Nintendo was the Winner the previous console war.
Sony doesn't always win.
It changes every new generation of consoles.
Nintendo won last gen, but mostly because Microsoft stood in Sony's way. Sony has what Microsoft and Nintendo both lack which is why they will always perform well. Its why they appeal to a great audience at large. They increased the overall market the second they joined the gaming industry and continued to have it continue in its growth over the PS2 era.
| SnK0610 said: Nintendo was the Winner the previous console war. |
He's right though, naturally speaking Sony is the most dominant company when it comes to offerings to the existing market. Nintendo won last gen, but they were offering to a market that will not return until another fad starts....which is exactly why Nintendo isnt winning now.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: Nintendo won last gen, but mostly because Microsoft stood in Sony's way. Sony has what Microsoft and Nintendo both lack which is why they will always perform well. Its why they appeal to a great audience at large. They increased the overall market the second they joined the gaming industry and continued to have it continue in its growth over the PS2 era. |
Microsoft was part of the console market in the ps2 era and it's still didn't bother ps2 to become the best selling console ever.
Sony didn't win with the ps3 becuase they did a lot of mistakes -
Very high price.
Backward competibilty for USA and Japan and not for Europe.
Many different verions of the cosnole - 40 g 60 g 80 g 20 g.
Not enough attractive games at the launch.
All these mistakes is what caused them not to be the winner.
With the ps4 they corrected many of these mistakes.
This is why they are winning this time at the console war.
Nintendo isn't selling well because of the name they have chosen for their new console - Wii U.
That name is too similar to the original Wii
Wii U caused a lot of confusions with many of the costumers.
When the console was lanuched they didn't know Nintendo has a new console.
Nintendo could have sell much more with a better name for their console.
| Mr Khan said: Only in the sense that their competitors are fairly incompetent in how they conduct themselves. PS1 wouldn't have gotten off the ground if Sega hadn't flopped into the 5th generation with the grace of a dying fish and/or Nintendo had embraced CDs. If one or both of Sega or Nintendo had run themselves properly, Sony would have been a big also-ran. This serendipity continued into the PS2 generation, where Sony's only real threat was the Dreamcast due to production delays in the GameCube and the Xbox's general late arrival. Microsoft can be excused to an extent because of their first round entry, but Nintendo really dropped the ball on getting the GameCube out on time and with proper support (stories from the era reveal that they were very slow and uncaring about getting dev kits out to third parties, for instance). Plus there's the whole "purple lunchbox" thing (though at least Nintendo of America got us out of the "StarCube.") If Sega had been in the position to fight back against the PS2 more aggressively, if Nintendo had been more aggressive about fixing the mistakes of the N64 era (or had just jumped ahead to make the Wii early somehow), or if Microsoft had been smoother about entering the arena, there you go. The 7th gen demonstrates what happens when Sony's competitors take things seriously: the 360 was much like the PS2 and the PS4 in spirit: meant to be the gamers' console, to give "us" what we want. Microsoft out-Playstation'd the Playstation, and so held second place for as long as second place matters (it really doesn't matter where the PS3 ends up now, folks. The end of 2012 was basically the end, after the Wii U launched and when Sony and Microsoft were both moving focus to the new consoles). Nintendo, meanwhile, got back in touch with their roots in terms of understanding that their job is to sell games that sell consoles, and create games that do things nobody else even thinks of. Of course Sony took stupid pills in 2005 and 2006, and to a lesser extent 2007, to give Nintendo and Microsoft (more Microsoft for the direct market competition) a leg up, but even later in the gen as Sony righted the ship, the contest remained competitive. Now we're back to seeing Sony's competitors do dumb things and Sony... not do dumb things. There's no magic there. What if Microsoft had made priority one for the Xbox One to be as developer-friendly as possible, reconfiguring the design phase? What if Nintendo had launched a true Wii successor that built on the promises of the Wii, instead of a half-assed retreat into the core market that we got? |
Someday I´d love to hear the story on why Nintendo did that so soon after the Wii´s success.Malstrom´s theory is that Nintendo doesn´t like to develop games that "have NES/Wii philosophy" (I think you understand what I mean by that), even though those games are the very ones responsible for their success in the 7th gen, and really, what got the NES off the ground and allowed them to be a powerhouse.They prefer the "N64/Gamecube type games", and their biggest wish is that the people who love 'NES/Wii' games embraced their 'N64/GC' games.This is his theory, it sounds bizarre but some of their actions lend credence to it.
Phantom-Lord said:
Fostering a platform that makes ALL software in the industry thrive is more important then only caring about your own.....If you cannot see why Nintendos apprach is a massive failure then that;'s pretty sad. |
Man, you won't take any good discussion from this with him... let him have his "win".
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
| bubblegamer said: When it comes to consoles, so far the PS3 has been the only exception to this rule. And even that will change in a couple of years time. |
Um, how will it change when it sells only 40k a week? Wii won last gen in profits and consoles sold.
Estelle and Adol... best characters ever! XD
On the internet sony wins everything.
That just bad for them in their dire struggles of not being able to post profits for more than a decade.
SnK0610 said:
Sony didn't win with the ps3 becuase they did a lot of mistakes - Very high price. Backward competibilty for USA and Japan and not for Europe. Many different verions of the cosnole - 40 g 60 g 80 g 20 g. Not enough attractive games at the launch. All these mistakes is what caused them not to be the winner. With the ps4 they corrected many of these mistakes. This is why they are winning this time at the console war. |
Granted that Sony made minor mistakes they did not make a lot of HUGE mistakes. Sony did what Sony always does, but the problem is that Microsoft figured out what makes them tick and copied it to split the market Sony had grown from what Nintendo had started.
The only TWO major problems with Sony last gen:
-Price
-Online that wasn't on par with the competition.
All the other issues were trivial compared.
It was predicted by market analysts that based on Sonys launch sales that they would pass the 360 by 2011 being that they outsold the 360's first year, which means if you count year for year Sony sold more even at $200 more.
After the first generation Microsoft took such a heavy beating but quickly started to realize what made Sony stand out so much. It was their relationship with third parties. Microsoft had spent so much money on XSN, trying to make good first party (which they aren't good at.....at all) that they ended up wasting money on failed ventures. They let the third parties do the work for them. This is why Microsoft demands third party parity with Sony at all times, because Sony destroyed them with a fleet of third party in their first gen and they became paranoid.
They risked the quality of the first five years of the 360 to beat Sony to the punch with third parties. They kept a great portion of third party games from even reaching Sony consoles (Sony couldn't do anything about not getting Condemned, Ninja Gaiden, Dead Rising, Bioshock and other games at that time). Once Microsoft achieved parity or better with third party games, they fixed the integrity of their console while Shane Kim was the head. RROD was the worst ever in the history of the gaming industry and gave a bad name to American made products.
Every E3 from Microsoft was another lost 3rd party exclusive for Sony. In 2008 to be exact, Microsoft threw the final nail in the coffin and took Tekken, Final Fantasy and some other Japanese titles exclusivity from Sony. That was it. Once that was accomplished Sony had no shot of saving face.
From there Sony bumped up their first party and that was all she wrote.
When you can depend on yourself you don't need to be like Microsoft. Thanks to Microsoft they forced Sony into a position where they could make higher quality games by themselves while also having great relationships with third party. Microsoft will ALWAYS depend upon outsiders and that will never change.
Take this gen for instance. Microsoft had the better launch games, but did they make them? Mostly, No. They just paid to keep them away from Sony or paid third party to make their first party, since their first party cannot.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
