Rule of Twos

[neo_x500]

I've kinda noticed a trend in the last Decade. I'd like to share an observation I've seen with Console competitors called the Rule of Two's. This rule is simple, only two Consoles can succesfully compete at a time. When the Console market recovered after Atari bottomed out. There was Nintendo, and a little later Sega. Both were terrible on the Hardware end, but the games were the best, classics.

If memory serves right, there was the NES and Sega Master System, both 8 bits. Then there was SNES and Sega Genesis. Only Two well known competitors. Then came a few new systems, Sega Saturn, and the Playstation, both 32 bit systems, I think N64 came out around the same time, and the Saturn Games didn't do to well. In fact, most of the games for Saturn could be found for the Genesis, which sega was still making games for. Sega Didn't do to well in this Era.

Sony won, and was left to compete with an inferior N64. The Sega Dreamcast was released a few years later, at the end of the N64's life span, but failed miserably. The Sony crushed Sega again, everyone was waiting for a PS2, and Developers ran from Sega. Still only two mainstreme competitors, Sony and Nintendo. History goes a little faster at this point. Gamecube is released a little after Xbox. Microsoft bribes sega to stop competing completely with the Dreamcast, even though they weren't doing much competing anyway.

Now according to my rule, here is what should happen, as Microsoft is losing money on the X box, and is falling behind in Software and Developement, they will bottom out soon, and the X box will become one Giant mistake. Then we go Back to two competitors. Sony and Nintendo (yay) I can even predict what will happen to these two. Sales will drop over the years in price wars. Because Gamecube doesn't play DVD's, it will be less popular. It will catch up with Games eventually. Gamecubes will cost less, play as many games, but will lack DVD, so Playstation 2 will probably win this battle in the Console Wars, but at best, Gamecube will tie in the Battle. Then in 4 to six years, each company will release new Consoles, except for Microsoft, who will have lost to much money to try it again. My apologies on the accuracy of gaming history, I know it is somewhat inaccurate, but for the most part, that's what happened. Now to all those out there who like to correct everything, post away.

-----------------

Aaron: Yes, put it in paragraphs damn it!

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron-V2.2 ]

[badkarma]

Firstly the dreamcast didn't fail as much as you think. SEGA actualy got quite nice sales figures however their financial state was already precarious and they had very little marketing budget which pretty much killed them in europe.

Secondly if you really want a gamecube which can play DVD's and you're willing to shell out some cash you can allways get a Panasonic Q

[HPC GUY]

yeah i seen the panasinc q, a sweet looking machine. the rule of 2s seem to be pretty correct as other companies tried their hand at consoles and burned to ashes.

NeoGeo - console bottomed out cause it was too damn expensive and the games were about $100-$150 a pop, but still does well in the arcades.

Panasonics 3D0 - very hyped but never really got off the ground, failed miserably.

Atari Jaguar - Supposively the first 64 bit console, the games sucked and so did the graphics for 64 bit, looked like 16bit in some games. Atari took a big Loss in this project.

NEC Turbo graphics 16 - the underground of gaming, anyone wanted to be different had this console. cool games in my opinion, decent graphics but got caught between sega and nintendo and was lost in the shuffle.

[choasforages]

add dreamcast to that list of failed consoles. i have one, and im just starting to buy games for it. it can run linux you know.


and im trying to pick up a turbo graphics 16, and maybe  a neo-geo later

[HPC GUY]

i was also at one time a very proud owner of a sega cd, it crushed me when they stopped making games for it. i wont even talk about the waste of plastic the 32x was.

[HPC GUY]

oh yeah, the dreamcast linux software is currently being used by hackers to break into corporate networks, or more acurately break out of corporate networks.

[neo_x500]

See, this proves it, anything with "microsoft" is doomed to failure. First the dreamcast failed, it had windows CE on it (maybe this is why billy bought them out) and now the X box is going down too, only it's gonna be a lot uglier. I think Microsoft would be lucky if they broke even. I have a quick question about the X box, I understand that it's basically a slightly dumbed down computer, in fact it sounds like Microsoft slapped a few parts together and called it a console (almost like how IBM slapped some parts together and called it a PC, and accidently caused microsoft to take off, different story all together) but what is to keep someone from playing a X box game on a PC? or PC games on an Xbox?

[lazygamer]

Just wondering, is it possible that someday in the future three console systems could actually compete?

In my mind, there is three factors in who wins a console war. Luck, corporate competence/incompetence, system design. These are all tied together to a degree.

So when Nintendo started kicking sega's ass with the Nintendo, would there have been a course of action for Sega that they missed, or considered taking but decided not to?

What about with the dreamcast, bad decisions that sealed their fate?

[badkarma]

quote:Originally posted by lazygamer:
What about with the dreamcast, bad decisions that sealed their fate?

in europe it's a lack of advertising which killed them, practically noone heard of a dreamcast over here....

They didn't do half as bad over in the US and Japan afaik.

It couldn't have been a lack of good games, dreamcast has too many kick ass titles  

[HPC GUY]

dream cast did well in japan.
and it did ok until PS2 came out. then all bets were off. Sega didnt have anywhere near the 3rd party support that sony and nintendo have.