[mdasen]

Totally! Too often console makers went with wacky things that developers didn't know how to get performance out of. Though that sanity was short-lived for Sony. The PlayStation 2 was a complex design that was a pain for developers.

As much of a success as the PS2 was, it probably left the door open for Microsoft. The Xbox had a normal x86 processor and normal Nvidia GPU (and the GameCube had a normal PowerPC/ATI GPU combo). The PS2 was a huge success, but I think a lot of it was built off the momentum of the PS1, the fact that it was backward compatible, and its DVD player. If the PS2 had been Sony's first console, they probably would have lost. Developers would have considered it a pain to develop for and Microsoft would have had a more powerful Xbox with an easier development platform.

I think the PS2 does show that developers will accommodate (if hate) wacky-ass designs if there's momentum. However, Sega had killed their momentum with the Sega CD and 32X with both developers and gamers so the Saturn's wacky design was the final nail in the coffin. Atari had been out of the console game for nearly a decade when they launched the Jaguar so they also did't have the momentum.

The PS2 was a bit pushed by momentum. Developers knew that gamers would buy it because Sony's brand in gaming was amazing at the time and it offered a DVD player so they put up with it.

[MegaDeKay]

> If the PS2 had been Sony's first console, they probably would have lost

I disagree. The PS2 had a year head start, a solid early lineup, and a built-in DVD player (this was huge). The XBox also had little traction in Japan, not just from a consumer perspective but a developer perspective as well. It certainly would have been a closer race had the two consoles released at the same time though.

[giantrobot]

What the GP is saying is if the PS2, with its weird architecture, was Sony's first console it may not have been successful. By the release of the PS2 the PS1 had a number of successful second and third party franchises. Third party devs were willing to invest in making PS2 games because they had five years of profits on the PS1 and a good relationship with Sony.

It took several years for third party devs to get maximum performance out of the PS2. Not that early PS2 games were bad but there's a marked difference between the early games and ones made after devs figured out how to better use the PS2's SIMD units and take better advantage of the GPU.

If Sony didn't have six years of history with the PS1 I don't think they could have gotten the level of third party support the PS2 actually had. Devs would have looked at the PS2 and had no confidence Sony would execute on dev support.

[MegaDeKay]

"It took several years for third party devs to get maximum performance out of the PS2"

Yes, but the same could be said for almost any console ever made.