Why do people think the most powerful system will be "the best" and sell better?

#1EpeenWeabooPosted 10/29/2013 6:28:47 PM
Even going back as far as the SNES versus Sega Genesis, didn't the Genesis actually sell more units? I could be wrong, but I think I heard that somewhere. The SNES was, technically, more powerful but the Genesis had more games and seemed to be more popular with the masses.

Even comparing the original Xbox to its most direct competition, the Playstation 2, the Xbox had trouble competing with the PS2 despite being technically more powerful. But consumers were more impressed with the PS2's library and ultimately it squashed the Xbox because of brand recognition.

Fast forward to current gen where it's 360 vs PS3 and despite Sony's machine being technically superior, it proved difficult to program for and many multiplats looked better on the 360 despite it being less powerful. And look where it is now, it has a larger install base than the PS3 and also a larger software attach rate. Plus, multiplatform games almost always sell more copies on the 360.

Now we come to the next gen "console war" and everyone is already saying the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. And to that I say.....so what? Look at the history of consoles. Has the more technically powerful system completely obliterated its competition? No. Either it did comparatively as well as the less powerful contender...or actually sold LESS units. But that isn't even really my point, because just because a system sells more units than another doesn't make it BETTER. Look at the Wii for God's sake. It is barely more powerful than a Gamecube and it sold more units than the PS3 and 360 COMBINED.

So, I really don't get this whole "MY DAD COULD BEAT UP YOUR DAD" mentality when it comes to console rivalry. You want to know what the best system is? It's the one you have the most fun with.
---
Come at me, bro!
#2Dev0311Posted 10/29/2013 6:29:58 PM
The cheapest consoles have been winning recently. The Xbone is neither strongest nor cheapest so...
#3LICKWIDPAlNPosted 10/29/2013 6:30:15 PM
Because Sony always supports the console from beginning to end and won't abandon it like MS did with the Xbox 1 and 360 after AW flopped.
---
PS3 / Vita / 2600K@4.7Ghz water cooled by Corsair H80, Dual GTX580s in SLi, 8 Gigs Corsair RAM, 120Hz screen. Vsync? I don't need no Vsync! PSN: Liquidpain
#4kloud 11Posted 10/29/2013 6:34:07 PM
Because at the end of the generation it always becomes clear that PlayStation was the best console. I think people are finally catching on.
#5DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/29/2013 6:34:46 PM
Dev0311 posted...
The cheapest consoles have been winning recently. The Xbone is neither strongest nor cheapest so...


So because one issue does not prove your statement, you completely fabricate another set of criterias that don't even match reality? Xbox 360 sold less than the more expensive PS3. Nintendo Game Cube was $100 cheaper and still sold less than the PS2 while being significantly stronger.

In fact, RE4 was far more apparently better on Gamecube than BF4 is on PS4...
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#6gumbyxcore99Posted 10/29/2013 6:35:22 PM
they dumb thats why
---
(C)1998 PS4 DEFENcE FORZE
#7WavaryenPosted 10/29/2013 6:36:50 PM
Because sony track record this few years>Xbox lifetime.


It started out slow and made mistakes, but even with the mistakes they turned it around and had amazing games. Xbox became slow and dull with its releases they had few and far with ps4 pumping amazing games out.



So you know who to trust.
#8Dev0311Posted 10/29/2013 6:37:04 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
Dev0311 posted...
The cheapest consoles have been winning recently. The Xbone is neither strongest nor cheapest so...


So because one issue does not prove your statement, you completely fabricate another set of criterias that don't even match reality? Xbox 360 sold less than the more expensive PS3. Nintendo Game Cube was $100 cheaper and still sold less than the PS2 while being significantly stronger.

In fact, RE4 was far more apparently better on Gamecube than BF4 is on PS4...


I was referring to Wii and 3DS
#9PublicAnimal9Posted 10/29/2013 6:50:06 PM
The SNES wasn't significantly more powerful than the Genesis/Megadrive. And the PS3 is not more powerful than the 360, I don't understand why there are still people who believe that myth.

Still it's true that the most powerful system has never won a single generation in the past. However the main reasons for that is probably that the most powerful system often either arrived too late or it was too expensive. This is the first generation ever where the most powerful system is not the most expensive or arrives too late. Hence it's not unreasonable to assume that being more powerful will be a significant advantage. Why buy a weaker system that is more expensive when they both share nearly the same game library ?
#10VoidBeyondPosted 10/29/2013 6:53:36 PM
LICKWIDPAlN posted...
Because Sony always supports the console from beginning to end and won't abandon it like MS did with the Xbox 1 and 360 after AW flopped.


Too bad they don't support their handhelds...
---
GT: CynicalRaptor26//PSN: DuodecimKnight//3DS: 2981-6641-9175