RetroGamingUK
Member
It should have, Dreamcast had so many excellent titles release in 2000 and it was going for about £149 when PS2 launched.
Most people didn't consider it though
My analysis of Saturn's failure
- Thread starter Geometric-Crusher
- Start date
It should have, Dreamcast had so many excellent titles release in 2000 and it was going for about £149 when PS2 launched.
Most people didn't consider it though
diffusionx
Gold Member
Well, this goes back to the mistakes discussed in this thread, people didn't trust Sega. And their concerns were justified when Sega shut it down 3 months later.It should have, Dreamcast had so many excellent titles release in 2000 and it was going for about £149 when PS2 launched.
Most people didn't consider it though
RetroGamingUK
Member
As I've said before, a self fulfilling prophecy.
People don't just buy consoles based on the existing library, but also upcoming titles. Flicking through the contents and release schedule pages of old CVG magazines, PS1 always had the most games.
I think even from early on PS1 had a more diverse library while Saturn was skewed more heavily towards fighting games in the west.
For example if you wanted a great console FPS PS1 had Doom early on, you're waiting until Exhumed on Saturn to get something of the same calibre in that genre.
Last edited:
Team Andromeda
Member
You come in these threats pretending not to care or not Saturn bashing, buts it all cover for Sega and Saturn bashing. I never blame SONY for the poor sales of the Saturn in the west, but instead the muppet show at SEGA America and that overrated prick Tom K
My point is many of the reasons you use against the Saturn, for its failure in the USA, could have been leveled at the PS2. In the end no one gives a shit about short comings if the system sells millions, the PS2 and 360 show that.
Last edited:
diffusionx
Gold Member
There would be no Saturn were it not for Tom K and Genesis' success in the US. They would've bailed out of hardware before then.
The PS2 had a great lineup by the time the competitors arrived. If GameCube and Xbox came out in 2000 with better games, the story might have been different, but they didn't.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
comparing Sega Saturn with PS2 is insanity
Team Andromeda
Member
Sonic sold the Mega Drive end off and SEGA Japan would have made a SEGA Saturn regardless of what that prick Tom got up too. The USA launch of the DC alone was far better to that of the PS2 and also counter all the points you love to bash the Saturn for,... be that In-House sports games, easier to program on, cheaper to buy,, Sonic on day one, amazing day one launch line up
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
If we respect history, Xbox and GCN could come out in 2000, but you know, the games would be rushed, buggy, and would use 50% of these consoles. I doubt anyone would stop buying the PS2.
cireza
Member
Right, Saturn is much easier to develop for.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
probably because it has more than 1,000 games
Sega of America too was very successful with the same strategy during the Mega Drive/Genesis days, what I'm saying is that a main focus on sport simulations by the first-party is a very shortsighted strategy for the long survival, especially if we are talking about a first-party driven console manufacturer.
As Sony did, and as EA aimed over a long stretch of time, a resourceful new/old competitor could steal away/keep a big marketshare with relatively ease because a lot for sport simulation revolves around licenses, thus having money could bring you far almost overnight.
When the real battle of the mid '90s was a challenge between the different core ideals of the incumbent smaller first-party driven console manufacturers with a gaming core, in which first party hardware and software are interwined, and resorceful big corporations adopting a third-party driven model based around a pure concept of platform it's easy to identify SoA main focus on sport simulations/licenses a liability long (really medium) term.
Every manager in the industry knew that since the beginning (or almost) of the gaming industry the sport genre was a main driver for the North America market (and Europe) and thus you can find, for instance, Nintendo investing in sport games with also licensing (Ken Griffey, Kobe Bryant) however for Nintendo these sport simulations were never positioned as the main draw and played a second fiddle role behind first-party tentpole releases that were almost always from in-house owned IPs.
As with most practices employed y Sega of America it was "more smoke than meat".
Last edited:
RetroGamingUK
Member
True
Halo is one of the greatest console launch games of all time, and PGR and DoA3 were good too, but compared to the exclusives PS2 was offering...
Gran Turismo 3 (released earlier in the year)
Grand Theft Auto 3
Metal Gear Solid 2
Final Fantasy X
Devil May Cry
Jak & Daxter
Ico
Pro Evolution Soccer
Tony Hawks' 3
Twister Metal: Black
Onimusha: Warlords
Klonoa 2
Ace Combat 4
...it just didn't stand a chance.
I can't think of any other console that has ever had a lineup comparable to PS2 in 2001, I've never bought so many games in a single year.
Last edited:
Team Andromeda
Member
You pair are as bad as each other. : Lets bash the USA Saturn launch line up go about, the lack of sports games for launch and now look to compare a console 1st year line up to a system launch line up. Funny how you don't seem to want to do that with the PS2 launching to the DC 1st year line up of games in the USA, A system with a AAA platformer on day, cheaper and easier to program for along with all the rest of the clinched views you use against the Saturn btw
All these threats are the same, even if they're disguised as rate the Xbox launch line up, what good RPGs are on the DC. They're all designed so you and the rest of the PS2 fan club can come in and tell us what wonderful system it was and make an EXTENSIVE BIG list...
All that said, when my mate Conrad imported SH2 and ICO on the same day and I played them both down his house, I was on the phone to the boss of my import shop and telling Lee, I want a PS2 along with ICO LOL
Last edited:
RetroGamingUK
Member
Quit crying you mard arse!
We've already discussed how Sega's brand was severely tarnished by the time Dreamcast landed in the west while consumer confidence in Sony was very high. You clearly missed my posts at the top of this very page.
Drone on about develop issues all you want, when most people saw that MGS 2 E3 demo they lost all interest in Dreamcast.
I too was initially very unimpressed with PS2 at launch, SSX looked pretty but that was it. Anyway, I was more than happy playing Shenmue, MSR and Jet Set Radio to care. Playing Gran Turismo 3 demo in Electronics Boutique is what finally sold it to me.
Now show me on the doll where PS2 touched you.
Last edited:
Team Andromeda
Member
I don't cry mateQuit crying you mard arse!
We've already discussed how Sega's brand was severely tarnished by the time Dreamcast landed in the west while consumer confidence in Sony was very high. You clearly missed my posts at the top of this very page.
Drone on about develop issues all you want, when most people saw that MGS 2 E3 demo they lost all interest in Dreamcast.
I too was initially very unimpressed with PS2 at launch, SSX looked pretty but that was it. Anyway, I was more than happy playing Shenmue, MSR and Jet Set Radio to care. Playing Gran Turismo 3 demo in Electronics Boutique is what finally sold it to me.
Now show me on the doll where PS2 touched you.
I just like pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy when it comes to the PS2. Which let's face it had a shit launch line up of games for the USA/Pal launch, totally outclassed by the Dreamcast and it was cheaper too. Didn't stop any of you PlayStation fans running out to buy it and telling us all how... 'In Ken We Trust'
RetroGamingUK
Member
The original PlayStation outsold Saturn over 10:1 though, there were always going to be more people interested in PS2 than Dreamcast.
I recall showing off my Dreamcast and SoulCalibur to friends, they were very impressed but they were all PlayStation owners who were very happy with the product and were willing to wait another year.
A few remarked that Sega would abandon it after a couple of years as per the Saturn and they ended up being completely right, by then Sega were seen as a dying brand and had just come off the back of having a while year of zero retail presence. One of my friends did buy one for Code Veronica, which was a very rare example of a developer putting real effort into a third party exclusive.
Dreamcast had to be way better than PS2 in every department to get people back.
Let's also not forget E3 2000 being overshadowed by constant rumours of Sega doing a deal with Acclaim to publish games on PS2 (again, turning out to be completely true)
Sega Addresses PS2 Rumors
GameSpot News speaks with Sega's Charles Bellfield for the full story.
www.gamespot.com
Last edited:
Team Andromeda
Member
You just can't help it, You got to list me games and sales to tell us all yet again.... How wonderful the PlayStation is.
By your logic Mega Drive owners should have been more interested in the Saturn
SONY did a better job of hyping the PS2 and making people want it that was before anyone saw the launch line up or played a single PS2 game. You do that, then you don't need a huge launch line up, no In-House sports games, the best tools or system to developer on, no AAA games at launch or be the cheapest system
You'll just sell regardless. The PS2 and to a point the Xbox 360 show that.
The Saturn didn't fail because of the issues you and some 30-year-old fans like to mention. It failed against the N64 because of SEGA America and the 32X IMO
RetroGamingUK
Member
So we need to look at how Sony managed to convince PS1 owners to upgrade to PS2, but Sega failed to convince MegaDrive owners to upgrade to Saturn.
Look at the best selling PS1 games/series such as...
Gran Turismo
Final Fantasy
Tekken
Metal Gear Solid
Ace Combat
Twisted Metal
ISS Pro
...they were able to deliver high quality sequels to them all within the first year in the west.
Now look at the best selling MegaDrive games/series in the west...
Sonic
Mortal Kombat
Aladdin
Eternal Champions
Altered Beast
NBA Jam
Madden
FIFA
...again, the lack of Sonic just kills the Saturn in the west, I can't emphasis this enough. Saturn didn't feel like a MegaDrive successor, for many Sonic WAS Sega and Sega shat the bed something fierce when it came to Saturn Sonic. Mortal Kombat was the next best selling MegaDrive series, Sony snagged the rights to a near arcade perfect port, and Madden and NBA fans were catered for by NFL Gameday and NBA Shootout. Virtua Fighter was enough to carry Saturn in Japan, but barely anyone gave a shit about it in west, even in western arcades (which were dwindling by then) it was vastly overshadowed by Mortal Kombat.
As for N64, again let's look at some of the best selling SNES games...
Super Mario
Mario Kart
Zelda
Star Fox
F-Zero
Donkey Kong Country
...sure, they lost Final Fantasy, but they ensured that all their big first party franchises got the best treatment. Imagine if Nintendo treated Mario and Zelda like the fucking idiots managing Sega in the mid-90s.
Geometric-Crusher
summed it up in the very first post in this thread, it all came down to which games were made available to consumers. Games that actually garnered interest and catered to what consumers wanted.
Last edited:
Team Andromeda
Member
Again it goes back to SOA. Who cocked up and mishandled the Sonic project?, who cocked up and mishandled the launch of their next gen system?
And again, SEGA real fight wasn't with SONY. Sony had the better hardware, the better tools, the better launch line up and also $500 million behind the PS1, no way could SEGA counter that, not that makes much difference as the Xbox showed.
The N64 and Nintendo were there for the taking; A system that launched with no sports games and well only launched with 2 games was even harder to developer on with a more expensive developer environment and where the move to carts was such a backward step
SEGA should have destroyed the N64 in the USA, Europe and Japan really and without the 32X I believe SEGA would have done just that.
Last edited:
RetroGamingUK
Member
I'm sorry but the buck stops with Hayao Nakayama.
Sonic Team's developers left Sega Technical Institute and returned to Japan to work on NiGHTS leaving Sonic in the hands of less talented developers (even Mark Cerny had departed for Sony). It all goes back to the jealousy regarding MegaDrive's success in the west and failure in Japan. Quite rightly they milked the success of Virtua Fighter in Japanese arcades for the Saturn, but Sonic the Hedgehog was far more important if they wanted to repeat the success in the west. Nakayama should have seen this. At least they had their heads screwed on when it came to the Dreamcast, Sonic Adventure was crucial.
As for Nintendo, sports games weren't as big a deal for them. If you wanted sports games you went with the MegaDrive and Sega managed to take away many Nintendo customers with their success with the genre in the early 90s. That leaves people less interested in sports playing the SNES, and Nintendo did the best possible job of catering to SNES owners by bringing their big first party franchises to the N64 with quality 3D titles.
Worth noting when it comes to sports on the N64, getting ISS 64 two months after launch in the UK really helped, nothing came close to Konami's football games.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
I need to shed some light on this topic.So we need to look at how Sony managed to convince PS1 owners to upgrade to PS2, but Sega failed to convince MegaDrive owners to upgrade to Saturn.
Sega was the cost-effective company with the Mega Drive. Studies show that $149 was the sweet spot for a console to become mainstream. Sega knew this, but as you know, the Saturn was $399. In times like these, the company needs to sell a certain number of consoles and games to lower the price in the following years. Sega thought there would be demand, and there was, but not at that price, not with the PS1 as option.
Accept this truth: moving consumers to buy a new console is a Herculean task for a newcomer like Sony and an underdog like Sega. In 1995, Sega hadn't crystallized as a brand in the minds of consumers (from 1989 to 1995, six years).
There are several factors:
1. Six years isn't a long time. The PS5 will be six years old and it seems like it was released yesterday. for all intents and purposes Sega was also a newcomer to the console market. Before the Sega Genesis, there was only the NES in people's minds.
2- Parents bought consoles for their children, many bought Sega simply for the price, therefore they don't create a link with the brand
3- Saturn and PS1 were bought by young people with their own money
4- The Saturn and PS1 weren't purchased by regular Genesis and SNES customers; most of the initial sales came from a new audience, perhaps even non-gamers.
5- The psychology of the masses shows that the strongest and most popular, continually grows in popularity, Sony led the generation so the benefits of people's trust were transferred from Nintendo to Sony, therefore the PS2 could have been launched even without a game and it would be a success. That's why Japanese consumers abandoned Nintendo on the GameCube, after all, the old king is dead, long live the king, it's the same concept.
Among all the misconceptions already discussed, we need to add these two truths: Moving consumers to a new platform is very difficult, unless you're a brand that inspires trust. Sega, despite having done a good 4th gen was still a new brand, without the freedom to make mistakes, everything would be different if they had beaten Nintendo in America with an indisputable victory this intangibility explains Saturn, Dreamcast , japan GC.
Last edited:
Team Andromeda
Member
You can spout the Tom trolling crap all you want and for a PlayStation fan you can't even get your history right. Mark left SEGA to join Crystal Dynamics and work on the 3DO he was even mentioned in EDGE issue #1. That's the trouble with PlayStation fans, they're so casual, they can't even get their own history right *rollseyes*
Last edited:
NeverYouMind
Member
Sega did not come from nowhere. They were an arcade juggernaut and their previous Master System console was well known in many parts of the world.
Team Andromeda
Member
As I said, Playstation can't get their own history right and are the last people to try and give SEGA fans a history lesson
RetroGamingUK
Member
Good post, all sensible points.
One issue though, in America Genesis was perceived as Sega's first console. "Genesis does what Nintendon't", the story is always about how NES dominated the 80s, then Sega come along with this powerful box and Sonic. In Europe, totally not the case, Nintendo did a half arsed job with the NES launch and a year later Master System launches and becomes the dominant console. Mario who? Alex Kidd is the console gaming mascot in late 80s Europe. MegaDrive then continues the trend and Sega win back to back generations.
Yet when it came to Saturn, it did even worse in relation to PlayStation in UK/Europe than in America!
Key difference is little Jimmy in America is unwrapping a Saturn with Virtua Fighter 2 and Sega Rally on Christmas morning 1995. In the UK, little Nigel gets his Saturn with an IOU.
Last edited:
RetroGamingUK
Member
Did "PlayStation fans" dishonor your temple, burn your village and rape your kids or something? Crying fanboy when someone takes the time to write something considerate to put forward a point is just tedious.
Back on topic was managing Sega at the time? Nakayama or Kalinske?
As for Mark Cerny's highlights, they were simply...
- sets up STI which delivers Sonic 2, a massively successful game on a successful console
- helps produce the successful Crash Bandicoot on the massively successful PlayStation
- becomes lead PlayStation architect following Ken's departure
Who really cares that he worked on some shit games for Crystal Dynamics on some overly expensive failed console? It's like me putting some data entry job I did for 5 months on my CV, who cares?
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
Sega constantly needs to prove itself, as if it owes the world.
That's why good games like Sonic Racing Crossworlds sell poorly. Sega's products can't just be better, they need to be two generations ahead. This is the price to atone for some past sin.
That's why good games like Sonic Racing Crossworlds sell poorly. Sega's products can't just be better, they need to be two generations ahead. This is the price to atone for some past sin.
RetroGamingUK
Member
Aaaand now you're back to being silly.
I do miss Sega being at the technological forefront though, they always launched their new consoles before competitors and I'll never forget how amazed I was at seeing Sonic Adventure and Soul Calibur running on home hardware, nor will anything live up to how incredible it was seeing the first wave of Model 2 and Model 3 games in the arcades.
Nowadays they seem to cling onto cross-gen more than ever, Virtua Fighter 6 looks really impressive, but by the time it actually launches will that still be the case?
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
You must be really brave posting these words in a topic where some of the most hardcore and bitter Sega fans roam around.
RoboFu
One of the green rats
Sega was the one everyone thought would out right kill in the 32bit era because they made their own arcade hardware sets and had experience and tech deals with 3d hardware manufactures already. and 2. they had the best 3d arcade games and a lot of experience making those games.
So the Saturn was somewhat a surprise even back then hardware wise as most people were expecting something closer to the model 2 that was released sometime in 1993.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
Cross-gen? You're too kind. Most Sega games run on the Xbox 360 without much adaptation. VF6 will be the most advanced 3D fighting game when it releases, but it will be a sales flop. More technology is needed.
NeverYouMind
Member
Sega has low expectations and sales usually exceed them.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Sega needs to do a better job marketing Virtua Fighter 6. They are doing just a disastrously bad job of it and re-releasing VF5 for the 2358579235798253th time is not going to help them.
I am sure the game will be great but they're screwing it up.
RetroGamingUK
Member
I've been excited by what I've seen.
The last gameplay video ending with "more details at TGS" only for TGS to amount to a fucking single slide showing existing screenshots was bullshit.
Also, come up with a name already.
Team Andromeda
Member
I don't cry mate and this SEGA fanboy knows his history, unlike you...
diffusionx
Gold Member
you are an unhinged fanboy
Team Andromeda
Member
Back again, Huh... Spare us on the 30 years bullshit next time
diffusionx
Gold Member
I'll keep coming back lmao
Team Andromeda
Member
And I'll keep on showing how hypocritical you are
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
They need to improve the technology, Sega themselves are undermining the technological impact of the game.
Sega fans will buy it, but if Sega wants to be big, it will need to spend a lot of money on projects even bigger than VF6.
regular game doesn't stand out.
Last edited:
RetroGamingUK
Member
Improve the technology in what way?
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
It needs to look like a PS6 game. At the moment, they are far from that only established companies and franchises have the privilege of making low-tech games and being rewarded for it.
Note how the criticisms of Sega games are circular just to avoid pointing out the obvious: Sega games are low-budget games, low-budget games are not worth buying, even Ubi's woke games find buyers, AC Shadows for instance seduces audience with its incredible graphics.
NeverYouMind
Member
You want them to double the budget to cater to audiences that had no interest in their products to begin with? Sounds like a recipe for Square Enix-level disaster.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
It was impossible. I hadn't realized it, but after compiling various data related to sales, perception building, and Sony or Nintendo's counterattack (depending on the era) using FUD, I was able to scientifically conclude that it's very difficult to 'steal customers,' so nothing Sega could do would reverse their fortunes. Sega would only need to survive with the Dreamcast and quickly launch a next-gen product.
You want proof? original xbox had everything, it was better in every way than the ps2, the marketing budget was half a billion, it wasn't able to stop the ps1/ps2 because the trust that a company that dominates the sector conveys to people is absolute, so they don't switch platforms unless they've been convinced by years of good results from a competitor. But in the console market, no one has that kind of time, because before a console gains traction, it's probably already been destroyed in sales. It's bad feedback: without good sales a console doesn't receive games, and without games, a console doesn't sell.
Am I saying it's impossible to compete with Sony? No, I'm not. I'm saying the plan needs to be like the Xbox 2001-Xbox 360, first part of the plan needs to be to capture customers outside the Sony-Microsoft axis, so as to dig a trench around that axis before making a direct competition.
cireza
Member
OG Xbox did everything it had to do. It was a first console and sold maybe 25 millions which created a huge base and made the name well known in the gaming landscape, then Microsoft used this momentum with the 360 and highly increased their market share. So overall, they did everything perfectly well, until they brought up that dumb asshole with his Kinect and TV TV TV Sports. These were excellent results for the OG Xbox especially as, unlike Sony, MS strategy was not to buy/secure all the third party video-games being developed around the globe, but rather make a good enough console so that publishers would naturally want to make games on it. Pretty much what SEGA always did.
Trust me bro, I have the data. Stop resisting.
Last edited:
diffusionx
Gold Member
Sega had every advantage going into 1994 except for, arguably, money and resources, and squandered it all. Sony had every advantage going into 2000, except for arguably money and resources (because Microsoft) and did not squander any of it. The two are not the same at all, the circumstances are entirely differently and only the most blinkered Sega fanboy can't' see that.
If Sega put together a Dreamcast-quality system (relative to system capabilities at the time of course) and released it in 1994, with a Dreamcast-quality lineup, then things might have looked very different.
VF5 came out in the midst of a fighting game renaissance of sorts after SF4 and IIRC, did ok, but I am not sure if people are willing to try it out again. FFCOTW kind of flopped, T8 is poor and doing badly, at least SF6 is doing well.
If Sega put together a Dreamcast-quality system (relative to system capabilities at the time of course) and released it in 1994, with a Dreamcast-quality lineup, then things might have looked very different.
it's been so friggin long since we got a VF game I am not sure what the audience is, at all. I'm totally in the dark.
VF5 came out in the midst of a fighting game renaissance of sorts after SF4 and IIRC, did ok, but I am not sure if people are willing to try it out again. FFCOTW kind of flopped, T8 is poor and doing badly, at least SF6 is doing well.
Last edited:
NeverYouMind
Member
I was interested in FFCOTW but during its beta I realized that its gameplay design is convoluted and it lacks responsiveness and speed. I will probably get it once Mr. Big releases for posterity.
Tekken 8 came out with a bang but negativity started snowballing the moment people got hoodwinked with the stage not being included in season pass and Final Fantasy shitbird being the final character. Then season 2 made game not fun to play and kept adding shit that most people could not care less about.
I do not know how Street Fighter 6 is doing well as it is boring as fuck to play.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
in my opinion the audience is less than 200,000 people around the world, people like Team Andromeda and other friends here on the forum, everyone who somehow praises things about the Sega Saturn are a potential audience. If drastic changes don't happen, such as a Sega' SteamDeck to boost sales, I can't see this game reaching 500k in lifetime sales.
StreetsofBeige
Member
That would had helped, but still would fail. It's still $100 more and missing some key third party companies like Namco, Square, Konami MGS. And that assumes EA would still stick with a better 1994 system instead of avoiding them like DC.
But if a new 1994 system was $100 cheaper than PS1 (DC at $199 was insane value), or parity priced, then it could had been different.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
Don't overestimate the Dreamcast; of the 19 games released, only a few had any impact.
1999 Sonic, Soul Calibur, NFL 2K, then NBA 2K (September to December) There were other games but they were irrelevant like Blue Stinger or PS1 ports like MK4. September to December Dreamcast was Soul calibur, Sonic and two or three 2k games, people didn't care about the other games just like Xbots didn't care about Kameo.
early 2000 Crazy Taxi, RECV (PS2 release in Japan), some PS1 port, Utopia Boot (June 2000). From June to December, sales collapsed.
In January 2001, Peter Moore pulled the plug.
5 popular games and 2M NA (the goal was 5M). Note October PS2 was released in America.
See the PS1 timeline September 1995 to December 1996 saw 20 very popular games; not even the N64's FUD had an effect. Total 3M NA
Xbox 360 timeline 2005: 4 popular games 2006: 8 other popular games total 12 , sales 5M NA
I also calculated a subjective coefficient of next-gen evolution.
Popularity x Graphics x Gameplay x budget
On the Xbox 360, out of 22, only 10 next gen games flopped, 50%.
On the Dreamcast, out of 30, about 25 flopped, 85%.
The greater the number of nextgen games, the greater the chance of success. But this "next gen" can't be like Power Stone, BS or Toy Commander.
Dreamcast couldn't resist the PS2's FUD campaign because the PS2's power was exaggerated but real, Unlike the processing power of the N64 and PS3, which were in line with their rivals. DVD was a thing in 2000, Blu-ray in 2006, well, few people had HDTVs.
As we can see, 12 to 20 quality games in the first year is the minimum required. You could argue that Nintendo or the PS3 used few games to counter their rivals, true but the rules aren't the same for leading platforms and early-gen platforms.
At the end of the day, the goal is to launch 12 popular games in 14 months. The cost of this could be 12 (if the strategy is driven by a genius) or 26... more... the important thing is to get those 12.
The statistics I've compiled show that running old-gen games at higher quality doesn't encourage consumers to upgrade. Completely next-gen content is necessary.
To survive FUD, industrial espionage is necessary and thus prevent the leader from being better at everything, but if Nintendo-Sony is better at everything (it's game over) don't lower the price, invest in R&D for games.
Last edited: