Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Crichton" data-source="post: 1125795" data-attributes="member: 4779">If you have some proof that proves that the PS2 getting a year head-start had NO impact on its success then I'll believe you.  Until then, please don't discount my observations as completely wrong.  I said one of the reasons, not the only reason or even the main reason.Yes, the PS2 is continuing the success of the PS but again, show me some proof that if the Xbox was out at the same time that it wouldn't have gotten its hands on some bigger releases.  The PS2 had one good game at launch, SSX.  The Xbox had a much bigger system seller in Halo.  Who's to know what would have happened if the PS2 didn't get such lead-time?  Surely not you or I.The PS2 was the system out there at the time, there was no competition.  That does make a small difference.  Sure, it was continuing the success of the PS and that is a huge contributing factor to why it is doing so well now.  It's only real competition was from Nintendo, who's user base wasn't anywhere close to Sony's.  This too lends greatly to the PS2's success but I never said the year lead was the main reason why it did well - just one of the many reasons.Catch-22.  If they had a larger user-base to start with, maybe the developers would have jumped on board and made more system sellers (which there aren't many of).  But because there weren't enough systems out there, the PS2 was a much better choice because more people would get to play the developers games.I'm not saying lead time is the only reason or even a major reason for system success, I am refuting your claim that it has no impact.  I am perfectly aware that quality of games, exclusive games as well as other factors are important to a system's success but to ignore a market lead is just foolish.</blockquote>

Verification