1 or PS2 at all.
The Playstation was later to market than the Saturn by not even 4
months. That's technically a lead, but it's not much of a one. Plus,
it had the advantage of being easier to develop for than the Saturn,
although that's not saying much because both systems were more
difficult to develop for than the Nintendo 64.
Further, the Saturn wasn't SUPPOSED to come out that early. Sega made
a surprise move late in the game in order to beat the Playstation to
market. This plan backfired not just because Sega sold their system at
a premium ($399) in the hopes of capitalizing on early adopters but
also because third-party developers were pissed off that they were
forced to either work double-time to get their games finished months
earlier or risk losing the momentum that comes with a new hardware
launch.
The Dreamcast had the most successful launch in history at the time of
its debut but it was still doomed from the start. EA decided not to
support it at all because of Sega's grievous mistakes with the Saturn,
and at the time, Madden Football was THE biggest video game franchise.
Consumers were still ticked off that the Saturn was dropped so early
and had a rather meager line-up of software in its lifetime.
Developers in general were wary along the same lines as EA that they
might get burned. Marketers had no clue and tried ambiguous slogans to
sell the system.
As good as the system was, circumstances around it sealed its fate. Of
the three viable systems, Sony's WAS the first to market with a year's
head start.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- From: Doug Jacobs
- Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- References:
- "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- From: Jordan
- Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- From: mark johnson
- Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- From: RMZ
- Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- From: CellFish
- Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- From: Doug Jacobs
- Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- From: Rich Billionaire
- Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- From: The alMIGHTY N
- Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- From: Doug Jacobs
- "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- Prev by Date: Re: Assassin's Creed
- Next by Date: Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- Previous by thread: Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- Next by thread: Re: "Why Did the PS3 Fail?"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|