The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Console wars make me shudder. Every time I hear someone saying 'well my console is better...' I break into a cold sweat. It's not because they're particularly bad, a few of them are well written pieces of text that have the occasional factual arguement. No, the thing is that it ignores one fundamental point of selling a console. Competition is GOOD.
Now, many people see the Playstation 2 doing well. Is it a product of the success of the PSX, or merely that it has a great games line-up? Well, it's both, and more. Sony really did their homework, again. They included a DVD player, which started out as something that seemed a bit cheap, but with a few corrections to the drivers (via the official remote disc or the 3rd party multi-region software) it became quite a good little player. That was a big plus at a time when everyone was starting to think about buying a player. Why buy a seperate DVD when you could have it in the machine?
They also played on the success of the PSX by making it backward compatible and by making sequels, most of which have lived up to the original or surpassed it. So, well done Sony. But the thing is that these 'zealots' are suggesting that it should be the only console to succeed and see no room for the Gamecube or Xbox in the market.
Why?
The games market has grown substantially in the past 5 years, partly due to Sony themselves, but it has always sustained at least two consoles with no damage to sales. Like in any other market, competition drives the games makers and hardware makers on to bigger and better things, trying to outdo each other on every title. Do they want nothing to compare or compete against? No. They are happy to have a multi-platform market, where they are free to choose to work on one platform or another, or even all of them. The games companies can ask for larger amounts of money and can work with different hardware to get the best from it.
There is room, I believe, for the 3 new consoles to sit together and the public can have the choice of one or the other. If only one existed, it wouldn't be that all the games were made for it, as many PC conversions and new companies created by the extra work wouldn't exist. A greater variety of games and type of game are created by the different console platforms and as long as there is a market for variety, then there will be at least several companies out there making new consoles every 5 years or so.
Sony tried hard to make the PSX a success by mass media advertising and signing big games companies like Psygnosis and Square. They succeeded, of course, but set the benchmark for sales at electrical goods standards. This meant that other consoles at the time were judged on the PSX sales, making them look like they failed. Of course, this had a knock on effect to 3rd Party companies, who left the other platforms and worked on the playstation. This time, the benchmarks are clearer and Nintendo and Microsoft know where they are aiming for. They will not have any surprises unless Sony do something unexpected, like release another console, but even if they do, the other two will be ready.
In the end, all the consoles should be there for the public to decide what they want and hopefully each should have enough revenue in Japan, the US and Europe to stay afloat. All they need to do is get the fans they need and stop the stupid people from arguing about who should stay and who should go. That and give us some damn fine games.
Now, many people see the Playstation 2 doing well. Is it a product of the success of the PSX, or merely that it has a great games line-up? Well, it's both, and more. Sony really did their homework, again. They included a DVD player, which started out as something that seemed a bit cheap, but with a few corrections to the drivers (via the official remote disc or the 3rd party multi-region software) it became quite a good little player. That was a big plus at a time when everyone was starting to think about buying a player. Why buy a seperate DVD when you could have it in the machine?
They also played on the success of the PSX by making it backward compatible and by making sequels, most of which have lived up to the original or surpassed it. So, well done Sony. But the thing is that these 'zealots' are suggesting that it should be the only console to succeed and see no room for the Gamecube or Xbox in the market.
Why?
The games market has grown substantially in the past 5 years, partly due to Sony themselves, but it has always sustained at least two consoles with no damage to sales. Like in any other market, competition drives the games makers and hardware makers on to bigger and better things, trying to outdo each other on every title. Do they want nothing to compare or compete against? No. They are happy to have a multi-platform market, where they are free to choose to work on one platform or another, or even all of them. The games companies can ask for larger amounts of money and can work with different hardware to get the best from it.
There is room, I believe, for the 3 new consoles to sit together and the public can have the choice of one or the other. If only one existed, it wouldn't be that all the games were made for it, as many PC conversions and new companies created by the extra work wouldn't exist. A greater variety of games and type of game are created by the different console platforms and as long as there is a market for variety, then there will be at least several companies out there making new consoles every 5 years or so.
Sony tried hard to make the PSX a success by mass media advertising and signing big games companies like Psygnosis and Square. They succeeded, of course, but set the benchmark for sales at electrical goods standards. This meant that other consoles at the time were judged on the PSX sales, making them look like they failed. Of course, this had a knock on effect to 3rd Party companies, who left the other platforms and worked on the playstation. This time, the benchmarks are clearer and Nintendo and Microsoft know where they are aiming for. They will not have any surprises unless Sony do something unexpected, like release another console, but even if they do, the other two will be ready.
In the end, all the consoles should be there for the public to decide what they want and hopefully each should have enough revenue in Japan, the US and Europe to stay afloat. All they need to do is get the fans they need and stop the stupid people from arguing about who should stay and who should go. That and give us some damn fine games.
Can Sony compete with the Gameboy brand?
Possibly, but I don't think want to try at the moment.
If Nintendo get too complacent then perhaps Sony will jump in and will kick the big N in the balls, Playstation Vs N64 style.
Possibly, but I don't think want to try at the moment.
If Nintendo get too complacent then perhaps Sony will jump in and will kick the big N in the balls, Playstation Vs N64 style.
Strafex wrote:
The LEAST they could do would be to price that Snes compilation
> at 35 rather than releasing them one a a time.
But because there's no
> competition to fail against, they can release them one at a time and get away
> with it.
For that very reason I do hope sony release a hand-held soon. Because Nintendo's monopoly in the market isnt good for us.
The LEAST they could do would be to price that Snes compilation
> at 35 rather than releasing them one a a time.
But because there's no
> competition to fail against, they can release them one at a time and get away
> with it.
For that very reason I do hope sony release a hand-held soon. Because Nintendo's monopoly in the market isnt good for us.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Mind you, Strafex, people did pay £35 for that NES game all those years
> ago... so, it's the same game basically, so why not try to sell it for that
> price now?
I'm not saying it's fine by me, I hate it personally, but I
> understand why Nintendo are doing it.
Well they wouldn't dare do it if there was some decent competitors to kick it in the balls!
Anyway, just 10 years ago you could get all 4 Nes Mario games for that same price.
The LEAST they could do would be to price that Snes compilation at 35 rather than releasing them one a a time.
But because there's no competition to fail against, they can release them one at a time and get away with it.
> Mind you, Strafex, people did pay £35 for that NES game all those years
> ago... so, it's the same game basically, so why not try to sell it for that
> price now?
I'm not saying it's fine by me, I hate it personally, but I
> understand why Nintendo are doing it.
Well they wouldn't dare do it if there was some decent competitors to kick it in the balls!
Anyway, just 10 years ago you could get all 4 Nes Mario games for that same price.
The LEAST they could do would be to price that Snes compilation at 35 rather than releasing them one a a time.
But because there's no competition to fail against, they can release them one at a time and get away with it.
Strafex wrote:
> The big battle is between Microsoft and Sony for real survival
> (they've put more marketing money in that Nintendo so they need bigger sales for
> it to pay off).
True, but they also own enough money in other interests to suffer a loss with not many side effects. After all, consoles themselves don't usually make money for at least the first year of their lives, they're sold at a loss.
No, I think all three will survive, and quite rightly so.
> The big battle is between Microsoft and Sony for real survival
> (they've put more marketing money in that Nintendo so they need bigger sales for
> it to pay off).
True, but they also own enough money in other interests to suffer a loss with not many side effects. After all, consoles themselves don't usually make money for at least the first year of their lives, they're sold at a loss.
No, I think all three will survive, and quite rightly so.
Thank you Game, and your topics are not crap at all!
Nice topic Pb... It's one of those topics that could have gone off on some stupid ramble, but you managed to hold it down well...
I'm no critic, in fact, my topics are crap....
Just a bit of praise for you... does everyone good...
^_^
Game
I'm no critic, in fact, my topics are crap....
Just a bit of praise for you... does everyone good...
^_^
Game
Mind you, Strafex, people did pay £35 for that NES game all those years ago... so, it's the same game basically, so why not try to sell it for that price now?
I'm not saying it's fine by me, I hate it personally, but I understand why Nintendo are doing it.
I'm not saying it's fine by me, I hate it personally, but I understand why Nintendo are doing it.
Console Wars are just for fun and sport mainly.
It's an interesting way of testing your gaming knowledge and encourages you to to dig deeper.
I know that competition is healthy (look at the 35 pound Nes conversions Nintendo are getting away with on the GBA due to lack of competition).
I'm not so sure that the market is big enough for all 3 consoles.
Nintendo are safe because they've chosen a corner that the other two don't really want at the moment.
The big battle is between Microsoft and Sony for real survival (they've put more marketing money in that Nintendo so they need bigger sales for it to pay off).
It's an interesting way of testing your gaming knowledge and encourages you to to dig deeper.
I know that competition is healthy (look at the 35 pound Nes conversions Nintendo are getting away with on the GBA due to lack of competition).
I'm not so sure that the market is big enough for all 3 consoles.
Nintendo are safe because they've chosen a corner that the other two don't really want at the moment.
The big battle is between Microsoft and Sony for real survival (they've put more marketing money in that Nintendo so they need bigger sales for it to pay off).
Console wars make me shudder. Every time I hear someone saying 'well my console is better...' I break into a cold sweat. It's not because they're particularly bad, a few of them are well written pieces of text that have the occasional factual arguement. No, the thing is that it ignores one fundamental point of selling a console. Competition is GOOD.
Now, many people see the Playstation 2 doing well. Is it a product of the success of the PSX, or merely that it has a great games line-up? Well, it's both, and more. Sony really did their homework, again. They included a DVD player, which started out as something that seemed a bit cheap, but with a few corrections to the drivers (via the official remote disc or the 3rd party multi-region software) it became quite a good little player. That was a big plus at a time when everyone was starting to think about buying a player. Why buy a seperate DVD when you could have it in the machine?
They also played on the success of the PSX by making it backward compatible and by making sequels, most of which have lived up to the original or surpassed it. So, well done Sony. But the thing is that these 'zealots' are suggesting that it should be the only console to succeed and see no room for the Gamecube or Xbox in the market.
Why?
The games market has grown substantially in the past 5 years, partly due to Sony themselves, but it has always sustained at least two consoles with no damage to sales. Like in any other market, competition drives the games makers and hardware makers on to bigger and better things, trying to outdo each other on every title. Do they want nothing to compare or compete against? No. They are happy to have a multi-platform market, where they are free to choose to work on one platform or another, or even all of them. The games companies can ask for larger amounts of money and can work with different hardware to get the best from it.
There is room, I believe, for the 3 new consoles to sit together and the public can have the choice of one or the other. If only one existed, it wouldn't be that all the games were made for it, as many PC conversions and new companies created by the extra work wouldn't exist. A greater variety of games and type of game are created by the different console platforms and as long as there is a market for variety, then there will be at least several companies out there making new consoles every 5 years or so.
Sony tried hard to make the PSX a success by mass media advertising and signing big games companies like Psygnosis and Square. They succeeded, of course, but set the benchmark for sales at electrical goods standards. This meant that other consoles at the time were judged on the PSX sales, making them look like they failed. Of course, this had a knock on effect to 3rd Party companies, who left the other platforms and worked on the playstation. This time, the benchmarks are clearer and Nintendo and Microsoft know where they are aiming for. They will not have any surprises unless Sony do something unexpected, like release another console, but even if they do, the other two will be ready.
In the end, all the consoles should be there for the public to decide what they want and hopefully each should have enough revenue in Japan, the US and Europe to stay afloat. All they need to do is get the fans they need and stop the stupid people from arguing about who should stay and who should go. That and give us some damn fine games.
Now, many people see the Playstation 2 doing well. Is it a product of the success of the PSX, or merely that it has a great games line-up? Well, it's both, and more. Sony really did their homework, again. They included a DVD player, which started out as something that seemed a bit cheap, but with a few corrections to the drivers (via the official remote disc or the 3rd party multi-region software) it became quite a good little player. That was a big plus at a time when everyone was starting to think about buying a player. Why buy a seperate DVD when you could have it in the machine?
They also played on the success of the PSX by making it backward compatible and by making sequels, most of which have lived up to the original or surpassed it. So, well done Sony. But the thing is that these 'zealots' are suggesting that it should be the only console to succeed and see no room for the Gamecube or Xbox in the market.
Why?
The games market has grown substantially in the past 5 years, partly due to Sony themselves, but it has always sustained at least two consoles with no damage to sales. Like in any other market, competition drives the games makers and hardware makers on to bigger and better things, trying to outdo each other on every title. Do they want nothing to compare or compete against? No. They are happy to have a multi-platform market, where they are free to choose to work on one platform or another, or even all of them. The games companies can ask for larger amounts of money and can work with different hardware to get the best from it.
There is room, I believe, for the 3 new consoles to sit together and the public can have the choice of one or the other. If only one existed, it wouldn't be that all the games were made for it, as many PC conversions and new companies created by the extra work wouldn't exist. A greater variety of games and type of game are created by the different console platforms and as long as there is a market for variety, then there will be at least several companies out there making new consoles every 5 years or so.
Sony tried hard to make the PSX a success by mass media advertising and signing big games companies like Psygnosis and Square. They succeeded, of course, but set the benchmark for sales at electrical goods standards. This meant that other consoles at the time were judged on the PSX sales, making them look like they failed. Of course, this had a knock on effect to 3rd Party companies, who left the other platforms and worked on the playstation. This time, the benchmarks are clearer and Nintendo and Microsoft know where they are aiming for. They will not have any surprises unless Sony do something unexpected, like release another console, but even if they do, the other two will be ready.
In the end, all the consoles should be there for the public to decide what they want and hopefully each should have enough revenue in Japan, the US and Europe to stay afloat. All they need to do is get the fans they need and stop the stupid people from arguing about who should stay and who should go. That and give us some damn fine games.