Steve Case resigns as AOL Chairman

[Drake Tungsten]

I know, but it's just another example that a successful predecessor doesn't mean anything...

I don't know how you can say this after having seen the PS2 launch. I know you live in Canada, but you can't be this out of touch. The Playstation brand name, built off the success of the PS1, was the factor that led to the massive media hype and furor surrounding the PS2 launch. It made a rather lackluster console (technically) the hottest product in the world. How else do you explain the PS2's success, if you think the success of the PS1 had nothing to do with it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Playstation brand name, built off the success of the PS1, was the factor that led to the massive media hype and furor surrounding the PS2 launch.

What was its competition at the time? The lackluster Sega Dreamcast?

[Drake Tungsten]

Check you dates on this. Sony ALREADY had control of the market before Nintendo's "screwup". The screwup was in response to Sega and Sony. They believe NES fans would come back to cartriges after CD loading times. They overestimated the successful 2nd console effect.

You're going to have to rephrase that, because I have no idea what you're getting at.

What happens if the 'monopoly' was already brought down before the misfire?

Again, what the hell does this mean?

[Asher]

I don't know how you can say this after having seen the PS2 launch. I know you live in Canada, but you can't be this out of touch. The Playstation brand name, built off the success of the PS1, was the factor that led to the massive media hype and furor surrounding the PS2 launch. It made a rather lackluster console (technically) the hottest product in the world. How else do you explain the PS2's success, if you think the success of the PS1 had nothing to do with it?

It's VERY simple!

When the PS2 launched, the only real competition it had was the very-pathetic sales & hype-wise Dreamcast which was already being discontinued.

Sony's marketing machine is brilliant. There were talks of the "Emotion Engine", being a supercomputer-in-a-box, even of Iraq buying them to use the CPU for new guided missiles! Then to top it off, Sony sent less than 500,000 consoles to North America for the launch, when they could have easily sold ~2M, which resulted in spectacular part shortages and thereby lots of press.

Next thing you know it's a big news story, about how everyone wants to get one and no one can and free publicity and "Playstation" said over and over and over...

It wasn't until 1.5 years later that any competitors launched, long enough for Sony to get a HUGE lead. And when you have a huge lead, you have a larger software base. Larger software base, bigger game-brands. It's momentum, and that's why PS2 won this time.

It's FAR more than a simple name-thing. It was a brilliant marketing and product rollout, something that won't work as well the second time since people remember how craptastic the first games were on PS2.

[Drake Tungsten]

What was its competition at the time? The lackluster Sega Dreamcast?

What's your point? Something made millions of people decide that they needed to buy a console at that time. Something made the people want to buy the PS2 or they just would've waited for the Gamecube or the Xbox. A lack of competition doesn't explain the PS2's success. The massive hype built up by the success of the PS1, however, does.

[Asher]

What's your point? Something made millions of people decide that they needed to buy a console at that time. Something made the people want to buy the PS2 or they just would've waited for the Gamecube or the Xbox. A lack of competition doesn't explain the PS2's success. The massive hype built up by the success of the PS1, however, does.

The hype wasn't due to the PS1, it was due to:
1) The Emotion Engine's design which allows for staggering theoretical performance, and thereby hype
2) Intentional part shortages, increasing the hype
3) Lack of competition. Many people wrote Nintendo, Sega off, and doubted MS could make a splash in the market. Sony was the only option.

You're trying to pin a whole bunch of **** on the PS1, which doesn't make sense.

The reason the PS2 still sells more right now is because it's firmly entrenched. The console with the largest install base tends to get the biggest-name games, which attracts more customers, etc. It's a cycle.

[Drake Tungsten]

When the PS2 launched, the only real competition it had was the very-pathetic sales & hype-wise Dreamcast which was already being discontinued.

If a lack of competition equals success, then what happened to the Dreamcast? It was a great console with a great lineup of games, but it fizzled. Could it be that the unsuccessful Saturn ruined Sega's reputation, while the sucessful PS1 bolstered Sony's? Don't you think that the success of the PS1 influenced developers to support Sony?

[Asher]

If a lack of competition equals success, then what happened to the Dreamcast? It was a great console with a great lineup of games, but it fizzled.

Because it's always a bunch of factors.

1) Sega wanted to be honest and, as a result, didn't hype their console. They provided realistic numbers that real games could achieve, unlike Sony.
2) As soon as the Dreamcast launched Sony began telling everyone how incredibly powerful PS2 would be. People saw Dreamcast as a bad investment.

Sony handled the situation brilliantly.

Oh, and a lot of Sega's games don't hold much mass appeal, despite how good they are. See: Jet Grind Radio, Shenmue...

[Drake Tungsten]

You're trying to pin a whole bunch of **** on the PS1, which doesn't make sense.

You're trying to tell me that the successor to the most successful console in history gained absolutely no advantage from its predecessor. Do you know how absurd an idea that is? The success of the PS1 had everything to do with the success of the PS2, from gaining developer support to making the Playstation brand name instantly recognizable.

[Asher]

You're trying to tell me that the successor to the most successful console in history gained absolutely no advantage from its predecessor.

No, I'm not. It is an advantage, it's a small advantage. There are much bigger factors.

The success of the PS1 had everything to do with the success of the PS2, from gaining developer support to making the Playstation brand name instantly recognizable.

You're joking, right? PS2's developed support SUCKED for the first year. MS did way better, for christ sake, and they were new...

[Drake Tungsten]

As soon as the Dreamcast launched Sony began telling everyone how incredibly powerful PS2 would be. People saw Dreamcast as a bad investment.

People also knew that the Xbox would be more powerful than the PS2, but bought the PS2 anyway. People had trust in Sony and the Playstation brand, because they were a proven success. You were guaranteed to get your money's worth, which you weren't with the Dreamcast. It's pretty obvious how the PS1's success benefited the PS2.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
People also knew that the Xbox would be more powerful than the PS2, but bought the PS2 anyway.

Everyone thought the Xbox would BSOD, require software installs, and would catch fire.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're joking, right? PS2's developed support SUCKED for the first year. MS did way better, for christ sake, and they were new...

You're the one who's joking, right? Sony had every major third-party in the world commited to making games for the PS2. MS has yet to get anywhere close to that level of developer support.

[Asher]

You're the one who's joking, right? Sony had every major third-party in the world commited to making games for the PS2. MS has yet to get anywhere close to that level of developer support.

Look at the NPD figures.

Not only were more third party games released in the first year of Xbox's life, but more were sold too.

Developer support only began for the PS2 once it hit the market. That's why the good games took about a year to come out, and the first year's games all totally sucked -- they were crap games by crap developers.

Most companies were still working on PSX games, mostly because PS2s could play PSX games...

[Drake Tungsten]

Developer support only began for the PS2 once it hit the market. That's why the good games took about a year to come out, and the first year's games all totally sucked -- they were crap games by crap developers.

The quality of first year games is a completely different issue from developer support. First year games always suck and I don't think the Gamecube and Xbox have done any better than Sony.

The important point is that Sony has more third party support than any other console maker and had this support lined up before the PS2 even launched. This demonstrates the faith the industry had in the PS2, based on the massive success of the PS1. This is what MS wants to achieve with the Xbox 2.