TheAssist
Member
Since the dystopian console war where random people fight on behalf of corporations is in full swing I was wondering when performance has ever mattered.
Of course its important for the medium to reach new technological milestones, since gaming is much more dependent on such advancements compared to any other medium. Certain games simply would not be possible on lets say a NES. Which is why competition is so important, otherwise everything would stagnate for too long.
So while general improvements in rendering capacity, AI, sound, IO, etc. are a must, when was the last time that superior hardware WITHIN the same generation has actually mattered from a business standpoint?
As far as I remember it went something like this:
SNES, Mega Drive --> SNES was less powerful is a lot of ways (not all), but sold better
PS1, Saturn, N64 --> N64 was the most powerful (if hard to develop for) system and did not even stand a chance in sales compared to the newcomer Sony
PS2, Gamecube, XBox, (Dreamcast) --> PS2 was certainly among the weakest offerings in that generation, even the GC outperformed it handily. Plus the PS2 was hard to develop for. But I dont need to tell where it ended
PS3, XBox 360 --> Now thats a hard one. On some metrics the PS3 might have been more powerful, but it was hiding that power very well. In the end, both systems sold the same. Though I think the Xbox had the higher attachment rate and if it wasnt for the RoD might have been the overall more profitable console
PS4, XBox One --> Well, this one is easy, PS4 was more powerful and sold MUCH better. Though I find it hard to believe that this was due to its better specs as we see in the next example
PS4 Pro, XBox One X --> Thats a 50 percent lead in pure Teraflop power (which might be the highest difference in raw power within the same generation?? Again its hard to say with the PS3's Teraflops, since they were kinda hard to use) for the XBox :O .... still didnt sell as much as the PS4 pro.
Not to mention Nintendo DS and 3DS vs PSP and VITA.
Sorry for the lame formatting, its late I cant be bothered right now xD.
The reason why any of these consoles sold well and others didnt alway came down to lot of different reasons (marketing, developer support, PR disasters, game library including exclusive games, current mindframe of the gaming audience, etc.), but was pure power ever one?
I personally grew up with a PS1 and later PS2, then switched to PC before the PS3/360 era. The latter one was the first time I really got into all the spec stuff, before it was just about the games and didnt know anything about the tech side anyways. I'm still somewhat of Sony Fanboy since it represents my childhood and I still love most of the Sony exclusives. So yeah, go Sony (still, PC imho is much more versatile, though I do understand that consoles usually define progress).
I find people going apeshit about whether Sony or MS has the slightly more powerful console just... a bit frustrating tbh, but its not like any company is giving them anything else to fight about. In the end it wont matter at all, nobody is going to talk about it. Or do you hear people still arguing about the fact that PS4 has twice as much and faster RAM and more CU's? Do people actually freeze frame their game, take a screenshot and start pixel counting or look how sharp a background texture is?
So while console wars can be "fun", do you think the specs of these two consoles will actually have any long term impact, or will it come down to social and mass media perception of their power plus a myriad of other factors?
Of course its important for the medium to reach new technological milestones, since gaming is much more dependent on such advancements compared to any other medium. Certain games simply would not be possible on lets say a NES. Which is why competition is so important, otherwise everything would stagnate for too long.
So while general improvements in rendering capacity, AI, sound, IO, etc. are a must, when was the last time that superior hardware WITHIN the same generation has actually mattered from a business standpoint?
As far as I remember it went something like this:
SNES, Mega Drive --> SNES was less powerful is a lot of ways (not all), but sold better
PS1, Saturn, N64 --> N64 was the most powerful (if hard to develop for) system and did not even stand a chance in sales compared to the newcomer Sony
PS2, Gamecube, XBox, (Dreamcast) --> PS2 was certainly among the weakest offerings in that generation, even the GC outperformed it handily. Plus the PS2 was hard to develop for. But I dont need to tell where it ended
PS3, XBox 360 --> Now thats a hard one. On some metrics the PS3 might have been more powerful, but it was hiding that power very well. In the end, both systems sold the same. Though I think the Xbox had the higher attachment rate and if it wasnt for the RoD might have been the overall more profitable console
PS4, XBox One --> Well, this one is easy, PS4 was more powerful and sold MUCH better. Though I find it hard to believe that this was due to its better specs as we see in the next example
PS4 Pro, XBox One X --> Thats a 50 percent lead in pure Teraflop power (which might be the highest difference in raw power within the same generation?? Again its hard to say with the PS3's Teraflops, since they were kinda hard to use) for the XBox :O .... still didnt sell as much as the PS4 pro.
Not to mention Nintendo DS and 3DS vs PSP and VITA.
Sorry for the lame formatting, its late I cant be bothered right now xD.
The reason why any of these consoles sold well and others didnt alway came down to lot of different reasons (marketing, developer support, PR disasters, game library including exclusive games, current mindframe of the gaming audience, etc.), but was pure power ever one?
I personally grew up with a PS1 and later PS2, then switched to PC before the PS3/360 era. The latter one was the first time I really got into all the spec stuff, before it was just about the games and didnt know anything about the tech side anyways. I'm still somewhat of Sony Fanboy since it represents my childhood and I still love most of the Sony exclusives. So yeah, go Sony (still, PC imho is much more versatile, though I do understand that consoles usually define progress).
I find people going apeshit about whether Sony or MS has the slightly more powerful console just... a bit frustrating tbh, but its not like any company is giving them anything else to fight about. In the end it wont matter at all, nobody is going to talk about it. Or do you hear people still arguing about the fact that PS4 has twice as much and faster RAM and more CU's? Do people actually freeze frame their game, take a screenshot and start pixel counting or look how sharp a background texture is?
So while console wars can be "fun", do you think the specs of these two consoles will actually have any long term impact, or will it come down to social and mass media perception of their power plus a myriad of other factors?