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?Your premise is a bit flawed because in Nintendo's case, the Gamecube was a misstep, not the N64. The SNES sold fewer units than the NES. The N64 sold fewer units than the SNES, but held its own in a lot of territories. The main difference was unpopularity in the Japanese market. But the Gamecube had serious problems everywhere.
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.Sales don't really matter when you were bleeding boatloads of money for years.
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.
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.If that's the case, only the PS3 was a failure, since the others never lost part of their company.
It's hard to understand when the PS3 only failed making them money, while the rest failed to sell.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.
I mean is the XB1 a failure?? Just because it's behind PS4 doesn't mean something is a failure
I noticed this in the Sony, rejecting cross play thread. Do we have enough data for a trend to emerge. It seems like after a company reaches a peak with there 2nd console in the cycle there is generally a misstep, and then a reset.
Is there a trend of consoles makers always flopping or screwing up royaly during there 3rd console.?
For instance
Nes, snes, N64
Gc Wii, Wiiu
Ps1, ps2, ps3.
X-box 360, X-bone.
Sega ms, Genesis, saturn,
Are we heading into another 3rd console mistake cycle? By ps6 will Sony flop?
Is this a trend?
PS3 was a failure?
It had a terrible first year and then soared.
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.What's it say that PS3 is being considered a failure at almost 85 million units and 2nd of that generation in total sales?
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.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.
Yep.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 III is also an upgrade, not a whole new console over the SG1000, it's like a 0.5 generational leap.
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'.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. The SG-1000/SG-3000/MK2 is essentially a colecovision clone.
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.The Mark III is the very first time Sega broke spec from the TMS9918 and created their own distinct, custom video mode.
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'.
but they're all just a minor bump compared to actual new architectures.
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.
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.Didn't the PS3 not turn a profit until like 2010 or 2011? Sounds like a failure compared to the PS2 at least
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).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.
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.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 mean is the XB1 a failure?? Just because it's behind PS4 doesn't mean something is a failure
Compared to the ps1 and PS2? Yeah, it was a failure
Ps3 wasn't a failure it sold almost as much as the 360. Talk about another bad take from you.I mean by that metric the N64 and PS3 weren't failures either. It's all relative.
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.
It also likely lost around as much cash as every MS console combined.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.
Nah, the barrier with wiiU wasn't just the price. It was a deeply flawed console.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.