Consoles life cycle gettig shorter? (1 Viewer)

[James D S]

quote: So you're telling me that a little thing like Pokémon didn't sell tons of Gameboys? That all of Nintendo's franchises (and Rare) didn't keep it afloat against the powerhouse of the Playstation?[/quote]
Score one for David! I'm glad someone finally came out and said it! SOOOO many people are talking about "the games, the games" (said like Tatoo) and sounding like it's a lock Nintendo will deliver. Only one thing has kept them afloat these past couple of years, and that's Pokemon. Pure and simple. Sure they've got Mario, but odds are we are in for another "Mario is Missing" before we even get a sniff of something like Mario64 again. (Famous last words? We'll see)
Sure they had some winners elsewhere, but Pokemon paid the bills.
Their fabled first party support is hardly as supportive as we've gotten used to believing. The well is drying. (By that, Pokemon alone does not do me, a person with pubic hair, any bit of good) Look at their launch line-up. Where is the heavy-hitter? From a 3rd party supplier.
This is the first console to launch sans a Mario title. The writings on the wall.
And don't expect too many more consoles from the Big N.
[Edited last by James D S on November 15, 2001 at 09:30 PM]

 

[Steven K]

Morgan,
I understand what you are trying to say (I think) but you really need to start approaching posting on the HTF in a more mature manner.
OK, I'll elaborate.
The Saturn vs the PSX
Techincally speaking, the Saturn was much more powerful than the PSX. It had a faster CPU, 2 seperate video processors, and an FPU (floating point unit) that is still generally considered the best FPU ever released on a game console.
The problem with this setup is that, quite simply, it was too hard to program for. Programmers didn't have enough time to learn how to use these features, so they weren't really taken advantage of. The games that did take advantage of these features (Nights, Panzer Dragoon, Virtual ON, etc...) really did blow the PSX sofware away.
However, as a programmer working for a software company, what would you rather program for? A system like the SS that has all of the power in the world, but takes 12 months just to learn how to properly implement these featuers? Or the PSX, a system with moderate power, yet is extremely easy to program for because of its simplicity? Now, imagine the company you work for is under contant deadline to get new product out to generate more revenue? The answer is simple.
The same problem happened with the Sega CD. It was too hard to take advantage of the dual MC68000s, and as such, most games turned into ports of cartridges with better music and intermissions.
In my opinion, this is why the Saturn failed. Also throw into the mix the fact that Kay-Bee refused to carry Saturns and Saturn gamesproducts as the result of a disagreement with Sega. Ultimately, it did doom Sega. They decided to change directions a little bit, and chose to go with WinCE for the Dreamcast. But, it was too little, too late. By this time, most companies didn't trust Sega, after the Sega CD, 32X, and Saturn.

 

[Calvin Watts III]

Okay...
I am a bit peeved,so I'm gonna release some steam here.
But first -
Steven: Great post. I completely agree about what you said about Sega. While they still make some great games,and for a time,ruled the gaming world. But they dug their own grave,and just now are starting to dig out of it.
Michael: - I stand corrected on the actual GBC specs. But,it still wasn't a huge leap over what the GB did. And it was time to take a leap forward,with a much more advanced system. And unless you import a Wonderswan,or pray that Sony comes out with a true portable,cheap PSone,your only choice for handheld gaming nowadays is a GBA.
Morgan: - I do read your posts,and I respect your opinions...but dude,try and think about what you are going to say before you say it. (heck, that is a good reminder to everyone...)
For the Gamecube,Xbox,and PS2 fanboys...give it a rest,willya?? Just for one weekend. All the systems have something to offer.If you don't think so,well then fine. Just don't slam someone else who doesn't see things the way you do.
As for consoles becoming updated as quickly as video cards and the like...not for a loooong time.
If PC gaming is so wonderful,then why doesn't everyone just PC game? There are some various reasons,but IMO,here is one of the biggest :
By the time you spend good money to update your PC rig,you have to update it again too often. Especially if you want to play the latest & greatest games. And while that may be affordable to you & I, it isn't as affordable to the average family.
And monetary savings,to the average family,mean a lot...and getting the most out of their investment.
In closing...
For those of you who haven't been around as long as some of us older gamers - I suggest & recommend two books that deal with the history of videogaming. You will find that a lot of what we discuss today has many roots back in the "golden age" of videogames,and that anything can happen in this business:
Books are:
Phoenix: The Fall & Rise of Videogames - by Leonard Herman
&
The Ultimate History of Video Games (also known as The First Quarter) by Steven L. Kent
Laters,
Calvin
------------------
"Never give up!!! .......... Never surrender!!!!!!!!!."

 

[AndyVX]

For the Gamecube,Xbox,and PS2 fanboys...give it a rest,willya?? Just for one weekend. All the systems have something to offer.If you don't think so,well then fine. Just don't slam someone else who doesn't see things the way you do

Well said Calvin, well said!
Andrew
------------------
ICQ# - 119869807

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I meant that the PSX was not a technical equal to the other consoles of the time. It had great games, but that actual hardware was not that great. I was thinking of strictly hardware, I wasn't taking into account the software.
I've said before how each console will have its good and bad points and that I will own them all.