The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Brand naming is enourmously important in the Video Games industry...
Maybe THE most important thing...
This can be seen both by veteran gamers, who will defend their console manufactuerer, no matter how little they know about the machine/game/etc...
(Ive seen a lot of fights here, where people didnt even know what they were arguing against, just that it didt make their console out in the acceptably favourable light)
It can also be seen by casual gamers, who'll buy the console they know the name of... See Sonys runaway sales of the playstation for example...
Though... to be fair this is nothing new, Amiga Vs. ST owners, Speccy Vs. C64 (Amstrad was considerd crap by both)...
---
In the past, consoles were released at about the same time, and with about the same level of technology, and supplying pretty much the same type of titles...
To tell them apart, you really needed to look at the image of the console and the mascot... otherwise, it was pretty much swings and roundabouts whichever one you chose...
Although, it could be said to have started with the Saturn...
It was partly the success of the Playstation, and Sonys agressive marketing techniques that really upped the antie... removing the kid gloves of console sales and distribution...
It was also a result of the release of the Dreamcast, providing a system with far superior features, power and potential than had to date been seen....
Which, in itself, completly, reinvented the console release strategy...
---
Consoles are no longer released at around the same time... a few years ago it was the Dreamcast... a year or two after than the PS2... then the X-Box and GC...
Though the X-Box and GC ahave similar release dates they are both markedly marketed toward different markets... with the X-Box pretty much directly taking on the same market area saought by Sony... leaving the GC with a much smaller... but, much clearer market area...
However, its been over a year since the original PS2 release... as such the component spec has aged... computer technology advancing as quickly as it does...
Which isnt to say that the X-Box is better than the PS2...
So they arnt really in such direct competition as they once were... in a couple of years from now, Sony will released the PS3... at which point the MS hardware wont be looking quite as happy or shiney as it does now...
Maybe the best way to look forward isnt with consoles as a brand name as much as part of a release order and the market the console is being developed to cater for the most...
People who are only now thinking of moving on from the PS1, could grab an X-Box, rather than the PS2?
With people purchasing hardware increases irregularly, when desired, rather than every rease, which would be costly and leave you with a few games on each rather than a consider3ed collection on one or two...
Maybe consoles should be looked at as a whole rather than a brand... Although, I suspect its down to the customers more than the suppliers?
Maybe THE most important thing...
This can be seen both by veteran gamers, who will defend their console manufactuerer, no matter how little they know about the machine/game/etc...
(Ive seen a lot of fights here, where people didnt even know what they were arguing against, just that it didt make their console out in the acceptably favourable light)
It can also be seen by casual gamers, who'll buy the console they know the name of... See Sonys runaway sales of the playstation for example...
Though... to be fair this is nothing new, Amiga Vs. ST owners, Speccy Vs. C64 (Amstrad was considerd crap by both)...
---
In the past, consoles were released at about the same time, and with about the same level of technology, and supplying pretty much the same type of titles...
To tell them apart, you really needed to look at the image of the console and the mascot... otherwise, it was pretty much swings and roundabouts whichever one you chose...
Although, it could be said to have started with the Saturn...
It was partly the success of the Playstation, and Sonys agressive marketing techniques that really upped the antie... removing the kid gloves of console sales and distribution...
It was also a result of the release of the Dreamcast, providing a system with far superior features, power and potential than had to date been seen....
Which, in itself, completly, reinvented the console release strategy...
---
Consoles are no longer released at around the same time... a few years ago it was the Dreamcast... a year or two after than the PS2... then the X-Box and GC...
Though the X-Box and GC ahave similar release dates they are both markedly marketed toward different markets... with the X-Box pretty much directly taking on the same market area saought by Sony... leaving the GC with a much smaller... but, much clearer market area...
However, its been over a year since the original PS2 release... as such the component spec has aged... computer technology advancing as quickly as it does...
Which isnt to say that the X-Box is better than the PS2...
So they arnt really in such direct competition as they once were... in a couple of years from now, Sony will released the PS3... at which point the MS hardware wont be looking quite as happy or shiney as it does now...
Maybe the best way to look forward isnt with consoles as a brand name as much as part of a release order and the market the console is being developed to cater for the most...
People who are only now thinking of moving on from the PS1, could grab an X-Box, rather than the PS2?
With people purchasing hardware increases irregularly, when desired, rather than every rease, which would be costly and leave you with a few games on each rather than a consider3ed collection on one or two...
Maybe consoles should be looked at as a whole rather than a brand... Although, I suspect its down to the customers more than the suppliers?
Before I came on here I was much more biased than I am now. (Good wording.) Before I wouldn't even go near a Playstation, and now I'm trying to buy a PS2. I was a Sega/Nintendo guy, but I wouldn't touch the Dreamcast. Shame on me. I have one now, and it's superb.
However... I'm still unsure about the X-Box. I buy consoles for the games. And I really can't see anything that interesting about it... but then, perhaps that's because I haven't looked deep enough... and all the games are francise [sp, can't be bothered to check, you know what I mean] starters, instead of hyped sequels. Perhaps that's a good thing for games, but not so good for the X-Box.
On another note, I only just realised where your name, at least for this topic, came from. Good taste that man. :0)
However... I'm still unsure about the X-Box. I buy consoles for the games. And I really can't see anything that interesting about it... but then, perhaps that's because I haven't looked deep enough... and all the games are francise [sp, can't be bothered to check, you know what I mean] starters, instead of hyped sequels. Perhaps that's a good thing for games, but not so good for the X-Box.
On another note, I only just realised where your name, at least for this topic, came from. Good taste that man. :0)
Mr Nice Guy wrote:
> I just wanted you to know that I've read it.
lol... thanks man :)
> I just wanted you to know that I've read it.
lol... thanks man :)
I just wanted you to know that I've read it. There isn't really anything I can comment it, just I agree with you.
I think the timing is very important to when you release the console, Sega didn't think of this and now look at them. Sony will continue to roam the earth but like you say, 'What is to say the X-Box isn't better then the PS2', it just all comes down to personal taste and all of the publicity that surronds it.
I think the timing is very important to when you release the console, Sega didn't think of this and now look at them. Sony will continue to roam the earth but like you say, 'What is to say the X-Box isn't better then the PS2', it just all comes down to personal taste and all of the publicity that surronds it.
Brand naming is enourmously important in the Video Games industry...
Maybe THE most important thing...
This can be seen both by veteran gamers, who will defend their console manufactuerer, no matter how little they know about the machine/game/etc...
(Ive seen a lot of fights here, where people didnt even know what they were arguing against, just that it didt make their console out in the acceptably favourable light)
It can also be seen by casual gamers, who'll buy the console they know the name of... See Sonys runaway sales of the playstation for example...
Though... to be fair this is nothing new, Amiga Vs. ST owners, Speccy Vs. C64 (Amstrad was considerd crap by both)...
---
In the past, consoles were released at about the same time, and with about the same level of technology, and supplying pretty much the same type of titles...
To tell them apart, you really needed to look at the image of the console and the mascot... otherwise, it was pretty much swings and roundabouts whichever one you chose...
Although, it could be said to have started with the Saturn...
It was partly the success of the Playstation, and Sonys agressive marketing techniques that really upped the antie... removing the kid gloves of console sales and distribution...
It was also a result of the release of the Dreamcast, providing a system with far superior features, power and potential than had to date been seen....
Which, in itself, completly, reinvented the console release strategy...
---
Consoles are no longer released at around the same time... a few years ago it was the Dreamcast... a year or two after than the PS2... then the X-Box and GC...
Though the X-Box and GC ahave similar release dates they are both markedly marketed toward different markets... with the X-Box pretty much directly taking on the same market area saought by Sony... leaving the GC with a much smaller... but, much clearer market area...
However, its been over a year since the original PS2 release... as such the component spec has aged... computer technology advancing as quickly as it does...
Which isnt to say that the X-Box is better than the PS2...
So they arnt really in such direct competition as they once were... in a couple of years from now, Sony will released the PS3... at which point the MS hardware wont be looking quite as happy or shiney as it does now...
Maybe the best way to look forward isnt with consoles as a brand name as much as part of a release order and the market the console is being developed to cater for the most...
People who are only now thinking of moving on from the PS1, could grab an X-Box, rather than the PS2?
With people purchasing hardware increases irregularly, when desired, rather than every rease, which would be costly and leave you with a few games on each rather than a consider3ed collection on one or two...
Maybe consoles should be looked at as a whole rather than a brand... Although, I suspect its down to the customers more than the suppliers?
Maybe THE most important thing...
This can be seen both by veteran gamers, who will defend their console manufactuerer, no matter how little they know about the machine/game/etc...
(Ive seen a lot of fights here, where people didnt even know what they were arguing against, just that it didt make their console out in the acceptably favourable light)
It can also be seen by casual gamers, who'll buy the console they know the name of... See Sonys runaway sales of the playstation for example...
Though... to be fair this is nothing new, Amiga Vs. ST owners, Speccy Vs. C64 (Amstrad was considerd crap by both)...
---
In the past, consoles were released at about the same time, and with about the same level of technology, and supplying pretty much the same type of titles...
To tell them apart, you really needed to look at the image of the console and the mascot... otherwise, it was pretty much swings and roundabouts whichever one you chose...
Although, it could be said to have started with the Saturn...
It was partly the success of the Playstation, and Sonys agressive marketing techniques that really upped the antie... removing the kid gloves of console sales and distribution...
It was also a result of the release of the Dreamcast, providing a system with far superior features, power and potential than had to date been seen....
Which, in itself, completly, reinvented the console release strategy...
---
Consoles are no longer released at around the same time... a few years ago it was the Dreamcast... a year or two after than the PS2... then the X-Box and GC...
Though the X-Box and GC ahave similar release dates they are both markedly marketed toward different markets... with the X-Box pretty much directly taking on the same market area saought by Sony... leaving the GC with a much smaller... but, much clearer market area...
However, its been over a year since the original PS2 release... as such the component spec has aged... computer technology advancing as quickly as it does...
Which isnt to say that the X-Box is better than the PS2...
So they arnt really in such direct competition as they once were... in a couple of years from now, Sony will released the PS3... at which point the MS hardware wont be looking quite as happy or shiney as it does now...
Maybe the best way to look forward isnt with consoles as a brand name as much as part of a release order and the market the console is being developed to cater for the most...
People who are only now thinking of moving on from the PS1, could grab an X-Box, rather than the PS2?
With people purchasing hardware increases irregularly, when desired, rather than every rease, which would be costly and leave you with a few games on each rather than a consider3ed collection on one or two...
Maybe consoles should be looked at as a whole rather than a brand... Although, I suspect its down to the customers more than the suppliers?