I think it’s incredibly crass to have something like this, simply because there’s no freakin’ way to tell what will succeed and what won’t. Let’s remember that most of us didn’t even see an actual, physical PS2 unit for a whole year after its initial release. Sony took an enormous gamble, not only that gamers would get worked up in an incredible lather over nothing (literally!) but that the difficult programming (which a lot of programmers were pretty vocal about) would somehow just magically go away. Frankly, I wouldn’t have put two bucks on this to compete with a dilapidated Skee-ball machine in '01, much less the Dreamcast. Something like this is virtually a recipe for guaranteed disaster, and somehow, just somehow, it became one of the most beloved systems ever*.
Or how about the X-Box. Y’know, all that space taken up, not that great game selection, funny-looking controllers, no “cheat” devices at all (seriously, how hard would it be to put in some kind of online blocker?) …oh, and also the issue of certain systems breaking down for no reason at all. (It really is like a computer! ) Can anyone honestly say that the X-Box was a better value than anything else available at the time? And it not only survived and got a bunch of exclusive licenses, we now have a new and more powerful verison.
It’s a crapshoot. Always has been, always will be. Don’t kid yourself into thinking differently.
(I will say, though, that if all your marketing centers around the supposed power of your system, you’re in trouble. I’m looking at you, Atari Jaguar.)
- Don’t get me started on the reliability issues. If you so much as put a damn sticker on one of those things, it’s becomes unusable within two years. I’ve had to replace our original PS2 and the one I modchipped, and let’s not forget the one my father bought in Korea which also broke when I put a multitap…a peripheral, fer chrissake…in it. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but shouldn’t cost count into the overall value of a system?