The bad economy killed the PS3

Reserved for modern gaming discussions.
Posts: 1242
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby N64Dude1 » February 7th, 2009, 9:52 pm

Actually Roperious it's perfectly applicable,no console since SNES has ever gotten to number 1 after sluggish sales for 2 years

Let's look at all the deemed "flops" after SNES

Jaguar: Had sluggish sales from 1993-1996 then Atari discontinued it and left the industry

3DO: Sluggish sales for 3 years like Jaguar then 3DO attempts for a successor,what happens no M2!

Saturn: This one had sluggish sales once again for 3 years then it was discontinued

PlayStation: Deemed a flop from day 1,people were sure Nintendo 64 would soon launch and totally own but then it got delayed and PlayStation sales went crazy,I suspect around the same time the cases switched in 1996

PlayStation 2: Once again deemed a flop and then SONY claimed to have shortages,but once Dreamcast died in 2001,PlayStation 2 sales went insane to the point it's practically sold 5 times the Atari

So far all consoles that are flops for 1 year become winners where as those that exceed 1 year stay flops

Wii: Before launch I remember people saying it would fail thanks to graphics shortage and no multimedia,and like PS2 it suffered and is still suffering shortages,the only real difference between the two is the fact that Wii was a runaway success without any multimedia stuff like movie playback.


Nintendo 64: It technically was a success after all it outsold Atari in it's heyday 33 million vs 30 million but most people in 1995 assumed PlayStation would flop and N64 would be the 100 million seller ebcause it was Nintendo,that might have actually been the case had it not been delayed.

Dreamcast: It even beat the N64's launch record and was practically a runaway success,well except people still bought PlayStation and N64 games,but everyone thought PS2 to be a flop and were sure SEGA outdid themselves, but once again SONY had a successful system to back them up which probably is the real reason SEGA caved in.

Xbox: Most people I knew were sure PlayStation 2 was creamed when an even more technological monostrosity came but what happened? PS2 soundly creamed the console.

Xbox 360eople were sure the headstart would make 360 the leader,boy did they ever guess wrong

PlayStation 3: The same fools who were cerain N64 would win in 1995 were probably sure this would win as well becuase of superior  graphics to the competition,and of course its failing and to think it even had a 2-day headstart

I believe my case is closed.


The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Kim » February 8th, 2009, 3:28 am

One can buy an old VHS for about $2, I believe. The PS3 also has high quality software, and it has much less shovelware than the Wii. When I said that I myself cannot personally believe how the Wii has out-sold the PS3, it was not intended to be an argument. It was a narration of my belief, and I enjoy writing about my beliefs.
And when I said that "those who bought the Wii were stupid and out of their mind", it was obviously intended for a humourous effect and to display my beliefs. I also hold to my belief that tracking, no rewind, etc. are secondary features that came along with the DVD. The Genesis also almost won the console wars with the SNES. If a lot of people like Nintendo and their style of gameplay, then why was the Gamecube so unsuccessful? Does this mean that those who produced the Gamecube were not Nintendo and those who produced the Wii were Nintendo?
Mario and Zelda were also available on the Gamecube. Most people today are also more accustomed to buying expensive peripherals for multimedia enjoyment than they were 10 years ago, so the PS3 still may have had a good deal of a chance. My posts jump around so much because I am conducting a one-man war and I must dodge and shoot all enemies who disagree with my argument. It is my duty to correct those who are wrong. There is also nothing wrong with my terminology.
I am sure more gamers consider the PS3 to be a flop rather than a success. I also cannot understand how the Nintendo 64 was a ¡°success¡± and the PS1 a ¡°flop¡±. Don¡¯t everyone know by now that Playstation won out against the N64?
P.S. I am most willing to do any favor which is beneficial to the site, provided that I can still post.

Posts: 1605
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Oltobaz1 » February 8th, 2009, 11:39 am

A one man war? Naah, a one man show!

Posts: 1242
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby N64Dude1 » February 8th, 2009, 11:59 am


I'm talking about perception of the 2 at the time PSX came out.Everyone was skeptical about the PlayStation and since Nintendo was yet announce a delay in their SNES and becuase other big corporations tried and failed people were skeptical about Sony standing a chance against the dominating Nintendo.

Right now one might say "Are you out of your mind" but in 1995 Nintendo seemed invincible.

And then once 64 came out people were sure the grahics and quality would wipe the PlayStation out

And the whole "flop status for PlayStation lasted a year,it wasn't an instant runaway hit in fact Wii is the first runaway hit since NES.


The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby ManKind » February 8th, 2009, 10:02 pm

I can't simply understand why people are argueing on the fact that ps3 is killed by economy.


The bad economy killed the PS3

Postby Kim » February 10th, 2009, 3:20 am

If so many people were skeptical about the PS1 in 1995, then why did so many third-party developers abandon Sega and go with the Sony bandwagon? One's probable answer to this would be: because of the 32X. That is probably right, and it is not my job here to argue the quality of the 32X. But what about Nintendo? What about the third-party developers who were making games for the SNES?


The thing is, in 1995 Sega already had more third-party developers creating games for them than Nintendo. It is true that Konami made Castlevania: Dracula X in 1995 and Square made Mario RPG for the SNES in 1996, but almost all the other third-party developers had Sega as their first priority and when Sega went down they changed sides to Sony. Konami also had already developed Castlevania: Bloodlines and Contra Hard Corps on the Genesis during 1993/94, so it can certainly be said that Konami had the SNES as their second priority. Square and Rare were probably the most devoted third-party developers to create games for the SNES, but Nintendo made a fatal move in deciding the Nintendo 64 to be cartridge-based.


This is why Square left Nintendo in 1996. In 1995 all the talk was about Sega and Sony, not about Nintendo. They talked about the decline of Sega and compared the hardware specs of the PS1 with the Saturn. No one devoted an article to the Virtual Boy in 1995, even if it was produced by Nintendo. People were skeptical about Sony standing a chance against Sega, not about it standing a chance against Nintendo.


But because Sega had already made so many mistakes people quickly abandoned their skepticism and gladly embraced the Playstation. Go read the Critic's review of the PS1: in it there was debate between the Critic and his friend Eric about whether to buy the PS1 or Saturn; not about whether they should buy the PS1 or wait for the Nintendo 64 to come out.


Nintendo seemed far from invincible in 1995: their sales for the SNES in 1994 may have been a flop if Donkey Kong Country was not released by Rare (Super Metroid had been a flop), Nintendo considered releasing a Philips CD add-on to the SNES (but wisely refrained in the end) and they released Virtual Boy in 1995. Nintendo at the time made as many bad decisions as Sega.

Return to “Modern Gaming”