In the history of console gaming one can argue, the party who wins one generation may not win the next. As a disclaimer, I am not saying one console is better than another, merely the numbers of [game and console] units moved indicate a certain result.
Just to provide my hypothesis, the company in red is the platform I see as the victor for the console generation:
Atari 2600 v. Commodore 64 v. Intellivision
NES v. Sega Master System
SNES v. Sega Genesis
Nintendo 64 v. Sony PlayStation v. Sega Saturn
Sega Dreamcast v. PlayStation 2 v. XBox v. Gamecube v. EA
Yeah, EA won this generation. They released games on every enduring console, and brought in more revenue than Sega (who did release a console, but didn't get Madden). In most businesses your partners are frequently also your competitors. EA proved to be a match for a couple first-party publishers by delivering their product to multiple consoles.
I understand the debate over who won the SNES/Genesis match-up continues to this day. Unfortunately, even the revenue or household penetration figures are not adequate enough to declare a clear victor.
Since few interactive media aficianados even consider the next generation to have commenced, it is too early to call a winner, or even mention the players. Microsoft's charge to retail has put them in the pole position, but is it enough to gather sufficient momentum to win the race? Will Sony's online service be able to compete with XBox Live? Will Nintendo concede defeat, or will their Revolution save them from console obsolescence?
We shall see.
Log in to comment