Because the PS4 doesn't seem to offer much more it seems than PS3. Just better graphics, but people are content with what they have now and look at the "2D comeback" and the economy. Who wants to spend $500 on a PS3 part 2 ? What all does it do the PS3 doesn't ? I don't blame them. The writing is on the wall for consoles.
Sony has pretty lost ALL its Playstation capital. And over the past decade has seen its revenue gradually nosedive. On top of that, all of its divisions are beginning to bleed money.Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch
If PS4 doesn't perform as well as hoped & Vita sales continue to remain poor(The Japanese price cut is causing a budget shortfall), Sony will be forced to file Bankrupcy. Even if PS4 does well, it won't save Sony as the rest of the divisions will simply cave in on themselves.
Mark my words, in 2015, exactly 20 years after they entered the console market, Sony will officially file for Chapter 11 bankrupcy.
I'm pretty sure MrSega's words have been well "marked" for the past 2 years, and none of them have been right.
"OMG SEGA RING EDGE 2010 ORBI BOX OF INTERACTIVE TOYLET URINAL PUCK PATENTS! THEY ARE RETURNING! BELIEVE! HYPE! OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD YES!"
I really don't see it's position being much different than the Wii was . . . except it's launching well ahead of the next wave of MS and Sony consoles, the previous gen hardware is considerably more stale than the PS2/GC/Xbox in 2006, and the WiiU isn't as powerful next to PS3 and 360 as the Wii had been against Xbox/PS2/GC. (namely due to the CPU shortcomings . . . and given that's at least partially due to the manner in which they included backwards compatibility, it's really a crappy trade-off in general -especially since a semi-custom AMD APU probably wouldn't have been far to go from their current architecture -as it is, it looks like Latte is pretty similar to the Radeon HD 6530D or 6520G with a clock speed bump over what the Llano used . . . or keep compatibility and just go with a different PowerPC -if a higher clocked 750 derivative wouldn't work . . . or an ARM CPU)Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster
Same thing for the N64, except it had greater success in North America. The Saturn (or, indeed, Dreamcast) are hard to compare since neither got to experience a full market lifecycle. Even with the Saturn's problems up through 1996, there was a lot more potential to manage at least some moderate international success in the long-run from 1997-1999. (not to mention what impact that would have had for moving on to the DC)Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturn Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by djvectorman
All the examples of this are weird IMO. Positioning new products against competition is one thing, but against your own older hardware (as competition) is pretty odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Since old hardware typically ends up as the budget platform in its own niche alongside the new one, it tends to make far more sense to position marketing accordingly rather than treating it like they're competing platforms. (or, more typically, scale back on marketing the older platform altogether, since it's already been a wide success and viral marketing would be enough to sustain its late-gen niche)
That problem is particularly blaring with the 32x/Saturn, since marketing the 2 (basically) as competitors in PR statements like that just makes it really confusing on the whole . . . Sega did a horrible job with damage control over that whole situation. (then again, they made similar mistakes announcing the Dreamcast and decrying the Saturn in '97)
Yeah and they did it in 2 Sega Vision magazines, I posted more screenshots in http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...on-quot/page55 post 813 if you want to see more. It was cringe worthy even in 1995 reading it.
Oh no, I'm totally fond of my Saturns (I have two). I just didn't own a Saturn back then, since it didn't get any marketing in my area. It sure did at Disney World though! Saw Saturn demo stations lined up down there and loved what the Saturn was doing, but that was after the Saturn was released.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSega
My bad. I see. I own both an American one that my stepdad brought for me in August 1997 & a White import I purchased last fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePrimitive
I agree, but that was confined to Sega Visions. Nintendo is doing this at retail where the its open for everyone to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by djvectorman
Yeah... Sounds familiar...
http://reviews.in.88db.com/index.php...en-ps2-and-ps3
Not that this was released by Sony... But it was out there...Quote:
We have heard the words so many times, PS2 and PS3 but what is the difference between these two ? First let us see what is meant by PS2 and PS3. The PS2 and PS3 are the latest and improvised version of Sony’s Playstation gaming console.
The name itself defines it. PS3 is the upgraded version and superior version of PS2. The PS3 holds a high performing processors and GPU which is responsible for better graphics and fluid motion. The PS3 also has on-board Wi-Fi adapter allowing the user to connect to wireless access point. The PS2 is also capable of connecting to the internet but the PS2 is only wired.
The other main feature of PS3 when compared with PS2 is the ability to play Blu-Ray discs. The gaming console can also play Blu-Ray discs, this one also acts as a Blu-Ray player, So the user can be happy doubly. The PS2 did not feature this particular feature and the main reason for this is that Blu-Ray was not in use in that period. The Sony gaming console PS3 is also features an HDMI port so that it can digitally transmit the HD video to HD capable screens.
The PS2 gaming console was appealing console for many users as it enables the games to played which where intended for original Playstation. The games which where available were a huge list. The PS3 is a software emulation but most of the models are not compatible with the PS2 games. Gradually sony removed few PS2 components that were in the PS3 like Emotion engine and Graphic Synthesizer GPU.
Though the PS3 is an advanced version, most of the people consider the PS2 to be the best from Sony Gaming Console. The main reason is that the games that were available for PS2 are not available for PS3.
PS3 vs PS2 Summary :
PS3 is latest
PS3 has much better graphics when compared to the PS2
PS3 has on-board Wi-Fi while the PS2 does not
PS3 can play Blu-Ray discs while the PS2 cannot
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lan Di
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster
Almost, MrSega's been marking his words and getting it wrong since 2009 (at least).
To Be This Wrong, Takes MrSega!
The Saturn has some great games, but I don't know what they were thinking with that cart slot. I think the concept of an expansion was a decent idea, but those slots were obviously not stress tested since so many of them have failed at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSonicRetard
yeah we get it, you're a sony haterQuote:
Originally Posted by sheath
and had a killer launch line-up and was actually revolutionary.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSonicRetard
LOL, wish I could rep you, but have to spread some aroundQuote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster
They used cheaper material to bring the costs down. Plus it was never meant to be a cart only system. So far I have never had nay issues with my official back up ram cart. The 5 in 1 has become a pain in the ass to use at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by xelement5x
Not Sony so much specifically, but that just ends up coming up the most in recent topics . . . he just hates the general big business/corporate world in general as it is (and tends to be). The only thing I really disagree about in general is that Sega was even a major exception to that business world in general . . . they made other mistakes, but not because they weren't trying to play that same game. (well, perhaps not the game Nintendo has always been intent on pushing, but certainly more along the lines of what Sony and Microsoft have done overall -or looking back at any big business in the industry, including several who failed) That's an interesting thought though: how might have Sega handled success on par with the Famicom/NES in terms of being monopolistic and without the checks and balances that were more prevalent in the western markets. (ie the same ones that facilitated 3rd party software competition on the pre-crash consoles)Quote:
Originally Posted by bultje112
Aside from hypotheticals, the fact remains that Nintendo has been the only console manufacturer to be heavily anticompetitive against both 3rd party software manufacturers and hardware competitors. (most others just aim at the latter . . . and the line between competitive and anticompetitive tends to get blurred in that case anyway)