>>>Playstation 2 is still going strong and it's 9 years
Yes but the PS2 is not Sony's primary console, and they would look like fools if they tried to use the PS2 as their primary console to take-on the X360 or the Wii. Likewise Sony's gonna look pretty idiotic if they try to use the PS3 to wake-on the Xbox 2011 or the Wii-2. The PS3 will look like old junk compared to these newer hardware units.
>>>Nintendo openly admits that their console can't handle a modern feature like online play without a hardware upgrade
I don't know where you got this but I think it's bullshit. The less-capable Gamecube could do online play. Heck even my lowly 7 megahertz Amiga can do online play. The idea that an ancient Amiga or an old Gamecube can do online, but the modern Wii cannot, sounds like a made-up rumor. Where did you pick-up this false rumor?
By that logic the current PS3 should be the #1 console, instead of number 3. I think your theory is flawed. I think PS2 won because it was first (a definite advantage) and it was familiar (playstation) and cheap to buy ($300). The PS3 even though it had backwards compatibility and could play PS1/2 games, missed out on the two other crucial points.
>>>Was there really a better looking racing game than Wipeout XL/2097 on that generation of consoles?
Okay I'm back. I've checked out that game and to answer your question "yes". Wipeout 64 is better than the PS1 version. Not only does W64 offer splitscreen multiplayer, but it simply looks better and moves faster.
I think you're just making stuff up. I've always heard (from various gaming rags) that the PS1/2 and N64/Cube were sold at a loss, and it's been standard procedure since the days of the Super Nintendo/Sega Genesis wars.
Wii may be the first console since 1990 that was designed to be cheap-to-make and therefore profitable.
The problem with modern games is that they move so slooooooow. I grew-up in an era when the typical game zipped-by in just a few minutes, and the challenge was to improve your speed or accuracy.
With today's games it seems to take an hour just to get past the opening cutscenes, and the way these games unfold I feel like I'm trudging through molasses to get to the next section. "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "How about now?" (looks at watch). And in many cases today's games are not even challenging. I'm just doing stuff like fetching blocks or whatever. (yawn)
I do like some of the modern games such as DDR on the PS3 and Mario Kart on the Wii, but I've already got those games from previous PS1/N64 and PS2/Cube generations. I don't need to upgrade to play those old favorites.
>>>if you wait another three years, the price might be $150!
QUOTE: "Even though consoles sometimes drop below $200 it's usually not until the end-of-life anyway," and I don't want to wait until the end of its span.
>>>if the Wii collapses in that time
Wii's outselling its closest competitor by 2-to-1. I don't think I need worry about that.
>>>the suckers
The average American carries $10,000 in credit card debt and $90,000 in mortgage debt. So yeah "suckers" is an appropriate word to use.
If you think either the X360 or the PS3 are going to last until 2016 (a double generation timespan), then you need to join that nutter* Ken Kutaragi in his forced retirement. I think Nintendo also knows neither will last that long, and thus have nothing to fear as the current #1 seller. They'll just keep following the same ~5 year timespan they've always followed and release a new Wii-HD in 2011.
* *Kutaragi has labeled the Xbox 360 as "just an Xbox 1.5" and stated that it was "only going after PlayStation 2". He also claimed people would be willing to pay $700 for a PS3.
>>>in the UK was the Sinclair ZX Spectrum by far the most popular 8-bit computer here
That's interesting, but I was only looking at worldwide figures when I was listing the winning game consoles (Atari,NES,SNES,PS1,PS2,Wii), not local markets. The Commodore=64 not only won the worldwide 8-bit computer war, but it's still the best-selling computer ever made (30 million units) according to the Guinness Record Book.
It's also worth mentioning the C64 uses one of the most-popular CPUs ever made - the Commodore/MOS 6502 - used in the Atari VCS, Atari computers, VIC-20, C64, Apple II, NES, and Super NES (16 bit variant).
>>>the dirty secret of the playstation was that it was so easy to pirate while nintendo was so overprotective about the N64 that most people jumped onto the ps1 bandwagon because they could get pirated copies of the game >>>
By this reasoning the Sega Saturn should have been a mega-blockbuster. But it wasn't. So I suspect your theory is flawed.
I also want to add that no PS1 platformer equals the beauty and HUGE worlds present in N64's Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie. The PS1 Spyro games are fun, but clearly inferior graphically (tearing polygons and pixelation). And the hi-res of N64's Perfect Dark is fantastic for multiplayer - again no PS1 game can equal it.
This is why I say PS1 won the war despite being technically inferior to its competition.
I would but since I'm a nerd and nerds don't have sex.....
Well let's just say I'm not concerned about AIDS. Now obesity from eating too many potato chips - THERE'S something to worry about. Isn't it about time someone developed a pill to absorb fat from your food, and carry it out the opposite end? Something like olestra but less icky.
On second though I think I'll wait for one more pricedrop. I played the Wii last spring at a friend's party, and it really didn't impress me too much. Of course neither do the PS3 or X360 games. This whole generation has left me with a "blah" feeling.
NES v. SMS - doing just a quick comparison via youtube, I'd say the NES had better sound but the SMS has better graphics ability - almost like a Genesis in quality (look at Sonic 1 on the SMS). Plus the SMS' CPU runs about twice as fast. The NES was a 1982 technology and SMS used more-advanced 1985 tech, which you can see on the screen.
>>>Genesis used a 68000 on a 16 bit bus.
Yes and my first PC was a 386SX on a 16-bit die. That limitation doesn't alter the fact that the 386SX was a 32-bit CPU running 32-bit software, just like the 68000. But anyway I'll just say "tie" on the SNES v. Genesis because although SNES had some better games like Starfox, the Genesis versions of Populous and a few others were better (mainly due to the higher 320x240 resolution). So we'll just call them equal.
>>>Playstation won due to technical superiority
Completely and totally disagree. Yes the PS1 won, but it was still inferior to the N64. If you compare N64 versus PS1 identical ports, the N64 will look better. It may have been limited by the 64 megabyte cartridge space, but that didn't change the fact N64 has better appearance. For example Resident Evil 2 on the N64 is better-looking (hires) than the version on the PS1. And Masks of Majora is the best-looking game of the whole 1995-2000 timespan. Ditto Star Wars Racer and Fzero X the best-looking racers - running circles around PS1 racing games.
The PS1 won *in spite of* its inferiority as a slower console, just the same way PS2 won in spite of its slower tech.
>>>(when HDTV has been around for over 10 years [wikipedia.org]),
Yeah but people weren't forced to get HDTV until just recently. And even now with mandatory HD broadcasts, many persons like me still watch standard definition sets because they are still working. Nintendo recognized that most of their customers from 2006 to 2011 would still be using SD-CRTs and not care about the absence of HD.
>>>pissed off a good chunk of it's hardcore fan base of the past 20 years
True hardcore gamers don't care about the T&A. They are happy whether they are playing the latest 1920x1080 tech demo, or an old 320x240 Super Nintendo game. The gameplay is the thing that matters, not the size of her... I mean its pixels.
>>>online play
Boring level grinding. Ick. Also I don't really see the need for Super Mario to have online. That's the kind of game that's best when you're just challenging yourself versus the programmer's creation.
- The Japanese games are written for NTSC and have to be converted to PAL's dimensions - The games have to include voice-acting for multiple languages, not just one language - Or both.
Not only would this explain the high cost, but also why the EU market is often the last to get the release.
You can't be serious. Nintendo's games are always overpriced. Last generation while I was able to acquire PS2 Greatest Hits for $15-20 (new), the Gamecube Players Choice games were $30, even after being on the market for three years.
Meanwhile my Gamecube cost only $100 with a free copy of the Zelda Collection (Z1, Z2, Z64, and MoM). It seems clear to me that Nintendo "gaves away" their hardware for cheap, while keeping their game prices high ($20 v. $30 for older GH games).
I have a standing policy of never buying ANY console that costs more than $200. This has served me well by helping me avoid doomed, overpriced consoles like the Atari Jaguar or 3DO. Also even though consoles sometimes drop below $200 it's usually not until the end-of-life anyway. And finally, waiting ensures there will be a massive library spanning 3-4 years time. I won't get bored.
(goes off to buy a Wii)
Now I need to decide which console I want for my second console. Perhaps an Xbox360 when it drops to $150. That's how much I spent on my Gamecube last generation.
>>>Did you ever seriously believe that game console wars have *ever* been solved by technical prowess and not by games, marketing, gameplay, etc.?
Nope. If you look at the winners over the last 30 years, it was NEVER the most powerful console:
- Atari VCS/2600 - inferior to Intellivision and Colecovision - Nintendo ES - inferior to Sega MS - Super Nintendo - inferior to the Genesis' 32-bit capability - PS1 - inferior to Nintendo' 64-bit console - PS2 - inferior to faster-operating Cube and Xbox - Wii - inferior to high-def-capable PS3 and X360
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Playstation 2 is still going strong and it's 9 years
Yes but the PS2 is not Sony's primary console, and they would look like fools if they tried to use the PS2 as their primary console to take-on the X360 or the Wii. Likewise Sony's gonna look pretty idiotic if they try to use the PS3 to wake-on the Xbox 2011 or the Wii-2. The PS3 will look like old junk compared to these newer hardware units.
P.S.
>>>Nintendo openly admits that their console can't handle a modern feature like online play without a hardware upgrade
I don't know where you got this but I think it's bullshit. The less-capable Gamecube could do online play. Heck even my lowly 7 megahertz Amiga can do online play. The idea that an ancient Amiga or an old Gamecube can do online, but the modern Wii cannot, sounds like a made-up rumor. Where did you pick-up this false rumor?
>>>backwards compatibility and its DVD player.
By that logic the current PS3 should be the #1 console, instead of number 3. I think your theory is flawed. I think PS2 won because it was first (a definite advantage) and it was familiar (playstation) and cheap to buy ($300). The PS3 even though it had backwards compatibility and could play PS1/2 games, missed out on the two other crucial points.
>>>Let's look at the facts behind some of those wins
That's interesting but not relevant. It doesn't change the fact that the most-powerful consoles were NOT the winners, and in fact finished second.
>>>Was there really a better looking racing game than Wipeout XL/2097 on that generation of consoles?
Okay I'm back. I've checked out that game and to answer your question "yes". Wipeout 64 is better than the PS1 version. Not only does W64 offer splitscreen multiplayer, but it simply looks better and moves faster.
I think you're just making stuff up. I've always heard (from various gaming rags) that the PS1/2 and N64/Cube were sold at a loss, and it's been standard procedure since the days of the Super Nintendo/Sega Genesis wars.
Wii may be the first console since 1990 that was designed to be cheap-to-make and therefore profitable.
The problem with modern games is that they move so slooooooow. I grew-up in an era when the typical game zipped-by in just a few minutes, and the challenge was to improve your speed or accuracy.
With today's games it seems to take an hour just to get past the opening cutscenes, and the way these games unfold I feel like I'm trudging through molasses to get to the next section. "Are we there yet?" "Are we there yet?" "How about now?" (looks at watch). And in many cases today's games are not even challenging. I'm just doing stuff like fetching blocks or whatever. (yawn)
I do like some of the modern games such as DDR on the PS3 and Mario Kart on the Wii, but I've already got those games from previous PS1/N64 and PS2/Cube generations. I don't need to upgrade to play those old favorites.
>>>if you wait another three years, the price might be $150!
QUOTE: "Even though consoles sometimes drop below $200 it's usually not until the end-of-life anyway," and I don't want to wait until the end of its span.
>>>if the Wii collapses in that time
Wii's outselling its closest competitor by 2-to-1. I don't think I need worry about that.
>>>the suckers
The average American carries $10,000 in credit card debt and $90,000 in mortgage debt. So yeah "suckers" is an appropriate word to use.
If you think either the X360 or the PS3 are going to last until 2016 (a double generation timespan), then you need to join that nutter* Ken Kutaragi in his forced retirement. I think Nintendo also knows neither will last that long, and thus have nothing to fear as the current #1 seller. They'll just keep following the same ~5 year timespan they've always followed and release a new Wii-HD in 2011.
*
*Kutaragi has labeled the Xbox 360 as "just an Xbox 1.5" and stated that it was "only going after PlayStation 2". He also claimed people would be willing to pay $700 for a PS3.
>>>in the UK was the Sinclair ZX Spectrum by far the most popular 8-bit computer here
That's interesting, but I was only looking at worldwide figures when I was listing the winning game consoles (Atari,NES,SNES,PS1,PS2,Wii), not local markets. The Commodore=64 not only won the worldwide 8-bit computer war, but it's still the best-selling computer ever made (30 million units) according to the Guinness Record Book.
It's also worth mentioning the C64 uses one of the most-popular CPUs ever made - the Commodore/MOS 6502 - used in the Atari VCS, Atari computers, VIC-20, C64, Apple II, NES, and Super NES (16 bit variant).
>>>the dirty secret of the playstation was that it was so easy to pirate while nintendo was so overprotective about the N64 that most people jumped onto the ps1 bandwagon because they could get pirated copies of the game
>>>
By this reasoning the Sega Saturn should have been a mega-blockbuster.
But it wasn't.
So I suspect your theory is flawed.
>>>Sony came forward and said that it was fronting publishing costs out of it's own disc presses
One of the advantages of owning the Comcast Disc format. Sony can get the discs at actual material cost.
No idea but I'll try that game someday.
I also want to add that no PS1 platformer equals the beauty and HUGE worlds present in N64's Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie. The PS1 Spyro games are fun, but clearly inferior graphically (tearing polygons and pixelation). And the hi-res of N64's Perfect Dark is fantastic for multiplayer - again no PS1 game can equal it.
This is why I say PS1 won the war despite being technically inferior to its competition.
Sorry I still think Sonic looks better on the Sega MS than SMB3 on the original Nintendo.
(hops in car) - Idaho Panhandle here I come!
Sure!
HughJass@biggbutts.com
Why did you get so "lucky" as to move to Idaho? I've driven through that state. I saw lots of cows, but not much humans.
I would but since I'm a nerd and nerds don't have sex.....
Well let's just say I'm not concerned about AIDS. Now obesity from eating too many potato chips - THERE'S something to worry about. Isn't it about time someone developed a pill to absorb fat from your food, and carry it out the opposite end? Something like olestra but less icky.
>>>(goes off to buy a Wii)
On second though I think I'll wait for one more pricedrop. I played the Wii last spring at a friend's party, and it really didn't impress me too much. Of course neither do the PS3 or X360 games. This whole generation has left me with a "blah" feeling.
NES v. SMS - doing just a quick comparison via youtube, I'd say the NES had better sound but the SMS has better graphics ability - almost like a Genesis in quality (look at Sonic 1 on the SMS). Plus the SMS' CPU runs about twice as fast. The NES was a 1982 technology and SMS used more-advanced 1985 tech, which you can see on the screen.
>>>Genesis used a 68000 on a 16 bit bus.
Yes and my first PC was a 386SX on a 16-bit die. That limitation doesn't alter the fact that the 386SX was a 32-bit CPU running 32-bit software, just like the 68000. But anyway I'll just say "tie" on the SNES v. Genesis because although SNES had some better games like Starfox, the Genesis versions of Populous and a few others were better (mainly due to the higher 320x240 resolution). So we'll just call them equal.
>>>Playstation won due to technical superiority
Completely and totally disagree. Yes the PS1 won, but it was still inferior to the N64. If you compare N64 versus PS1 identical ports, the N64 will look better. It may have been limited by the 64 megabyte cartridge space, but that didn't change the fact N64 has better appearance. For example Resident Evil 2 on the N64 is better-looking (hires) than the version on the PS1. And Masks of Majora is the best-looking game of the whole 1995-2000 timespan. Ditto Star Wars Racer and Fzero X the best-looking racers - running circles around PS1 racing games.
The PS1 won *in spite of* its inferiority as a slower console, just the same way PS2 won in spite of its slower tech.
>>>(when HDTV has been around for over 10 years [wikipedia.org]),
Yeah but people weren't forced to get HDTV until just recently. And even now with mandatory HD broadcasts, many persons like me still watch standard definition sets because they are still working. Nintendo recognized that most of their customers from 2006 to 2011 would still be using SD-CRTs and not care about the absence of HD.
>>>pissed off a good chunk of it's hardcore fan base of the past 20 years
True hardcore gamers don't care about the T&A. They are happy whether they are playing the latest 1920x1080 tech demo, or an old 320x240 Super Nintendo game. The gameplay is the thing that matters, not the size of her... I mean its pixels.
>>>online play
Boring level grinding. Ick. Also I don't really see the need for Super Mario to have online. That's the kind of game that's best when you're just challenging yourself versus the programmer's creation.
Two possibilities for the high cost:
- The Japanese games are written for NTSC and have to be converted to PAL's dimensions
- The games have to include voice-acting for multiple languages, not just one language
- Or both.
Not only would this explain the high cost, but also why the EU market is often the last to get the release.
You can't be serious. Nintendo's games are always overpriced. Last generation while I was able to acquire PS2 Greatest Hits for $15-20 (new), the Gamecube Players Choice games were $30, even after being on the market for three years.
Meanwhile my Gamecube cost only $100 with a free copy of the Zelda Collection (Z1, Z2, Z64, and MoM). It seems clear to me that Nintendo "gaves away" their hardware for cheap, while keeping their game prices high ($20 v. $30 for older GH games).
I have a standing policy of never buying ANY console that costs more than $200. This has served me well by helping me avoid doomed, overpriced consoles like the Atari Jaguar or 3DO. Also even though consoles sometimes drop below $200 it's usually not until the end-of-life anyway. And finally, waiting ensures there will be a massive library spanning 3-4 years time. I won't get bored.
(goes off to buy a Wii)
Now I need to decide which console I want for my second console. Perhaps an Xbox360 when it drops to $150. That's how much I spent on my Gamecube last generation.
>>>Did you ever seriously believe that game console wars have *ever* been solved by technical prowess and not by games, marketing, gameplay, etc.?
Nope. If you look at the winners over the last 30 years, it was NEVER the most powerful console:
- Atari VCS/2600 - inferior to Intellivision and Colecovision
- Nintendo ES - inferior to Sega MS
- Super Nintendo - inferior to the Genesis' 32-bit capability
- PS1 - inferior to Nintendo' 64-bit console
- PS2 - inferior to faster-operating Cube and Xbox
- Wii - inferior to high-def-capable PS3 and X360