Support NeoGAF

[TheAssist]

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?

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

It’s the same as always. The most popular games will drive the majority of console sales. Power and price point are factors but games are the primary asset.

PS4 had the power advantage and Xbox stumbled with the Kinect packaged deal at the start. Also, I’m not sure Pro vs X sales are entirely relevant. The larger base was gonna sell more mid-gen refreshes and and PS4 had/has larger base.

 

[Bonfires Down]

It matters because early adopters care about power, and when the late adopters buy a system they buy the same one as their early adopter friends.

I reckon 90+ % of gamers won't be able to tell the difference between the same game running on the PS5 vs the XSX.

 

[Eevee86]

It helps, but games are what really matter.

 

[TheAssist]

It matters because early adopters care about power, and when the late adopters buy a system they buy the same one as their early adopter friends.

I reckon 90+ % of gamers won't be able to tell the difference between the same game running on the PS5 vs the XSX.

I feel like early adopters are mostly fans who are already part of one side or the other or buy all systems. Sure there will always be a few who might use it as a deciding factor, but usually those who buy early are already in an eco system. Which is now even more important then ever because of multiplayer and subscription models.

Another way to phrase the question would be "Whats more important. XBox game pass or 2 more TF?" Which is why I thought there would be much more discussion around these services, especially with streaming becoming a thing next gen. But so far, it seems still more people interested in texture fill rates, triangle counts, number of rays and what have you.

 

[Coolwhhip]

Not much. Brand and gamez matter most.

 

[diffusionx]

Literally none at all. Not a single person buys a console because the chips are more powerful than the other chips.

 

[Danjin44]

Games are the most important thing in gaming system, having more power doesn’t automatically brings the game people care about.

 

[CobraXT]

It did help the PSP .. DS was a huge success but it didn't have enough power to run a games like Monster Hunter .. it didnt help the PSP selling more
units than the DS but imagine if the DS have enough power to run MH .. PSP would be in even worse position .. the OG Xbox didnt sell as good as PS2
but the multiplatform games sales were almost the same between them .. enthusiasts and hardcore gamres care .. i think companies dont only
care about the how much units they will sell .. but also they want to attract the people who will buy software frequently and for full price ..

 

[Azelover]

It barely matters.

I think historically having slightly less raw power drove the developers, and the ones in charge, to sort of compensate on the games. Which is really all that truly matters.

The most powerful system of a gen never won in sales.. which is more of a consequence than the root reason. But it certainly shows that raw power is secondary.

 

[SlaughterX]

Never... can't remember when/if the most powerful console of a generation that was also the best selling, it's usually the other way around.

 

[Life]

It's too late for that. The 3 competing consoles have roots that go too deep for power to matter. Look at Nintendo. When did they ever dish out a powerful console? It's all about the fanbase/franchises they hold.

For your OP to be tested - we would need the next gen games that come out - to have the option to be played last gen too. E.g any PS5 game would be playable on PS4 with lessened graphics etc. Then you'll see how much console buyers care about power - or just playing the games.

 

[diffusionx]

It's too late for that. The 3 competing consoles have roots that go too deep for power to matter. Look at Nintendo. When did they ever dish out a powerful console? It's all about the fanbase/franchises they hold.

For your OP to be tested - we would need the next gen games that come out - to have the option to be played last gen too. E.g any PS5 game would be playable on PS4 with lessened graphics etc. Then you'll see how much console buyers care about power - or just playing the games.

Eh you can see this with the PS4 Pro. They play the same games. The only difference is the Pro is more powerful. Most estimates say that about 20% of sales are a Pro. That means 80% of people would rather buy a cheaper system over a more powerful one.

 

[Vawn]

Winners
NES - idk if most powerful
SNES - probably most powerful?
PS1 - not most powerful
PS2 - not most powerful
Wii - definitely NOT most powerful
PS4/Pro - most powerful, then not most powerful

It's games and price. Always.

 

[nikolino840]

the Power in ads and commercials help the sells?

Never Heard someone saying the ps4 Is more powerful then Xbox? Or the games are Better on ps4 becouse Is more powerful?

And i add

 

[diffusionx]

Winners
NES - idk if most powerful
SNES - probably most powerful?
PS1 - not most powerful
PS2 - not most powerful
Wii - definitely NOT most powerful
PS4/Pro - most powerful, then not most powerful

It's games and price. Always.

NES was definitely not most powerful, the SMS was better hardware-wise, and NES was still outselling the TG-16 and Genesis until Sanic came along, IIRC.

 

[Mr Hyde]

I'd say it's a lot of things that dictate the success of a console. Games obviously, but also branding, marketing, messaging, pricing, services and power, play an important role as well. It's the sum of all things. But mostly it's games. Lots of quality first party, but also a wide variety of second and third party.

 

[Rolla]

The power narrative doesn't exist outside of the core gamer discourse. Don't believe me? Ask Nintendo about the Switch or the Wii...

Games are what translates across the spectrum. A parent will never go into a retailer and ask about the Tflop count but that new hotness their kid has been talking about, you can bet everything on the assumption that they know that.

 

[The Hamburglar]

Price and message are more important than power.

 

[Craig of War]

Power helps being more powerful can't hurt it but price is the number 1 thing for a console to be successful at launch then the games.

 

[Oddspeak]

Games and price have a much greater influence.

Obsession over power doesn't exist among the casual and semi-casual crowds -- you know, the crowds that make up the vast majority of console owners. They just want a reasonably-priced machine that functions and has games they're interested in.

 

[rofif]

It's games if I have a gaming PC then I will get a supplementary system like PS4 slim just too play uc games, god of war, bloodborne, last guardian, Colossus etc...

If I did not had a pc I would 100% get Xbox one X for gamepass and multiplats. And cheap PS4 slim for exclusives.

 

[Vroadstar]

Power outside of core don't mean squat, it's the software, price, and brand trusted by gamers to deliver top-notch games up to end, gen after gen that matters. Power alone won't tip the scale, never was and never will be.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Overall games> power.

However power will convince some people to choose one system over the other. But if the difference is small that number will probably be even less.

Then there's price which is a big factor in the sales of the unit as well as brand loyalty plus investment into an ecosystem.

Now do I believe the Xbox Series X will outsell the PS5 due to power alone? I really don't. But can it perform better than the Xbox One? It can as long as the price is good and the content is there.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

SNES was less powerful? I certainly never gave that impression.

 

[TheWanderingOgre]

It doesnt matter as much as it did before.

For the average gaming consumer the difference is not very apparent.

 

[quickwhips]

with great games comes great marketing deals with third party developers. Power is a close third.

 

[ToadMan]

PS3 outsold X360. But that doesn’t matter because Wii killed them both.

It’s all about the exclusive games.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

About 1.21 gigawatts just to be safe.

 

[Killer Sakoman]

Games not power. Every one remember XBOX360. It was very successful because of all the fantastic exclusive games between 2005 and 2010. Something wrong then happened in 2010 and they went down hill since.

PS1 destroyed Nintendo and Sega despite Sony being unknown newcomer with zero track record. You know why? Because games ( both first party and third party exclusives)

Ps2 released in late 2000 and in its first year we had MGS2, FFX, DMC, SH2, Soul Reaver 2, Onimusha, Dark Cloud, Ico, Red Faction, GTA3. That's what made it destroy GC and XBox even before they were released.

 

[Jubenhimer]

Specs don't sell systems. Games do. You really think the PS4 sold so much because it was Powerful? No, it sold so much because it capitalized on Microsoft's fuck ups and offered quality first and third party games.

 

[Ceallach]

None.

Gameboy was dramatically worse than Game Gear or Lynx
PS2 was far less powerful than GC and XBox
Wii was far less powerful than PS3/XBox 360
DS was leagues worse than PSP
Switch is fairly weak.

Famicom/NES is kind of an anomaly. Yes, it was way weaker than the Master System or PC Engine, but when it released in 1983, it was a fucking powerhouse.

All are fucking monsters.

 

[Gavon West]

It barely matters.

I think historically having slightly less raw power drove the developers, and the ones in charge, to sort of compensate on the games. Which is really all that truly matters.

The most powerful system of a gen never won in sales.. which is more of a consequence than the root reason. But it certainly shows that raw power is secondary.

Raw power matters most at the beginning of a new generation. It sets the precedent and its the very first thing that sells people on a console through the software. Its the first real, tangible sign of the technology in the box and its always compared to the past systems so those differences can be seen and compared immediately. If gamers couldnt see an immediate difference in visual aesthetics from next gen to last, I'd wager system sales would suffer serious financial loses.

Everyone equates more power in gaming consoles to mean pretty graphics. The more powerful, the prettier the picture. The bigger the "Wow!"

After that, its up to the devs/software to utilize that power to make the visuals better throughout the generation. Power matters hugely in the beginning.

 

[Gavon West]

Specs don't sell systems. Games do. You really think the PS4 sold so much because it was Powerful? No, it sold so much because it capitalized on Microsoft's fuck ups and offered quality first and third party games.

I was going to respond to this but the mods here seem to be a pretty special lot. So, Ill just say....Happy 2020! Are we having fun yet????

 

[Killer Sakoman]

None.

Gameboy was dramatically worse than Game Gear or Lynx
PS2 was far less powerful than GC and XBox
Wii was far less powerful than PS3/XBox 360
DS was leagues worse than PSP
Switch is fairly weak.

Famicom/NES is kind of an anomaly. Yes, it was way weaker than the Master System or PC Engine, but when it released in 1983, it was a fucking powerhouse.

All are fucking monsters.

The Wii was a special case. Why in hell did it sell well?

 

[Danjin44]

The Wii was a special case. Why in hell did it sell well?

Because it has games people wanted to play, I know it crazy that people care about games in video games.

 

[Airbus Jr]

History tells us most powerful console doesnt always win

N64>PS1 N64 lost
Xbox>PS2 Xbox lost
360>PS3 PS3 lost ( PS3 is more powerfull than 360 if Cell is fully utilized, not to mention an even weaker system Wii >360)
PS4>Xbox One Xbox One lost ( Initialy PS4 is more powerfull but the mid gen upgrade Xbox One X is better than PS4Pro)

 

[Codes 208]

Its just one of many factors

 

[Dargor]

Its always about a mixture of games, price and power.

Power being the lesser factor.

 

[MrA]

None.

Gameboy was dramatically worse than Game Gear or Lynx
PS2 was far less powerful than GC and XBox
Wii was far less powerful than PS3/XBox 360
DS was leagues worse than PSP
Switch is fairly weak.

Famicom/NES is kind of an anomaly. Yes, it was way weaker than the Master System or PC Engine, but when it released in 1983, it was a fucking powerhouse.

All are fucking monsters.

the Famicom is an anomaly because the competitors that had the best shot of making a competitive console dropped out, the real Intellivision 3 (not the rebadge) or odyssey 4 would have been able to complete with the nes. The system that is the most comparable in terms of power was the commodore 64 (which can compete pretty well with the nes, but that slow cpu is a liability) , and it was actually going to be a console originally but commodore (probably sensibly) decided it would be better as a computer.

 

[deriks]

The success of a console is a matter of marketing and business decisions

- PS2 was kinda hard to develop, but selling as a DVD player and keeping partners that made the PS1 a thing was key
- The Wii was sold as an easy, cheap and party console to all ages
- Xbox 360 was "the most powerfull shit ever" back in the day, was launched a year ahead of the two competition guys, and have THE new game of the new generation (Gears of War)
- PS4 was sold primary as a console that you could play offline and could borrow/buy used games
- Switch was a portable and home Nintendo console, with one of the greatest games ever (Zelda) day one and a great Mario game in the same year

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

Even when we see the full launch lineup of the PS5 and Series X, fanboys will be more interested in counting pixels and recording load times. Normal people just buy a console to play the games they're interested in.

 

[bumleforce]

This sounds like a goalpost moving again

 

[TheAssist]

This is so funny. I mean the reaction is exactly what I thought it would be. Yet we are arguing about SSD's and Flops and CU's and raytracing for months now. When in the end no one seems to actually care.

Again, I get it. You want the system you like most to "win" because you want them to make great games for that system. Games that you like. So you could argue that people who are defending a certain system and say its the better one do so, because they want a lot of games on this system and of course that only works if that system sells well. So better go out and tell the world how much flops and IO throughput etc it has.

So people are arguing about hardware (that they understand very little of most of the times) because of their love for games

 

[Kagey K]

We have only had one gen where these current manufacturers launched at nearly identically the same time and I don’t know how much power played into it over price. (One system had the advantage on both.)

This seems like a loaded question that we will never know the answer to without 2 completely new players coming in and launching at the same time.

In video games looking at the past can be a double edged sword, if you see the wrong answers.

 

[kraspkibble]

Xbox One X is currently the world's most powerful console ever!!!

Just look how that's doing and that tells you all you need to know. The PS4 has been destroying it.

Xbox might retain the title next gen but unless Microsoft can back it up with games then it means nothing. People go where the games are.

 

[itsjustJEFF]

I feel like early adopters are mostly fans who are already part of one side or the other or buy all systems. Sure there will always be a few who might use it as a deciding factor, but usually those who buy early are already in an eco system. Which is now even more important then ever because of multiplayer and subscription models.

Another way to phrase the question would be "Whats more important. XBox game pass or 2 more TF?" Which is why I thought there would be much more discussion around these services, especially with streaming becoming a thing next gen. But so far, it seems still more people interested in texture fill rates, triangle counts, number of rays and what have you.

Yea, early adopters are the hardcore and they'll buy the one they're already invested in or the one they're switching over to. I personally don't think GamePass is the discussion right now because people want to play new game that show off "next gen" power. GamePass is a great service but right now it's old games. Yes, it will have 1st party games day in date. But I feel like some people are still wondering about Xbox's first party offerings. What do we know about those offerings, besides the usual? Not much and for some, that's worrying. I personally think that's pretty exciting. The possibilities are endless, or not. What will Xbox green light? We have an idea and they've been okay. Not a lot has been standout hits, besides the usual stuff. But we do know what they've canceled. They've canceled potentially "great" stuff. How will Xbox approach this coming gen and the games they green light?

I think it mostly falls on the games that you see coming in the future. That's both good and bad. Good in that you know if you jump into that platform again you have these great sequels, you hope anyway, coming in the future. Bad in that it'll be sequels, maybe not bad? What about the new stuff?!?!? I'm a Playstation guy, always have been. I don't hate Xbox, I just don't have the time to play on more than one gaming system. Also, PS hooked me years ago. They've always weird quirky, off the wall games, besides the normal stuff. That's always appealed to me that's why I've stuck with them. I don't agree with everything they've done. I don't even like some of their games. Everyone is excited about the next Horizon, me not so much. I played the first and I lost interest about 25 hrs in. I played Spider man, I lost interest about 20 hrs in LOL It's never been about power for me. There has never been a MAJOR difference between graphics, if you ask me. Even one was 720 and the other was 1080, in screen shots you can kinda see a difference, but in motion... come on, that shit is a wash. It's always been art direction and style. I could careless about 4k vs 4k up scaled. 1080 looked great to me. But if you want to pixel peep, yea you'll notice a difference but that just for arguments sake. Not in motion tho, your ass concentrating on not dying, like you should be.

 

[Kagey K]

Xbox One X is currently the world's most powerful console ever!!!

Just look how that's doing and that tells you all you need to know. The PS4 has been destroying it.

Xbox might retain the title next gen but unless Microsoft can back it up with games then it means nothing. People go where the games are.

Fucking this strawman again.

 

[SaucyJack]

Power is really not that important.

Sony have been winning as a result of 25 years of bringing games. Therefore people trust them to bring the games they like, even when they fuck up the launch like with PS3. This is why they have more brand loyalty than Xbox who tend to promise “jam tomorrow“.

And ultimately games are really the only thing that matters.

 

[Ceallach]

Power is really not that important.

Sony have been winning as a result of 25 years of bringing games. Therefore people trust them to bring the games they like, even when they fuck up the launch like with PS3. This is why they have more brand loyalty than Xbox who tend to promise “jam tomorrow“.

And ultimately games are really the only thing that matters.

For the most part this. To an extent.

The Wii U and Dreamcast both have great libraries but were killed by factors other than their library or power. DC by Sega incompetence and Wii U by brand confusion