-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is there a trend of 3rd consoles failing?
- Thread starter Jessmo24
- Start date
Well, the NES nor the Master System were Nintendo's or SEGA's first consoles. Nintendo had Gen 1 consoles like TV Game 6/15, and the Master System was actually the Mark III in Japan, the successor to the SG-1000 and the Mark II.
But even if you don't count those consoles, too many consoles failed on their first or second attempt.
- Atari 2600 was Atari's first and arguably only successful console.
- The TurboGrafx/PC Engine was NEC's first and only successful one.
- 3D0 and Phillips (CD-i) failed on their first attempt.
- Even when home consoles were built off of some other successful hardware, they often failed, like the Neo-Geo AES, Capcom's CPS Changer, or the Amiga CD-32.
Basically, I think it's less "3rd time is the curse" and more "making a console isn't ever guaranteed to be a successful venture, and you'll definitely fail at it at some point(s)".
But even if you don't count those consoles, too many consoles failed on their first or second attempt.
- Atari 2600 was Atari's first and arguably only successful console.
- The TurboGrafx/PC Engine was NEC's first and only successful one.
- 3D0 and Phillips (CD-i) failed on their first attempt.
- Even when home consoles were built off of some other successful hardware, they often failed, like the Neo-Geo AES, Capcom's CPS Changer, or the Amiga CD-32.
Basically, I think it's less "3rd time is the curse" and more "making a console isn't ever guaranteed to be a successful venture, and you'll definitely fail at it at some point(s)".
Last edited:
Maybe its old memory bias because I played the GC a lot more than the N64, but didn't the GC get much better third party support than the N64?
*rough* start is putting it lightly. They burned through their entire ps2 profits in something like a year and it helped to almost kill the entire company (along with all their other division's failing).
People forget just how bad it was for Sony for the first half of last gen.
Sales don't really matter when you were bleeding boatloads of money for years.
If that's the case, only the PS3 was a failure, since the others never lost part of their company.
yes it did
the N64's library is teensy tiny, something like 300 games total
That doesn't make it a failure, the console was succesfull and sought after by consumers, it helped cementing BR as the de facto HD format as well.
It fufilled its purpose with albeit with a decline coming from the PS2.
What you're talking about is the decision to sell the console at a loss which was decided well before the release of the system. When you accept to loss 200$ on every console sold you don't expect it to make you any kind of real money.
It forced Sony to sell at a loss for a time and it allowed the PS3 to gain traction near the end of the generation when the Wii/360 hit a wall. It was a failure, and it gave Sony the kick it needed to turn things around, i don't see how its hard to understand.
It's hard to understand when the PS3 only failed making them money, while the rest failed to sell.
Yes it will do better than the Xbox so with a self contained manufacturer is it a fail? Rough shipment numbers:
Xbox 25 million
360 85 million, 2nd place in that generation ahead of PS3
Xbox One: Will be ~50 million after this upcoming holiday season. Depending, could end at 60-70 million given we assume a couple more years on the market (hard to project timelines).
But I see this topic has already been beat to death in other replies
The Sega Genesis, by and far Sega's best selling console, was their 3rd system. The people saying it's the fourth are mistaken about the SG-1000 II (aka the Mk2) and the SG-3000. The Mk2 and SG-3000 are identical to the SG-1000 save for cost saving or cosmetic differences, in much the same way the Sega Master System II and Sega Genesis model 2 were mere revisions. All SG-1000 games run on the Mk2 and SG-3000, there are no unique Mk2 or SG-3000 games. (Technically, the SG-3000 has extended memory and can run Sega Basic and has the keyboard attachment integrated. This is more akin to the difference between an Atari 400 and Atari 800 -- they run the same software, just different specced machines).
The Mark 3/Sega Master System is their second console. These consoles featured a revision to the TMS9918 VDP of the SG-1000/Mk2 that introduced a new graphics mode, called Mode 4. The Mark 3 and Japanese revision of the Sega Master System was entirely backwards compatible with the SG-1000, although the western revision of the Master System used a cost-reduced version of the VDP that eliminated the mode 1 graphics mode, making it incompatible with SG-1000 software.
The Genesis was originally codenamed the Mark IV, and is their third distinctive console. It features yet another revision of the VDP, this time with yet another new mode, Mode 5 (aka Megadrive mode). The Genesis is backwards compatible with the Master System/MK3 (using Mode 4 of the VDP) but not SG-1000/Mk2/SG-3000 games.
Thus, to sum it up, the Genesis/Megadrive was Sega's 3rd console. There were 3 distinct "waves" of software, and many machines were backwards compatible, but in the end there are SG-1000/Mk2/SG-3000 games, Master System Games, and Mega Drive games, and the preceding consoles could not play the succeeding console's games.
The Mark 3/Sega Master System is their second console. These consoles featured a revision to the TMS9918 VDP of the SG-1000/Mk2 that introduced a new graphics mode, called Mode 4. The Mark 3 and Japanese revision of the Sega Master System was entirely backwards compatible with the SG-1000, although the western revision of the Master System used a cost-reduced version of the VDP that eliminated the mode 1 graphics mode, making it incompatible with SG-1000 software.
The Genesis was originally codenamed the Mark IV, and is their third distinctive console. It features yet another revision of the VDP, this time with yet another new mode, Mode 5 (aka Megadrive mode). The Genesis is backwards compatible with the Master System/MK3 (using Mode 4 of the VDP) but not SG-1000/Mk2/SG-3000 games.
Thus, to sum it up, the Genesis/Megadrive was Sega's 3rd console. There were 3 distinct "waves" of software, and many machines were backwards compatible, but in the end there are SG-1000/Mk2/SG-3000 games, Master System Games, and Mega Drive games, and the preceding consoles could not play the succeeding console's games.
Last edited:
The rule of 3's doesn't seem to apply even using your own examples,but if there is no backwards compatibility on ps5 arrogant Sony will have fun failing is all I know
The Third Console Curse is well known and is all encompassing. Nobody has ever escaped it (yeah I'm not counting the SG1000 separately from the Mark 3, there's a clear shared lineage between them; it's like counting the New3DS, or the DSi, or the GBC, or the PS4Pro as separate consoles).
What remains to be seen is if it happens more than once consistently. Nintendo fell foul of it twice, but nobody else has lasted that long, so we'll have to wait until PS6 to know for sure...
On that matter, PS4 is the first time ever where a platform holder's 4th home console hasn't been a failure!
What remains to be seen is if it happens more than once consistently. Nintendo fell foul of it twice, but nobody else has lasted that long, so we'll have to wait until PS6 to know for sure...
On that matter, PS4 is the first time ever where a platform holder's 4th home console hasn't been a failure!
Last edited:
You theory is sound.
Except for the fact that GC, Xbox, Genesis and master system were all flops too, since you include N64 as a Flop and all of the ones i mentioned sold less than the N64.
There are no trends. Every situation is different. Until the Wii/360/PS3 gen, every single generation before that had new entrants.
The only pattern I note is that winning a gen when you didn't have momentum from winning the last gen typically needs the competition to screw up to get your foot in the door. NES in the US against the crash consoles. PS1 against the screw ups of the N64 (carts) and Saturn (rushed architecture). Wii/360 won the USA because the PS3 was a screwup (and Wii still won worldwide against the PS3 screwup). PS4 against the screwup Wii U (everything) and Xbone (more expensive and less powerful, and used games stink).
The only pattern I note is that winning a gen when you didn't have momentum from winning the last gen typically needs the competition to screw up to get your foot in the door. NES in the US against the crash consoles. PS1 against the screw ups of the N64 (carts) and Saturn (rushed architecture). Wii/360 won the USA because the PS3 was a screwup (and Wii still won worldwide against the PS3 screwup). PS4 against the screwup Wii U (everything) and Xbone (more expensive and less powerful, and used games stink).
No, it had an abominable first year, terrible 2-4 years, didn't win a single territory, and with Sony's massive, massive reinvestment in the failure still ended up in third place worldwide on official figures, and lost more money than any other product in videogame history, possibly in all entertainment history at -US$5,000,000,000. It's more of a failure than the 32X, Saturn, Virtual Boy, Wii U and Dreamcast combined in terms of dollars lost.
There's no 'Mark II' there's the SG1000 II, which is just a redesign. Until the PS2 '2' used to mean redesign for consoles - Mega Drive II, Intellivision II, Master System II. The Mark III is also an upgrade, not a whole new console over the SG1000, it's like a 0.5 generational leap.
Yep.
Last edited:
Mark III features entirely new video hardware that is a full generation beyond the SG-1000 in exactly the same way the Sega Megadrive's VDP is a full generation beyond the Mark III's. Mode 4 is a unique creation of Sega, not part of the TMS9918 spec. The Mark III is the very first time Sega broke spec from the TMS9918 and created their own distinct, custom video mode. The Mark III can play SG-1000 software, the opposite is not true. Even legacy support from the Mk III to the SG-1000 reveals the internal differences - the SG-1000 does not use RGB colorspace and thus the color conversion done in the new VDP is quantized to the new SMS palette.
While the SMS/MK III and the SG-1000 both use Z80s, their port maps are not identical and there are additional regions on the SMS/MKIII for new hardware functionality. The SG-1000 also has a discrete SN76489 PSG chip, while the MK III and SMS (and game gear) do not, their SN76489 compatibility is handled through their custom VDP.
Very, very different hardware, even if it's an evolution. Not a "0.5 generational leap," a fully distinct generation. There are many reasons why SMS games cannot run on the SG-1000. By contrast, I'd call the Game Gear a "0.5 generational leap," as its incompatibility is limited entirely to colorspace conversion. In fact, you CAN run Game Gear games on an SMS, without much trouble.
The SG-1000/SG-3000/MK2 is essentially a colecovision clone in terms of hardware.
By the time PS6 comes game streaming may have a subscription base in the tens of millions.
There may not be a PS6.
Regarding 3rd console curse, I think correlation does not cause causation...or somthing like that.
Its just fan banter. Also none of the current players will have 3rd consoles.
There may not be a PS6.
Regarding 3rd console curse, I think correlation does not cause causation...or somthing like that.
Its just fan banter. Also none of the current players will have 3rd consoles.
Dude it has the same CPU at the same clock, and they're hardware compatible, it's simply ludicrous to describe them as 'very, very different hardware'. It's a new platform in the same way the Game Boy Color is, or the Supergrafix is, but they're all just a minor bump compared to actual new architectures. And for the overall point I was actually agreeing with you, no need for an epic 'correction'.
There are revisions which do.
So literally their second platform ever, released only two years after their first, was the 'very first time' they did something different from their first? You don't say.
Last edited:
It uses a different port map for the CPU. When you write assembly code that very much matters. And compatibility does not mean it's the same hardware. As I explained, the internals of how these compatibilities are achieved reveals that they indeed are very different kinds of hardware. They are literally "very different hardware." The sound chip on the SG-1000/3000 literally does not exist on the SMS/MK3, for example.
Correct
They are new architectures.
It's noteworthy because it had become en-vogue to use the stock TMS9918 across multiple devices from many manufacturers, not just sega. That sega created a custom mode for the TMS9918 was indeed significant. It's very noteworthy in the evolution of graphics hardware.
And, you know, the point you missed is that it's not the same hardware.
I think the trend is more after a big success companies tend to become arrogant, rest on their laurels or otherwise take their foot off the gas and make a mistake. Nintendo did it after the Wii for sure, Sony did after PS2 and I can see them doing it again.
MS definitely did at the start of this gen, but what they're doing with gamepass and the hardware subscription model is interesting and seems like a good course correction.
Next gen will be interesting. I fully expect Sony to launch a full year before MS, and will have strong IP most likely. But if MS come with more power and maintain the value proposition they seem to have nailed, they could turn the tide
MS definitely did at the start of this gen, but what they're doing with gamepass and the hardware subscription model is interesting and seems like a good course correction.
Next gen will be interesting. I fully expect Sony to launch a full year before MS, and will have strong IP most likely. But if MS come with more power and maintain the value proposition they seem to have nailed, they could turn the tide
Hubris and arrogance usually follows success. You can see this happening now with the PS4 Fortnite debacle.
Yeah, in the end PS3 sold an almost identical amount to the 360.
But coming off a 155+ million console vs a 20+ million Xbox, Sony could have put Microsoft to bed with the PS3 and killed their interest in the console market. Instead they left the door open and Microsoft will be their major competition for some time.
We don't know if it ever actually turned a net profit in the end. PS2 and PSP profits during the PS3 era sort of cloud it's total losses.
I agree SG1000 and Mark III are different distinct platforms but I probably wouldn't hang my hat on the "unique hardware" hat. That's true of differing models and updates, even regional releases, of too many other consoles which aren't different platforms (GBC, PS4 Pro, even MD audio in revisions).
Yep. The -$4.7 billion loss figure is roughly what the Playstation division lost 2006-2014, but that's including PS2 and PSP profits (and Vita profits or losses) over that period. There are other compications like currency fluctuations, but ballpark wise it's something like that.
This is an official Sony graph. The lowest bar for 06 is -230 billion yen (~-US$2.3 billion at the time).
Not to mention PS2 profits were eaten by PS3 development to the extent the PS division made very little in in 2004 and 2005 too. So yes, ~$5 billion lost on PS3 is likely on the extremely low side given PS2 would have been pure profit from 2004-2010 (royalties on all PS2 games sold 2004-2010 must have been billions in pure profit alone) and PSP was likely profitable too. Maybe PS3 lost something closer to ten billion dollars as a whole. Insanity.
Compared to that, 3DS/Wii U was like a minor blip under the profit line:
PS3 just can't be touched for failure, financially.
The version at launch, absolutely. This may just be on a personal level, but I'm sure I'm not alone. 360 was my primary console last gen, with the PS3 being for exclusives. When they announced the price, the mandatory Kinect, the worse controller, the TV TV TV TV stuff, the inability to sell/share games etc, I dumped my 360 and all the games, made my PS3 my only platform, and went with only PS4 this gen.
Now if the Xbone launched as it is now, having ditched all that junk and adding in backwards compatibility, I would have bought one and it would have been my primary. I was super into achievements, and owned a ton of digital games, carrying all those forward would have been gravy. But they lost me, and did so in such a way that I firmly burned all the bridges and I'm never going back.
So yeah, for me (and the at least one other person I know who did the same) the Xbone was a failure. It looks to be in a good position right now, and I've nothing against anyone who buys or recommends one as a console worth getting. That launch window though... MS absolutely shit the bed and I ragequit their entire system for good.
Ps3 wasn't a failure it sold almost as much as the 360. Talk about another bad take from you.
Where are you getting those facts. Sony had a lot of issues, the playstation brand was a part of it, but it wasn't the main driver. It was a symptom of a country that was poorly managed and having too many hands on different pots.
Not that I personally believe in things such as a "3rd console curse" but people here really need to see beyond "Raw console sales" as an estimate to determine if a product succeeds.
Attach rate is also important.
Overall net profits is also important
Damage to the brand is also important.
N64, PS3 and XB1 aren't exactly "Commercial failures" but they do represent a point in which their respective company failed hard.
- N64 costed Nintendo all the good relationships they had with 3rd parties and started a 2 decade-long race for them to catch up with third party support, it is still being felt today with the Switch. It also killed Nintendo's leadership in the console business.
- PS3 was a massive financial failure to Sony that ate up all their profits earned during the PS2 Era, it also killed the trust in the brand to the point that they went from the best selling console of all time to a distant 2 place.
- XB1 killed Microsoft's image in the public space and has them struggling right now to win over the far more popular PS4, Which Microsoft certainly didn't need coming into the next generation.
Attach rate is also important.
Overall net profits is also important
Damage to the brand is also important.
N64, PS3 and XB1 aren't exactly "Commercial failures" but they do represent a point in which their respective company failed hard.
- N64 costed Nintendo all the good relationships they had with 3rd parties and started a 2 decade-long race for them to catch up with third party support, it is still being felt today with the Switch. It also killed Nintendo's leadership in the console business.
- PS3 was a massive financial failure to Sony that ate up all their profits earned during the PS2 Era, it also killed the trust in the brand to the point that they went from the best selling console of all time to a distant 2 place.
- XB1 killed Microsoft's image in the public space and has them struggling right now to win over the far more popular PS4, Which Microsoft certainly didn't need coming into the next generation.
PS3 surpassed the most successful MS console(which was one year alone in the next gen market). It's not a failure, but not the ultra-huge success of ps1,2,4 either.
It also likely lost around as much cash as every MS console combined.
If Nintendo were willing to lose $5-10B on Wii U it probably could've sold 80m units too. Same for Sony and Vita. Same for any console honestly.
Nah, the barrier with wiiU wasn't just the price. It was a deeply flawed console.
No, that's not the case for most console developers, Or at least, it isn't their biggest failing.
The N64 had expensive cartridges and that hurt it plenty, but the GameCube was a bigger failure than the N64.
I guess you are correct in that there was a "failure, then a reset," but the reset was a bigger failure than the failure. Somebody help me out with this, but there was an article with somebody from Nintendo who said that if the Wii was a failure, Nintendo would have "sunk straight to hell" or something along those lines, due to the failure of the GameCube.
The PS3 sold a couple million less than the 360, which sold something like 85 million units. Sure, I guess it sold the least in the console generation it was in, but 80m+ isn't anything to sneeze at. Hardly a failure.
The Sega Saturn hurt Sega plenty, but they "reset" by making the DreamCast. I don't think I need to say any more.
The Xbox division isn't releasing console sales (AFAIK) so it's hard to tell how far behind PlayStation they are, but they're owned by Microsoft. They could shrug off a failed console.
tl;dr: No, the third console isn't the one that fails the hardest, history dictates that it tends to be the fourth.
The N64 had expensive cartridges and that hurt it plenty, but the GameCube was a bigger failure than the N64.
I guess you are correct in that there was a "failure, then a reset," but the reset was a bigger failure than the failure. Somebody help me out with this, but there was an article with somebody from Nintendo who said that if the Wii was a failure, Nintendo would have "sunk straight to hell" or something along those lines, due to the failure of the GameCube.
The PS3 sold a couple million less than the 360, which sold something like 85 million units. Sure, I guess it sold the least in the console generation it was in, but 80m+ isn't anything to sneeze at. Hardly a failure.
The Sega Saturn hurt Sega plenty, but they "reset" by making the DreamCast. I don't think I need to say any more.
The Xbox division isn't releasing console sales (AFAIK) so it's hard to tell how far behind PlayStation they are, but they're owned by Microsoft. They could shrug off a failed console.
tl;dr: No, the third console isn't the one that fails the hardest, history dictates that it tends to be the fourth.