Which console company experienced the biggest fall from grace?

Was it:

-Atari-

From zero to hero, and then they caused the biggest market crash in video game history, effectively destroying the company and many peoples faith in video gaming as a past-time.

-Sega-

A fierce competitor, often attacking it's rivals directly in tv commercials (sega does what nintendon't).

From initial highs to later lows, sega see-sawed up and down until they were finally forced to back out of the console race financially disgraced. Now you'll find some of their old classics on a nintendo console near you.

-Sony-

Sony dominated the late nineties and early 21st century completely and utterly, So utterly in fact, that they had 80-90% market share in all markets for over a decade. Alas, it seems the good times have come to an abrupt end. The highly succesful ps2 is nearing it's inevitable end, yet the ps3 is failing to achieve anything of consequence. Competition is fierce and Sony's latest horse has come into the race drunk and dazed.

As the old saying goes 'The higher you go, the further you fall' and this has been one monumental fall for Sony indeed. Recovery seems a moot point in light of the wii's success, at this stage it seems that sony will never recover their former glory.

Sony.

Seriously that was just bloody embarrassing.

You have a colossal first entrance. And even bigger sophomore, then you get a giant third flop.

Hey, it's like Sony's own Spiderman movie franchise :lol:

I'd still get the console though, it looks to have good games.

Sony.

Seriously that was just bloody embarrassing.

You have a colossal first entrance. And even bigger sophomore, then you get a giant third flop.

Hey, it's like Sony's own Spiderman movie franchise :lol:

I'd still get the console though, it looks to have good games.

FrozenLiquid

Actually in terms of box office sales. Spiderman did very good. Unlike ps3 sales...

Sony. Hands down. They got too cocky, and let them get ahead of themselves.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

For some odd reason you didn't include Nintendo in that list TC. *cough* sheep. J/K.

Anyway I really think it's Nintendo. Because despite their huge success in hardware sales. I didn't see it really make the leap over to next gen. Was the Wii really neccesary? Couldn't they just have upgraded the Gamecube with a Wiimote and saved us $250?

For some odd reason you didn't include Nintendo in that list TC. *cough* sheep. J/K.

Anyway I really think it's Nintendo. Because despite their huge success in hardware sales. I didn't see it really make the leap over to next gen. Was the Wii really neccesary? Couldn't they just have upgraded the Gamecube with a Wiimote and saved us $250?

4_Horsemen

For some odd reason you didn't include Nintendo in that list TC. *cough* sheep. J/K.

Anyway I really think it's Nintendo. Because despite their huge success in hardware sales. I didn't see it really make the leap over to next gen. Was the Wii really neccesary? Couldn't they just have upgraded the Gamecube with a Wiimote and saved us $250?

4_Horsemen

How can I include nintendo when they are the world's largest and most profitable game developer/publisher, dominate utterly the hand-held console arena and have just released a wildly successful and extremely fast selling motion based home console?

And the wii is NOT a gamecube, you only make yourself look bad with that tired old fanboy rant.

Nintendo had a bad fall in sales with the gamecube but recovered quickly with the ds and wii. Ps3 is probably the worstmonkeysrfat

In terms of consoles nintendo NEVER had a bad sales fall, it dominated the handheld market by far since the original gameboy and never faltered in terms of profits or franchise popularity. In terms of home consoles the snes sold 50 million, the n64 sold 30 million, the gamecube 20 million, I see no drastic falls, only a gradual decline in the home console department that still managed to remain profitable and thus feasible to this day. Yet the wii is experiencing the fastest home console sales rates in console history, and that my friend is a biog turn around.

Gotta be Sega. Damn they fell really hard. But when I think about it they didn't create one successful piece of Hardware besides the Genesis. Everything else was a comercial failure.Blackbond

Master System was successfull.

[QUOTE="4_Horsemen"]

For some odd reason you didn't include Nintendo in that list TC. *cough* sheep. J/K.

Anyway I really think it's Nintendo. Because despite their huge success in hardware sales. I didn't see it really make the leap over to next gen. Was the Wii really neccesary? Couldn't they just have upgraded the Gamecube with a Wiimote and saved us $250?

Gangans

How can I include nintendo when they are the world's largest and most profitable game developer/publisher, dominate utterly the hand-held console arena and have just released a wildly successful and extremely fast selling motion based home console?

And the wii is NOT a gamecube, you only make yourself look bad with that tired old fanboy rant.

The way the company bastardizes their characters is unacceptable to me. They pray on the nostalgic sentiment of their gamers but I and others have woke up and smelled the lameness.

The Wii may not be technically a Gamecube but the games sure do look like it. So don't come out with that fanboy crap TC. You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

easily atari

they went from #1 in the gaming inudstry to actually killing the industry itself LOL

cant do much worse than that

as for sega they were never high enough to fall since there best outing was the sega genesis which was a little behind the SNES in sales and way behind in quality games

as for sont how can you eve include them on the list considering this gen isnt over???

if anything you should include nintendo considering their fanbase has been on decline ever since the NES

[QUOTE="Gangans"][QUOTE="4_Horsemen"]

For some odd reason you didn't include Nintendo in that list TC. *cough* sheep. J/K.

Anyway I really think it's Nintendo. Because despite their huge success in hardware sales. I didn't see it really make the leap over to next gen. Was the Wii really neccesary? Couldn't they just have upgraded the Gamecube with a Wiimote and saved us $250?

4_Horsemen

How can I include nintendo when they are the world's largest and most profitable game developer/publisher, dominate utterly the hand-held console arena and have just released a wildly successful and extremely fast selling motion based home console?

And the wii is NOT a gamecube, you only make yourself look bad with that tired old fanboy rant.

The way the company bastardizes their characters is unacceptable to me. They pray on the nostalgic sentiment of their gamers but I and others have woke up and smelled the lameness.

The Wii may not be technically a Gamecube but the games sure do look like it. So don't come out with that fanboy crap TC. You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

Your opinion on nintendo's franchises has no basis for anyone else, so I will treat it as such, just a personal opinion. You don't like mario, metroid or zelda games? Too bad.

If you enjoy playing graphics stick to your $500 consoles, It's ok, I understand. If you knew anything you would understand that nintendo upgraded the gpu and cpu in the wii, both are clocked faster and rebuilt on a smaller 90nm process. They also included 91mb of ram to gamecube's 48. Slight upgrade but enough for what the console is meant to do, and that is to offer a new way of playing.

By the way you are not the greater market, your single opnion will not decide nintendo's or the wii's fate, thus I had no reason to include nintendo, the only company being successfull this gen, in that list. IF i had done that then microsoft would have failed in the console arena when they had released the money draining xbox1, and i would have had to include them too.

easily atari

they went from #1 in the gaming inudstry to actually killing the industry itself LOL

cant do much worse than that

as for sega they were never high enough to fall since there best outing was the sega genesis which was a little behind the SNES in sales and way behind in quality games

as for sont how can you eve include them on the list considering this gen isnt over???

if anything you should include nintendo considering their fanbase has been on decline ever since the NES

tidus222

We are discussing success and failure in terms of companies and all that entails like profits and market share, fanboys have little to do with it, they are always the minority.

Nintendo has been chugging away nicely since the NES days. And is on the verge of major handheld AND home console domination this gen, a situation it hasn't had since the days of the nes and gameboy were out simultaneously.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]Gotta be Sega. Damn they fell really hard. But when I think about it they didn't create one successful piece of Hardware besides the Genesis. Everything else was a comercial failure.Gangans

Master System was successfull.

No it wasn't Nintendo had practically had a Monopoly.

1. Sega Master System
2. Game Gear
3. Nomad
4. Sega CD
5. 32X
6. Saturn
7. Dreamast

They created 7 failures and one success. That one success was the Genesis. Hell none of their consoles besides the SMS and the Genesis weren't discontinued early.

Sony hands down (of course the cows will never admit it)

You dont have the world eating out of your hands and holding onto your every word for a decade and then drastically become the non-existant contender in less than a year....Sony had it all support, profits, and popularity with its Playstation franchise but got too arrogant and fell hard simply because they misjudged the market (a noob mistake).

The impact of Sony falling was equivalent to the undefeated boxing champion Mike Tyson falling to the floor for the first time....a point where time almost stood still from disbelief. Now the PS3 is just like the Tyson of today, a oddity that cant seem to get back on track on the road to greatness. With every positive step forward by Sony and its PS3, another bombshell is dropped to push them three steps back...

But to hear the fanboys, they will tell you everything is right on track in Sonyland....real gamers know the truth. We all know the PS3 was suppose to take the market by storm. We know that the PS3 should have been a runaway success. We also know that none of those assumptions came true because Sony is currently struggling with the PS3 as if they were a entry level console maker trying to gain support for their platform, all of which they should have had from the start.

Do I feel its sad for a great product brand to fall from grace? YES!

Do I feel sorry for Sony? NO!!!

The PS3 failures are self inflicted wounds made solely from Sony, not the competition and I dont respect self inflicted damages. Its too damn bad that the newer generation of gamers cant experience the great feelings of a real console war with equal opponents that benefit gamers as a whole (SNES vs. Genesis). Instead we have a one-sided war with one system getting all titles as devs meant them to be played while the other system just talks a good game but has yet to back anything up on the field.

Game On...

4_Horsemen

The way the company bastardizes their characters is unacceptable to me. They pray on the nostalgic sentiment of their gamers but I and others have woke up and smelled the lameness.

Tis true!

I'll say Sony

Those others companies lost their place in the food chain but Sony looked like they wanted Blu-ray to be big and made an expensive video game console which doesn't do good according to history and well look at how the Ps3 is doing

All Sony had to do was make a decent game system that was easy to develop for and pay off Immersive to have rumble instead of motion tilt which in the real world doesn't seem as nice as people on a forum make it out to be and Sony would have done ok

[QUOTE="4_Horsemen"][QUOTE="Gangans"]

How can I include nintendo when they are the world's largest and most profitable game developer/publisher, dominate utterly the hand-held console arena and have just released a wildly successful and extremely fast selling motion based home console?

And the wii is NOT a gamecube, you only make yourself look bad with that tired old fanboy rant.

Gangans

The way the company bastardizes their characters is unacceptable to me. They pray on the nostalgic sentiment of their gamers but I and others have woke up and smelled the lameness.

The Wii may not be technically a Gamecube but the games sure do look like it. So don't come out with that fanboy crap TC. You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

Your opinion on nintendo's franchises has no basis for anyone else, so I will treat it as such, just a personal opinion. You don't like mario, metroid or zelda games? Too bad.

If you enjoy playing graphics stick to your $500 consoles, It's ok, I understand. If you knew anything you would understand that nintendo upgraded the gpu and cpu in the wii, both are clocked faster and rebuilt on a smaller 90nm process. They also included 91mb of ram to gamecube's 48. Slight upgrade but enough for what the console is meant to do, and that is to offer a new way of playing.

By the way you are not the greater market, your single opnion will not decide nintendo's or the wii's fate, thus I had no reason to include nintendo, the only company being successfull this gen, in that list. IF i had done that then microsoft would have failed in the console arena when they had released the money draining xbox1, and i would have had to include them too.

I do like the Mario, Zelda and Metroid of yester-year. But if Zelda:TP is any indication of the challenge that Nintendo is incorporating in their games. Yeah I don't like them. Even the kiddy-looking Zelda:WW required more skill to beat than this new casual sequel.

You say if I knew anything I would understand. :roll: I guess you missed the part where I said the Wii is technically not a Gamecube. But are you seriously gonna tell me that the current and upcoming Wii games look at least twice as better than the Cube?

TC you talk as if I'm the only one that see's flaws in Nintendo and the Wii. Get with the program. Not everybody likes it just like the other two consoles. I stated valid reasons, if it get's you upset, so be it.

Bottom line: Nintendo has fallen from grace. I see them re-re-releasing alot of old-school games. Using their characters in other games besides their respective own. The graphics on the Wii look similar to the Cube's. And Z:Tp along with Paper Mario were too easy to beat. It seems you're not the greater market either. Casuals are. That's assuming you're a long time gamer.

Atari easily. they fell hard and almost took gaming with them. And as far as sony goes, I have no idea how you guys can sit here and say they have fallen and they're done for. The PS3 is on par with the PS2 and well above the PS1. Just because the Wii is selling at an unheard of pace now doesn't mean in the end it'll be on top. The N64 was beating the PS1 in the begining but ended up under foot by the end. Now do I think it'll end up this way this time? maybe, maybe not, who knows a lot can happen over the course of 5-7 years. No matter what happens Nintendo will end up way better off than last gen thats for sure and I don't think Sony will end up selling the volume of the PS2 this time around but they won't be in a bad place either.gundamfan80

[QUOTE="tidus222"]

easily atari

they went from #1 in the gaming inudstry to actually killing the industry itself LOL

cant do much worse than that

as for sega they were never high enough to fall since there best outing was the sega genesis which was a little behind the SNES in sales and way behind in quality games

as for sont how can you eve include them on the list considering this gen isnt over???

if anything you should include nintendo considering their fanbase has been on decline ever since the NES

Gangans

We are discussing success and failure in terms of companies and all that entails like profits and market share, fanboys have little to do with it, they are always the minority.

Nintendo has been chugging away nicely since the NES days. And is on the verge of major handheld AND home console domination this gen, a situation it hasn't had since the days of the nes and gameboy were out simultaneously.

I agree, but as a gamer you must admit for a brief period in time (before the PSP launched), Nintendo was scaring the hell out of the industry with its proposal of the DS and its lack of influence on the market last gen. The fear that the gaming market would be without another pioneer company was almost a reality with Sony dominating with the PS2 and the hype gathering around the PSP. At that point in time Ninty was becoming the "old man" of the industry that wasnt adapting to change.

Of course we all know how things turned out by Ninty stucking to its roots of gaming and not getting caught up in the (MS/Sony) race for high-end technology, but its a good thing the DS and Wii were a global sensation or else we would have been playing the next Mario on a Sony or MS console...

Game On...

[QUOTE="Gangans"][QUOTE="4_Horsemen"][QUOTE="Gangans"]

How can I include nintendo when they are the world's largest and most profitable game developer/publisher, dominate utterly the hand-held console arena and have just released a wildly successful and extremely fast selling motion based home console?

And the wii is NOT a gamecube, you only make yourself look bad with that tired old fanboy rant.

4_Horsemen

The way the company bastardizes their characters is unacceptable to me. They pray on the nostalgic sentiment of their gamers but I and others have woke up and smelled the lameness.

The Wii may not be technically a Gamecube but the games sure do look like it. So don't come out with that fanboy crap TC. You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

Your opinion on nintendo's franchises has no basis for anyone else, so I will treat it as such, just a personal opinion. You don't like mario, metroid or zelda games? Too bad.

If you enjoy playing graphics stick to your $500 consoles, It's ok, I understand. If you knew anything you would understand that nintendo upgraded the gpu and cpu in the wii, both are clocked faster and rebuilt on a smaller 90nm process. They also included 91mb of ram to gamecube's 48. Slight upgrade but enough for what the console is meant to do, and that is to offer a new way of playing.

By the way you are not the greater market, your single opnion will not decide nintendo's or the wii's fate, thus I had no reason to include nintendo, the only company being successfull this gen, in that list. IF i had done that then microsoft would have failed in the console arena when they had released the money draining xbox1, and i would have had to include them too.

I do like the Mario, Zelda and Metroid of yester-year. But if Zelda:TP is any indication of the challenge that Nintendo is incorporating in their games. Yeah I don't like them. Even the kiddy-looking Zelda:WW required more skill to beat than this new casual sequel.

You say if I knew anything I would understand. :roll: I guess you missed the part where I said the Wii is technically not a Gamecube. But are you seriously gonna tell me that the current and upcoming Wii games look at least twice as better than the Cube?

TC you talk as if I'm the only one that see's flaws in Nintendo and the Wii. Get with the program. Not everybody likes it just like the other two consoles. I stated valid reasons, if it get's you upset, so be it.

Bottom line: Nintendo has fallen from grace. I see them re-re-releasing alot of old-school games. Using their characters in other games besides their respective own. The graphics on the Wii look similar to the Cube's. And Z:Tp along with Paper Mario were too easy to beat. It seems you're not the greater market either. Casuals are. That's assuming you're a long time gamer.

Please, do tell, are nintendo considered a quality developer nowadays? If you answered no, you are seriously out of it. So I'll assume you have answered yes, they produce some of the finest games on any platform. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THOSE CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED GAMES, THEN PUT UP OR GET OUT. That's all it comes down to, you not liking mario, zelda and metroid games, so what if mario has 50 spinoffs, they are all mostly great games, and you don't have to play them, you can always just wait for the 'true' mario games like galaxy or whatever...which major highly succesfull franchise ISN'T MILKED for all it's worth?

At least nintendo provides good bastardized milkage, unlike some.

[QUOTE="Gangans"][QUOTE="tidus222"]

easily atari

they went from #1 in the gaming inudstry to actually killing the industry itself LOL

cant do much worse than that

as for sega they were never high enough to fall since there best outing was the sega genesis which was a little behind the SNES in sales and way behind in quality games

as for sont how can you eve include them on the list considering this gen isnt over???

if anything you should include nintendo considering their fanbase has been on decline ever since the NES

FatalDomain

We are discussing success and failure in terms of companies and all that entails like profits and market share, fanboys have little to do with it, they are always the minority.

Nintendo has been chugging away nicely since the NES days. And is on the verge of major handheld AND home console domination this gen, a situation it hasn't had since the days of the nes and gameboy were out simultaneously.

I agree, but as a gamer you must admit for a brief period in time (before the PSP launched), Nintendo was scaring the hell out of the industry with its proposal of the DS and its lack of influence on the market last gen. The fear that the gaming market would be without another pioneer company was almost a reality with Sony dominating with the PS2 and the hype gathering around the PSP. At that point in time Ninty was becoming the "old man" of the industry that wasnt adapting to change.

Of course we all know how things turned out by Ninty stucking to its roots of gaming and not getting caught up in the (MS/Sony) race for high-end technology, but its a good thing the DS and Wii were a global sensation or else we would have been playing the next Mario on a Sony or MS console...

Game On...

Well at the same time you must realise that nintendo was NEVER threatened in the handhelf console market. The DS may have been a risky concept but it paid dividents, and was never behind competitors such as the psp.

Wow, how ignorant to say Sony. When Atari destroyed the N/A console market when they fell.

I recommend people get a clue before making assumptions.

Atari, because Sony and Sega didn't take the whole industry down with them.slothboyadvance

Sony.

Seriously that was just bloody embarrassing.

You have a colossal first entrance. And even bigger sophomore, then you get a giant third flop.

Hey, it's like Sony's own Spiderman movie franchise :lol:

I'd still get the console though, it looks to have good games.

FrozenLiquid

[QUOTE="FatalDomain"][QUOTE="Gangans"][QUOTE="tidus222"]

easily atari

they went from #1 in the gaming inudstry to actually killing the industry itself LOL

cant do much worse than that

as for sega they were never high enough to fall since there best outing was the sega genesis which was a little behind the SNES in sales and way behind in quality games

as for sont how can you eve include them on the list considering this gen isnt over???

if anything you should include nintendo considering their fanbase has been on decline ever since the NES

Gangans

We are discussing success and failure in terms of companies and all that entails like profits and market share, fanboys have little to do with it, they are always the minority.

Nintendo has been chugging away nicely since the NES days. And is on the verge of major handheld AND home console domination this gen, a situation it hasn't had since the days of the nes and gameboy were out simultaneously.

I agree, but as a gamer you must admit for a brief period in time (before the PSP launched), Nintendo was scaring the hell out of the industry with its proposal of the DS and its lack of influence on the market last gen. The fear that the gaming market would be without another pioneer company was almost a reality with Sony dominating with the PS2 and the hype gathering around the PSP. At that point in time Ninty was becoming the "old man" of the industry that wasnt adapting to change.

Of course we all know how things turned out by Ninty stucking to its roots of gaming and not getting caught up in the (MS/Sony) race for high-end technology, but its a good thing the DS and Wii were a global sensation or else we would have been playing the next Mario on a Sony or MS console...

Game On...

Well at the same time you must realise that nintendo was NEVER threatened in the handhelf console market. The DS may have been a risky concept but it paid dividents, and was never behind competitors such as the psp.

Although the GB Advance was dominating the market all it would have taken was a brief lapse of reality and their handheld empire would have fallen (which is the point of the topic). If the PSP would have swept the world as analyst assumed it would, Nintendo would have been out of business, simple as that... The moral of the story is all competitors should be considered threats and taken seriously, Nintendo understood this, Sony didnt. Luckily Nintedo still had that spark, that innovation to look beyond the naysayers and produced products they felt gaming was all about.....they were right!!! Which is why Nintendo has reclaimed its household name among gamers and non-gamers.

Game On...

I just want to point out that Atari was not responsible for the gaming market crash. It was the oversaturation of game systems. There were too many systems with all the games spread out among them. People were confused and so they picked the only safe option; not to buy any system at all.Corvin

Besides, the original Atari sold out before the crash. Atari was run by clueless executives.

Wow, how ignorant to say Sony. When Atari destroyed the N/A console market when they fell.

I recommend people get a clue before making assumptions.

gingerdivid

Sony shouldn't be in that list. The PS3 is not dead yet, far from it. There's still a long way to go.

To answer your question, i'll have to say Sega, much to my dislike. I wish they were still around.

[QUOTE="Corvin"]I just want to point out that Atari was not responsible for the gaming market crash. It was the oversaturation of game systems. There were too many systems with all the games spread out among them. People were confused and so they picked the only safe option; not to buy any system at all.gingerdivid

Besides, the original Atari sold out before the crash. Atari was run by clueless executives.

True, but I think its a bit narrow-minded to blame only Atari. Its true that with the 2600 there was no restriction on games like Nintendo had, but I believe they changed that after the 2600. The industry was very young back then and it such security measure were probably not thought of yet. Basically it would be blaming Atari for being the popular system.

I wish I could still find the link but I had a good one talking about the gaming crash and all the systems there were, games that could run on different systems, generally a mass of confusion for customers. It was much more than just Atari's fault. And while Nintendo gets credit for turning things around, they didn't exactly have a perfect, developer-friendly plan in place. I guess you could call it tough love, but damn was it ever tough...

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Sony.

Seriously that was just bloody embarrassing.

You have a colossal first entrance. And even bigger sophomore, then you get a giant third flop.

Hey, it's like Sony's own Spiderman movie franchise :lol:

I'd still get the console though, it looks to have good games.

iNeedFreedom

What part of fallen from grace dont you understand? Sony brought gaming mainstream to record levels that helped paved the way for gaming to be a billion dollar industry. To be a pioneer of a product that was loved by the industry, to now become the black sheep of gaming, thats a incredible fall from glory. When Atari was king, console gaming was still in its infancy and although the industry had grown to become a notable market from a simple hobby, it pales in comparison to the billions Sony generated with the PS1 and PS2....

Game On...

[QUOTE="gingerdivid"]

[QUOTE="Corvin"]I just want to point out that Atari was not responsible for the gaming market crash. It was the oversaturation of game systems. There were too many systems with all the games spread out among them. People were confused and so they picked the only safe option; not to buy any system at all.Corvin

Besides, the original Atari sold out before the crash. Atari was run by clueless executives.

True, but I think its a bit narrow-minded to blame only Atari. Its true that with the 2600 there was no restriction on games like Nintendo had, but I believe they changed that after the 2600. The industry was very young back then and it such security measure were probably not thought of yet. Basically it would be blaming Atari for being the popular system.

I wish I could still find the link but I had a good one talking about the gaming crash and all the systems there were, games that could run on different systems, generally a mass of confusion for customers. It was much more than just Atari's fault. And while Nintendo gets credit for turning things around, they didn't exactly have a perfect, developer-friendly plan in place. I guess you could call it tough love, but damn was it ever tough...

Sony. Hands down. They got too cocky, and let them get ahead of themselves.

THEWINDWAKER10

People are still buying PS3's, when retailers start sending PS3's out into the Arizona desert where all the Atari Jaguars are then you can start the violin music, but until then Sony is still pretty much in the game.

Sony shouldn't be in that list. The PS3 is not dead yet, far from it. There's still a long way to go.

To answer your question, i'll have to say Sega, much to my dislike. I wish they were still around.

lusitanogamer

The PS3 doesnt have to be dead for it to fall...Just as the Walkman product line was once a bad mofo, its struggling to be seen in a market with fierce competitors. the same can be said with the PS3.

Game On...

[QUOTE="THEWINDWAKER10"]

Sony. Hands down. They got too cocky, and let them get ahead of themselves.

no_submission

People are still buying PS3's, when retailers start sending PS3's out into the Arizona desert where all the Atari Jaguars are then you can start the violin music, but until then Sony is still pretty much in the game.

[QUOTE="THEWINDWAKER10"]

Sony. Hands down. They got too cocky, and let them get ahead of themselves.

no_submission

People are still buying PS3's, when retailers start sending PS3's out into the Arizona desert where all the Atari Jaguars are then you can start the violin music, but until then Sony is still pretty much in the game.

People still bought the GC until Nintendo recently pulled the plug, but the writing was on the wall years ago...Lets stop being hypocritical about the PS3 because its a Sony machine. If the PS3 was made by MS, Ninty or Sega we all know that the system would be considered a massive failure regardless if people are currently buying it....

failure =/= immediate death of a system, just ask the N64...

Game On...

[QUOTE="lusitanogamer"]

Sony shouldn't be in that list. The PS3 is not dead yet, far from it. There's still a long way to go.

To answer your question, i'll have to say Sega, much to my dislike. I wish they were still around.

FatalDomain

The PS3 doesnt have to be dead for it to fall...Just as the Walkman product line was once a bad mofo, its struggling to be seen in a market with fierce competitors. the same can be said with the PS3.

Game On...

Listen the facts are right their in front of you, Atari had the biggest screw up followed by Sega.

In your last post(long unnecessary post) you said Sony lost support... Proof? Cause last time I checked PS3 is getting/has plenty of third party multiplats while Wii on the other hand......:(

SEGA, sony have done real bad recently but they aint out of making consoles like SEGA is.PelekotansDream

I would blame Atari more so than it's competitors, but it's unfair to give Atari all the blame. Like people give McDonald's pratically all the blame for obesity problems in modern society. gingerdivid

Here is the wiki link regarding the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983

Although it was partially caused by a weak lineup of Atari games like the mediocre Atari version of Pac-man and ET, I still believe it was mainly caused by WAY too many systems on the market. It makes today's 3-system market look downright tame. To quote part of the article:

"A flood of consoles on the US market giving consumers too many choices. At the time of the US crash, there was a plethora of consoles on the market: Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Bally Astrocade, Colecovision, Coleco Gemini, Emerson Arcadia 2001, Fairchild Channel F System II, Magnavox Odyssey2, MattelIntellivision (and its just-released update with several peripherals, Intellivision II), Sears Tele-Games systems (which included 2600 and Intellivision clones), Tandyvision, and Vectrex. Each one of these consoles had its own library of games, and many had (in some cases large) third-party libraries. Likewise, many of these same companies announced yet another generation of consoles for 1984, such as the Odyssey3, and Atari 7800."

Clearly there was much more to it than just Atari, in my book they still deserve credit for the original popularity of video games with the 2600. I personally used to love the system, and still played it regularly for a long time even after our family got a NES system.

[QUOTE="no_submission"][QUOTE="THEWINDWAKER10"]

Sony. Hands down. They got too cocky, and let them get ahead of themselves.

FatalDomain

People are still buying PS3's, when retailers start sending PS3's out into the Arizona desert where all the Atari Jaguars are then you can start the violin music, but until then Sony is still pretty much in the game.

People still bought the GC until Nintendo recently pulled the plug, but the writing was on the wall years ago...Lets stop being hypocritical about the PS3 because its a Sony machine. If the PS3 was made by MS, Ninty or Sega we all know that the system would be considered a massive failure regardless if people are currently buying it....

failure =/= immediate death of a system, just ask the N64...

Game On...

Take of your fanboy goggles please join us in the real world :lol:

[QUOTE="no_submission"][QUOTE="THEWINDWAKER10"]

Sony. Hands down. They got too cocky, and let them get ahead of themselves.

ChiChiMonKilla

People are still buying PS3's, when retailers start sending PS3's out into the Arizona desert where all the Atari Jaguars are then you can start the violin music, but until then Sony is still pretty much in the game.

Sorry to inform you but last gen systems sales serves no purpose this gen (you dont see other companies touting sale figures for old products do you? The 2004 Mercedes is eating up the sales charts!!! Sounds silly doesnt it?). And we as gamers know the real reason why the PS3 passed 360 sales this month so no real accomplishment there. I find it funny how Sony fans will make a sales comparison with the 360 but forget to add that the Wii stomped everyone in sales...OOOoooh the PS3 sold well for a few weeks whoopty doo, my friend....Thats like celebrating your favorite fighter finally got in a good combination on the opponent, but ignore the fact he is being brutally beaten the entire bout.

As for your claim that Sony owned E3 07, thats just a opinion shared by few but the majority felt that the entire show was dull and boring with no clear cut winner.

Game On...

[QUOTE="gingerdivid"]I would blame Atari more so than it's competitors, but it's unfair to give Atari all the blame. Like people give McDonald's pratically all the blame for obesity problems in modern society. Corvin

Here is the wiki link regarding the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983

Although it was partially caused by a weak lineup of Atari games like the mediocre Atari version of Pac-man and ET, I still believe it was mainly caused by WAY too many systems on the market. It makes today's 3-system market look downright tame. To quote part of the article:

"A flood of consoles on the US market giving consumers too many choices. At the time of the US crash, there was a plethora of consoles on the market: Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Bally Astrocade, Colecovision, Coleco Gemini, Emerson Arcadia 2001, Fairchild Channel F System II, Magnavox Odyssey2, MattelIntellivision (and its just-released update with several peripherals, Intellivision II), Sears Tele-Games systems (which included 2600 and Intellivision clones), Tandyvision, and Vectrex. Each one of these consoles had its own library of games, and many had (in some cases large) third-party libraries. Likewise, many of these same companies announced yet another generation of consoles for 1984, such as the Odyssey3, and Atari 7800."

Clearly there was much more to it than just Atari, in my book they still deserve credit for the original popularity of video games with the 2600. I personally used to love the system, and still played it regularly for a long time even after our family got a NES system.