Slayer of Bothan Spies
- Sep 28, 2008
The only real competitor in their first generation was... nobody. Nintendo went with the N64, which meant smaller capacity in order to remain price competitive(inferior graphics and smaller games), Sega was still failing to recover from their SegaCD/32x fiasco with the Saturn(which never caught on), and does anyone really think the NeoGeo was going to go anywhere with an 800 dollar system and 200 dollar games? Sony one the first round because they got good with CD based games, and because Sony Japan fired the Sony Computer Entertainment America director who was blocking JRPGs from America. He in turn immediately got hired by Sega America, and rejected the idea of putting Final Fantasy 7 on the Saturn.Aiddon said:Sony, once again proving their two generations of dominance in the market was sheer, unadulterated LUCK.
The second Generation started off with Sega pretty much rushing out the Dreamcast to get to the market first, followed by Sony and it's amazing DVD player and fully backwards compatible game system. Microsoft floundered at first, and then Halo saved this new X-Box system. I would say the winners of that generation were both Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo did its own thing with the Gamecube, and it seemed to work for them.
As for this generation, I would say Nintendo won the first half, and both Microsoft and Sony are trying to play catch up. While they're both great systems, at the rate publishers are going, they could be the last full console generation.
As for the portable side, Sony dropped the ball on the PSP. They could have pulled something off if only they added a couple more features, and went with a business casual deal(think Personal Digital Assistant that has games, movies, and music). I don't think I've seen an advertisement for the PSP outside of a couple of magazines. The PSPGo was a terrible idea. This PSVita don't port over stuff we bought is just stupid. Of course, Nintendo isn't doing as good as they would hope right now either with the 3DS.
Granted there are more problems with the way gaming as a whole is working right now than I could probably ever address. I think we're heading for a long term repeat of 1983. Too many games and systems, and too few people willing to spend on it. I'm just not seeing enough interest in what's out there, especially long term, for companies to continue to head down their current course. I can't name a single factor that needs to change to fix it, because it's more than any one factor. There is no silver bullet to save gaming from itself.