The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You've more then likly sread this somewhere already but...
Two 1.8ghz G5 based cpus
600mhz ATI gpu with 12mb onboard
128mb 1tsram
256mb dram
These specs came from What I hear are good sources, that where on the nail with 360 /PS3 info. If they are near the truth then it doesent sound that bad really (for the guts of it anyway). But one thing, if ATI have made that graphics part for consoles why isnt the 360 using it?
Two 1.8ghz G5 based cpus
600mhz ATI gpu with 12mb onboard
128mb 1tsram
256mb dram
These specs came from What I hear are good sources, that where on the nail with 360 /PS3 info. If they are near the truth then it doesent sound that bad really (for the guts of it anyway). But one thing, if ATI have made that graphics part for consoles why isnt the 360 using it?
Page:
[URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?threadid=128655&forumid=135[/URL]
Yup, that's right. The reason why the Playstation has sold so well is that it is an accessible console with the games to support it. The controller is most recognisable thing about the console, and many people find games easy to play with it. Also, gaming started to become 'cool' when the Playstation hit the scene - Nintendo's image from that point onwards then became established as 'kiddy,' despite some people probably thinking that previously. The N64 was a cool looking console and the best ever games to support it, but it lost to Playstation by a looong way, only selling somewhat 30 million worldwide. It's good, yeah, but not good enough.
Advertising is a really important part aswell, don't forget that. Sony are incredible at advertising (it's pretty evident with the success of the Playstation), however, whilst Nintendo used to be the king of the hill, they seemed to rely too much on their reputation with the N64, and therefore people seemed to forget about the console. The Dreamcast's demise was all down to terrible advertising - it's a cool console (cooler than the Playstation, especially with games like Soul Calibur, MSR, Jet Set Radio, etc), but Sega thought if they slapped a Sonic game for the launch, it would do aswell as the Mega Drive (the Saturn lacked a proper Sonic game and could have been a point where it failed) - but SEGA were so wrong. Despite it selling brilliantly in the States at first (and a lukewarm reaction everywhere else), the advertising was so bad. Remember seeing the Dreamcast logo on the Arsenal shirts? Yup, that cost around £50 million to sponser them. And did it help? Hell no.
It's unfair. But as long Nintendo advertsies correctly and has the games to support the Revolution, then we could see a vision of the old days.
Advertising is a really important part aswell, don't forget that. Sony are incredible at advertising (it's pretty evident with the success of the Playstation), however, whilst Nintendo used to be the king of the hill, they seemed to rely too much on their reputation with the N64, and therefore people seemed to forget about the console. The Dreamcast's demise was all down to terrible advertising - it's a cool console (cooler than the Playstation, especially with games like Soul Calibur, MSR, Jet Set Radio, etc), but Sega thought if they slapped a Sonic game for the launch, it would do aswell as the Mega Drive (the Saturn lacked a proper Sonic game and could have been a point where it failed) - but SEGA were so wrong. Despite it selling brilliantly in the States at first (and a lukewarm reaction everywhere else), the advertising was so bad. Remember seeing the Dreamcast logo on the Arsenal shirts? Yup, that cost around £50 million to sponser them. And did it help? Hell no.
It's unfair. But as long Nintendo advertsies correctly and has the games to support the Revolution, then we could see a vision of the old days.
Right... I thought that was a giver... that's what I am saying.
The best specs does not sell the system.
The best specs does not sell the system.
Dringo wrote:
>
> It is the games not the graphics.
>
> Black and white 8-bit Gameboy outsold full colour 16-bit Gamegear.
>
> PS1 outsold N64
IMO, N64 had better games than PS1.
>
> It is the games not the graphics.
>
> Black and white 8-bit Gameboy outsold full colour 16-bit Gamegear.
>
> PS1 outsold N64
IMO, N64 had better games than PS1.
The PS2 sells because it has a massive selection of games that appeal to individual tastes as well as a mass market appeal with titles like GTA, Metal Gear Solid, GT and Pro Evo.
X-box has a nice fanbase mainly due to Halo and X-box Live.
Nintendo has a large fanbase due to Mario, Zelda, Pokemon and Metroid.
It is the games not the graphics.
Black and white 8-bit Gameboy outsold full colour 16-bit Gamegear.
PS1 outsold N64
N64 outsold the Dreamcast
PS2 outsold X-box
PS2 outsold Gamecube
Seriously... the specs count for nothing.
X-box has a nice fanbase mainly due to Halo and X-box Live.
Nintendo has a large fanbase due to Mario, Zelda, Pokemon and Metroid.
It is the games not the graphics.
Black and white 8-bit Gameboy outsold full colour 16-bit Gamegear.
PS1 outsold N64
N64 outsold the Dreamcast
PS2 outsold X-box
PS2 outsold Gamecube
Seriously... the specs count for nothing.
well u cant exactly say PS2 has that many exclusive clasics.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE GAMES.
What i was trying to say is that without the greater specs, people who bourght the Xbox, wouldent of.
Playstation has got the stage, and has been for quite some time now, that people will buy it because its a Playstation. Playstation will sell no matter what the specs are.
But, also, PS2 was realeased at a time when it was more powerful than the dreamcast.
But, the N64 and Xbox would'nt of sold as much as they had if it was'nt for specs, and yes people did buy mario for the graphics.
You cant just base a whole consoles life on the statements won or lost, unless ofcourse no ones buys it, and in these examples that is not the case.
Playstation has got the stage, and has been for quite some time now, that people will buy it because its a Playstation. Playstation will sell no matter what the specs are.
But, also, PS2 was realeased at a time when it was more powerful than the dreamcast.
But, the N64 and Xbox would'nt of sold as much as they had if it was'nt for specs, and yes people did buy mario for the graphics.
You cant just base a whole consoles life on the statements won or lost, unless ofcourse no ones buys it, and in these examples that is not the case.
Legendary Link wrote:
> yep, and if it was less powerful than the PS2, i'm sure it would'nt of
> sold at all, specs sell consoles.
How the hell is this a viable argument: N64 was number 2 behind the lesser powerful PS1 and the X-box was number 2 behind the lesser powerful PS2. Proof that the more powerful the hardware the more it sells....
Eh???
People bought Mario 64 cause it was bloody brilliant. Not because it looked nice.
> yep, and if it was less powerful than the PS2, i'm sure it would'nt of
> sold at all, specs sell consoles.
How the hell is this a viable argument: N64 was number 2 behind the lesser powerful PS1 and the X-box was number 2 behind the lesser powerful PS2. Proof that the more powerful the hardware the more it sells....
Eh???
People bought Mario 64 cause it was bloody brilliant. Not because it looked nice.
Well the Xbox had a lukewarm reception on it's release, but Halo helped pick things up quite well over a couple of months, helping the console hit the one million mark. And as for Rare, they just wanted to build up more second party support so that there were a fair amount of 'essentials' for the console. Third party is extremely heavy for the Xbox, so they don't need to worry anymore.
Plus, GBTG and Conker's were both disappointing, but hey, there are plenty more games on the Xbox worth buying.
Plus, GBTG and Conker's were both disappointing, but hey, there are plenty more games on the Xbox worth buying.
Page: