Sony Or Nintendo, Who Screwed Up The Worst While Winning The Previous Gens?

We all know The Nes and Snes were back to back winners for Nintendo and PS1 and PS2 were back to back winners for Sony. But their 3rd entries was not good.(pretend PS3 ends up in 2nd place) So i want Gamestop members to tell others who screwed up thier chance the worst for a 3 peat. Of course its easy for the majority to pick on sony because it's 2008 not 1995. But i think ther games who seen it all.

for example N64= Stuck With Cartridges(spell check) PS3- expensive tech

It's to early to tell if anyone screwed upONLYDOD

yeah its early for Ps3 but i said pretend as if they lost. and its 2008, N64 came out in 1996 and lost.

In terms of business... definitely Nintendo since they completly lost their foothold in the war. PS3 has been doing decent really, but in terms of games N64>>>>>PS3.Kratos_OMEGA

I like how do did that. But in my opinion N64 had a few gems that eventully got BORING. So far though i havent played a Must have PS3 game yet.

[QUOTE="Kratos_OMEGA"]In terms of business... definitely Nintendo since they completly lost their foothold in the war. PS3 has been doing decent really, but in terms of games N64>>>>>PS3.PSP107

I like how do did that. But in my opinion N64 had a few gems that eventully got BORING. So far though i havent played a Must have PS3 game yet.

[QUOTE="PSP107"]

[QUOTE="Kratos_OMEGA"]In terms of business... definitely Nintendo since they completly lost their foothold in the war. PS3 has been doing decent really, but in terms of games N64>>>>>PS3.Nintendo_Ownes7

I like how do did that. But in my opinion N64 had a few gems that eventully got BORING. So far though i havent played a Must have PS3 game yet.

I don't understand........how can you fail and succeed at the same time?? :?snorlaxmaster

[QUOTE="PSP107"]

[QUOTE="Kratos_OMEGA"]In terms of business... definitely Nintendo since they completly lost their foothold in the war. PS3 has been doing decent really, but in terms of games N64>>>>>PS3.Nintendo_Ownes7

I like how do did that. But in my opinion N64 had a few gems that eventully got BORING. So far though i havent played a Must have PS3 game yet.

PS1 was way more succesful, in terms of my personal enjoyment from the consoles i would say N64 was better, because it had games that were simply amazing, PS1 had MGS and FF...that's about it for me. I live in Europe so it was infested with racing and sports games...and other crap....none of the good JRPG's on it came out.I dont' care what consoles more succesful, although last gen PS2 was my favourite...360 is currently now.

I guess Nintendo. They made several mistakes:

• Sticking with carts, which drove away many developers (not so much because of capacity limitations, but rather it was their higher cost)
• Launching so late compared to the competition.
• Breaking their deal with Sony, which lead to the creation of the Playstation in the first place.

I say Nintendo because they asked Sony to make a CD drive and something happened and it backfired into Sony releasing the Playstation.Kahuna_1

Nintendo

They could of win with the N64 if they used CD. And i dont think the Wii will beat the PS3 as bad as the PS2 beat the Cube

We all know The Nes and Snes were back to back winners for Nintendo and PS1 and PS2 were back to back winners for Sony. But their 3rd entries was not good.(pretend PS3 ends up in 2nd place) So i want Gamestop members to tell others who screwed up thier chance the worst for a 3 peat. Of course its easy for the majority to pick on sony because it's 2008 not 1995. But i think ther games who seen it all.

for example N64= Stuck With Cartridges(spell check) PS3- expensive tech

PSP107

It's still early days. If Sony ends up on top, I'm sure it will go down in history as them making all the right calls. If Sony ends up at the bottom this gen, I'm sure everyone will look upon the PS3 as a slew of critical errors.

With the N64, they already had their ideas for the N64 in mind when the PS was being designed and, to their credit, optical discs had not faired so well in the games console market in the past but, then again, it was a pretty crucial error.

[QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]I say Nintendo because they asked Sony to make a CD drive and something happened and it backfired into Sony releasing the Playstation.Nintendo_Ownes7

I see.

[QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]I say Nintendo because they asked Sony to make a CD drive and something happened and it backfired into Sony releasing the Playstation.Nintendo_Ownes7

Most people like to claim that Nintendo just arbitrarily backstabbed Sony, but in reality they realized that their contract guaranteed that Sony would have total control over the CD add-on and its games.

I'm not saying that what Nintendo did was acceptable, though.

And the decision to stick with carts on N64 hurt Nintendo pretty bad, so I'd say that was a huge mistake. They probably could have ended up with FFVII if they had chosen discs.

I guess Nintendo. They made several mistakes:

• Sticking with carts, which drove away many developers (not so much because of capacity limitations, but rather it was their higher cost)
• Launching so late compared to the competition.
• Breaking their deal with Sony, which lead to the creation of the Playstation in the first place.

ThePlothole

Better late than early.

In terms of business... definitely Nintendo since they completly lost their foothold in the war. PS3 has been doing decent really, but in terms of games N64>>>>>PS3.Kratos_OMEGA

Nice sig! :)

But mine is better! ;)

So i want Gamestop members to tell others who screwed up thier chance the worst for a 3 peat.

PSP107

I could care less about what Gamestop employees think.

The N64 screwed up more IMO. The PS3 is a dynamic console, which means any of its flaws can be fixed with firmware updates, bigger hard drives and new SKUs. The N64 on the other hand was a static console, you couln't fix its flaws or upgrade it as easily unless you had that expansion pack.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

I guess Nintendo. They made several mistakes:

• Sticking with carts, which drove away many developers (not so much because of capacity limitations, but rather it was their higher cost)
• Launching so late compared to the competition.
• Breaking their deal with Sony, which lead to the creation of the Playstation in the first place.

Video_Game_King

Better late than early.

Still, Saturn only had a few weeks' lead on the Playstation in Japan. By the time the N64 was released a year and a half later, Sony had already managed to build up a fair install base.

Nintendo just alienates 3rd party for some reason. I don't really get it.MadExponent

yeah i think Nintendo wins this battle because of 3rd party. N64/GC had little 3rd party support.

tough question:

N64= late, overpriced, handicapped by cartridges, lacked multiplats- relied too much on previous gen loyalty. defeated SEGA's disastrous Saturn but heavily beaten by Sony's PS1.

PS3= late, overpriced, handicapped by development difficulties- initially lacked games but has diversified & has gained ground. left for dust by Nintendo Wii, has yet to catch up with Xbox 360.

.... Still too early to tell.

tough question:

N64= late, overpriced, handicapped by cartridges, lacked multiplats- relied too much on previous gen loyalty. defeated SEGA's disastrous Saturn but heavily beaten by Sony's PS1.

PS3= late, overpriced, handicapped by development difficulties- initially lacked games but has diversified & has gained ground. left for dust by Nintendo Wii, has yet to catch up with Xbox 360.

.... Still too early to tell.

CwlHeddwyn

i thought PS3 is gaining ground on 360

assuming sony dont pull a rabbit out of the hat (and i dont think they will to be honest)

nintendo overall. both built consoles that were pointlessly complex and hard to make games for, both used the wrong storage format (though sony won the format war....so they dont really care now) and both got very very arrogant and lost the plot.

but the reason i pick nintendo is because they tried the bully devs to work exclusivly work for them, their licencing fees were rediculous and the cost of carts was stupid (at least blu-ray is only a one time expense).

i actually ignored the N64 (which is paying off nicely now :D).....it was rediculous what ninty were doing.

at leasy sony have the courtesy to try and make exclusives worthwhile on the PS3.

sony dont get off scot free though....what they did with the PS3 is nothing short of a disgrace and an embarrasment to the console industry.

assuming sony dont pull a rabbit out of the hat (and i dont think they will to be honest)

nintendo overall. both built consoles that were pointlessly complex and hard to make games for, both used the wrong storage format (though sony won the format war....so they dont really care now) and both got very very arrogant and lost the plot.

but the reason i pick nintendo is because they tried the bully devs to work exclusivly work for them, their licencing fees were rediculous and the cost of carts was stupid (at least blu-ray is only a one time expense).

i actually ignored the N64 (which is paying off nicely now :D).....it was rediculous what ninty were doing.

at leasy sony have the courtesy to try and make exclusives worthwhile on the PS3.

sony dont get off scot free though....what they did with the PS3 is nothing short of a disgrace and an embarrasment to the console industry.

osan0

N64 had a few gems but the funny part they all eventually got boring. Just imagine No Mercy On PS1.

We all know The Nes and Snes were back to back winners for Nintendo and PS1 and PS2 were back to back winners for Sony. But their 3rd entries was not good.(pretend PS3 ends up in 2nd place) So i want Gamestop members to tell others who screwed up thier chance the worst for a 3 peat. Of course its easy for the majority to pick on sony because it's 2008 not 1995. But i think ther games who seen it all.

for example N64= Stuck With Cartridges(spell check) PS3- expensive tech

PSP107

How many of you liars are really Gamestop members lol

[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"]

tough question:

N64= late, overpriced, handicapped by cartridges, lacked multiplats- relied too much on previous gen loyalty. defeated SEGA's disastrous Saturn but heavily beaten by Sony's PS1.

PS3= late, overpriced, handicapped by development difficulties- initially lacked games but has diversified & has gained ground. left for dust by Nintendo Wii, has yet to catch up with Xbox 360.

.... Still too early to tell.

PSP107

i thought PS3 is gaining ground on 360

[QUOTE="Nintendo_Ownes7"][QUOTE="PSP107"]

[QUOTE="Kratos_OMEGA"]In terms of business... definitely Nintendo since they completly lost their foothold in the war. PS3 has been doing decent really, but in terms of games N64>>>>>PS3.snorlaxmaster

I like how do did that. But in my opinion N64 had a few gems that eventully got BORING. So far though i havent played a Must have PS3 game yet.

same, i owned only the n64 and ONLY the n64 until like 2003 when i bought a gamecube

I think that Sony kinda screwed up by not making PS2 online more like Xbox Live. And that translated onto the PS3 unfortunately. They are really slow on the uptake. MS had "new guy" syndrome last gen and didn't pick up so many hardcores. This gen, it's pretty much the hardcore console. Nintendo just alienates 3rd party for some reason. I don't really get it.MadExponent

the PS2 came out in 2000 while online started almost 2 yrs later.

[QUOTE="MadExponent"]I think that Sony kinda screwed up by not making PS2 online more like Xbox Live. And that translated onto the PS3 unfortunately. They are really slow on the uptake. MS had "new guy" syndrome last gen and didn't pick up so many hardcores. This gen, it's pretty much the hardcore console. Nintendo just alienates 3rd party for some reason. I don't really get it.PSP107

the PS2 came out in 2000 while online started almost 2 yrs later.

The Dreamcast had online play before the PS2 was even released. It even came with the modem. (something Sony forced you to buy separately)

Sony by far. The N64 had the ultimate duo with Rare and Ninty side by side. Most of the must have games for the system were some of the best of all time. That made up for the lack of titles overall I think. PS3 is a joke compared to the PS2 though. First the cell processor, this was just a big marketing scheme to disguise a way to get more exclusives for the PS3 with little to no graphics improvement over the competing Xbox 360. Not only the added cost of this cell processor, but the added cost of blue-ray player that you don't have the choice of buying or not. Then we get to the important part....games! Not only has this gen been lackluster in the games department, Sony finds some way to be the worst of the 3 game starving systems after owning 70% of the market with the PS2. And with how the PS3 is doing right now, it just goes to show that you can't steal market share at the expense of the developers and consumer's dollars. At least not very well.

[QUOTE="PSP107"]

[QUOTE="MadExponent"]I think that Sony kinda screwed up by not making PS2 online more like Xbox Live. And that translated onto the PS3 unfortunately. They are really slow on the uptake. MS had "new guy" syndrome last gen and didn't pick up so many hardcores. This gen, it's pretty much the hardcore console. Nintendo just alienates 3rd party for some reason. I don't really get it.ThePlothole

the PS2 came out in 2000 while online started almost 2 yrs later.

The Dreamcast had online play before the PS2 was even released. It even came with the modem. (something Sony forced you to buy separately)

online wasnt a big deal back then. PS2 launch cost would of been $39.99 more

I'd say Sony made the biggest mistake because the PS3 was expected to succeed. All the developers were supporting it and all Sony had to do was create an affordable console and they would have sold like hotcakes.

For Nintendo, although their biggest mistake was going with cartridges instead of CDs, they lost all support of 3rd parties pretty early in the gen and even though they tried to hang on, they eventually failed.

So I'd say sure success turned into mistake >> choosing cartridges over CDs.

To be honest, I reckoned the PS3 kinda sucked because Sony had no idea why they were winning the console wars. In the PS1 era, I reckon it was third party support due to the CD format. In the PS2 era, price and brand name. They just release a console, people bought it and third party developers came running. So they thought, why not try again? And this time viral more technology for the rest of Sony!

;)

I don't understand........how can you fail and succeed at the same time?? :?snorlaxmaster

Companies can succeed, but they can fail on gamer standards. Such as a shovelware title sells well, earns the copany lots of dollars, but it fails on a gamers standout because its poo on a stick

[QUOTE="karena"]I think Sony screwed up the worst considering that they lose money on each console sold and pretty much are wiping out all the profit made on the PS2.Nintendo even though they got beat managed to make money. [/QUOTE/}

Hasnt the PS3 production gone down recently?