Quantcast
Console Wars abhor a tie

Forums - Sales Discussion - Console Wars abhor a tie

The concept of this thread is exactly accurate. There has never been a "console war" where the leader walked away with less than 60% of the net market. Even the only proper "console war" in history, the SNES vs. the Genesis, where both companies were mismanaged and ended up well below their sales potential, SNES walked away with over 60% of the market. And yet people think that there will be a three-way tie... And even say "competition is a good thing." Competition will KILL this industry. Videogame consoles are media formats, and the bulk of people would rather invest in NO format than invest in two. People will hold out and continue to buy the old format until they know what new format is going to get the bulk of games. And when support falls through on the old format, while nothing new becomes dominant, the industry simply crashes. The leader, with over 60% of the market when all is said and done? Mark my words--Wii.



"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.

Around the Network

Idunno I think a tie is bad for the games. Because the closer they all have to the same market share, that means there isnt 1 that stands foremost. That means everything will be multiplatform. And there are very VERY VERY few multiplatform games I like. I'm almost to the point if it's multiplatform. I dont buy it unless it's a known great game. I hate to say it but I want to see 1 console have the most sales. I don't care if it's Nintendo, Sony, or even microsoft.



PSN ID: Kwaad


I fly this flag in victory!

My thoughts we're sort of in line with Kwaad, sometimes business rules have a way with brainwashing us, everyone keeps preaching the mantra: competition is good, competition is good...but that's not always the case. Apply the console war to any other product and it would seem crazy. Example: Hungry man dinners only work in Kenmore microwaves, while lean cuisines signed an exclusive deal with GE, leading people to own two even three different brands of microwaves... That would be plain crazy, and yet we're forced to own three different expensive pieces of hardware to play various titles. Competition isn't always good. I know not everyone likes Windows but imagine if Windows shared the market with 2 even 3 other competitors, there would be countless pieces of software we couldn't use, we'd have to partition our drives and buy two or three different versions just to support various software products. Let's face it having it as a standard just makes life easy. What about Blue-ray vs. HD-DVD, what if there was a 3rd version? As is people are afraid to invest in one of these players in fear it will be the one that dies. My end point is, imagine there was a video game consortium that came up with one powerful standard hardware for the game industry. It could potentially sell 200 million units through various hardware makers. And you can have various controllers like the Wii-mote or standard controllers and such. Advantages::: 1.Only buy one system 2.No multiplatform means better games designed specifically for the one machine. 3. More competition. Yes eliminating the hardware competition, heats up the software competition meaning you can't make a crappy sports/racer/rpg simply because that genre is light on that specific system, now everyone has to bring the big guns! 4. Developer tools, engines and such would all focus on this piece of hardware so you wouldn't have all this wasted energy converting software and tweaking tools for the various platforms. Anyway I can go on forever, but I'm all for a Video Game Consortium.



The Wii is pretty well distinguished from the other two this gen (they're not all functional equivalents like last time), but I agree there's no logical reason for both the 360 and PS3 to survive in the market. p.s. the poster above just invented the 3DO



fooflexible said: My thoughts we're sort of in line with Kwaad, sometimes business rules have a way with brainwashing us, everyone keeps preaching the mantra: competition is good, competition is good...but that's not always the case. Apply the console war to any other product and it would seem crazy. Example: Hungry man dinners only work in Kenmore microwaves, while lean cuisines signed an exclusive deal with GE, leading people to own two even three different brands of microwaves... That would be plain crazy, and yet we're forced to own three different expensive pieces of hardware to play various titles. Competition isn't always good. I know not everyone likes Windows but imagine if Windows shared the market with 2 even 3 other competitors, there would be countless pieces of software we couldn't use, we'd have to partition our drives and buy two or three different versions just to support various software products. Let's face it having it as a standard just makes life easy. What about Blue-ray vs. HD-DVD, what if there was a 3rd version? As is people are afraid to invest in one of these players in fear it will be the one that dies. My end point is, imagine there was a video game consortium that came up with one powerful standard hardware for the game industry. It could potentially sell 200 million units through various hardware makers. And you can have various controllers like the Wii-mote or standard controllers and such. Advantages::: 1.Only buy one system 2.No multiplatform means better games designed specifically for the one machine. 3. More competition. Yes eliminating the hardware competition, heats up the software competition meaning you can't make a crappy sports/racer/rpg simply because that genre is light on that specific system, now everyone has to bring the big guns! 4. Developer tools, engines and such would all focus on this piece of hardware so you wouldn't have all this wasted energy converting software and tweaking tools for the various platforms. Anyway I can go on forever, but I'm all for a Video Game Consortium.
If there was no competition then Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo would of released a crappy overpriced console... Competition is good, it's what brings innovation. Would of Nintendo of released there Wiimotes if they didn't want to compete against the other two? No of course not.



Proud Member of GAIBoWS (Gamers Against Irrational Bans of Weezy & Squilliam)

                   

Around the Network

I really like the idea of having a huge company love fest and MS/Sony/Nintendo/Sega/Namco/insert major company here starting a joint venture to make a super console. Then they could split the royalties equally amongst all and everyone would be happy. Then they could license out their superconsole, much in the way Panasonic, Sony, Sharp, Generic Company X makes DVD players or VCRs or whatnot. One bad thing about the idea is that the joint venture might get lazy and not come up with hardware updates for a long time. Since its the only game in town (no pun intended), there isn't a huge incentive to move on to the next generation. I personally wouldn't mind sticking to the same system for 10 years.. heck I still play SNES Roms - ERRRRRRRRRR - I mean... SNES games that I legally own and of which I've backed up just in case anything happens to the cartridge.... For now, we have competition, and that is ok too, since each company will try to out-do each other and the people benefit by having high quality games. (provided they have the money to buy every console) My prediction will have a winner of the console wars but the winner will not feel like it won. Provided that Blu Ray wins out (which is still to be seen), then I can possibly see Sony at 35-40% and MS and Nintendo splitting the rest of the market at ~30% each. But It wouldn't surprise me if MS or Nintendo ended up being the winner also. ::EDIT:: and props to the guy with the chu chu rocket avatar! I miss my dreamcast! oh wait, nevermind, i still own and play it. i'm a sega fanboy at heart :-p



The Wii is different enough, to not really be in competition with the 360/PS3 - and Im serious about this. The only real war is between the 360 / PS3, and it may well end up in a tie - simply because MS has enough money to keep throwing at the 360 to ensure it doesn't end up as a least dominant console. I wouldn't worry about crappy multiplatform titles - what I believe will happen, is that a game will be designed for one of the consoles (i.e. 360), released - then a PS3 version developed and released later (or visa-versa). I actually think this is a good thing - as it discourages platform holders from buying up all the studios (rather they just buy shares in them - and get more profits due to multiplatform development). This is also a positive - as it starts to lead towards a scenario where MS, Sony & Nintendo WORK TOGETHER. Hardware competition is bad for profitability - Im hopeful oneday we'll see a joint console developed and released. Nintendo probably won't have any part in this, but even that could change. PS - congrats to everyone for actually having a real & thoughtful discussion on this ;) To sum up - I think the console space is going to get more fragmented over time - not less. The PS2 will be around for a while, and we may see a new wave of devices (that can play older software) before it dies at all. Whether this leads the platform holders to eventually work together, who knows...



Gesta Non Verba

Nocturnal is helping companies get cheaper game ratings in Australia:

Game Assessment website

Wii code: 2263 4706 2910 1099

I'm guessing there's going to be some sort of change in this gen. All of the systems so far have been, in succession, very linear in terms of features and innovation. More polygon counts, graphical prowess, in short, a more powerful machine. This generation, however, the three major companies seem to have something different going for each console they have developed. The most obvious would be the Nintendo Wii. It is a very different move and approach from the traditional "The newer the stronger" theory. It has been said to death, however, no matter how much you may disagree, the wii remote is new. The function of pointing and motion sensing in a controller hasn't been done in the past. The raw power this console lacks is purely intentional. It is to be cheap, easy to play, and aruguably fun. Nintendo wants to have this image, because it is targeting a whole new market. One that is much broader than the previous consoles. Some of the 'hardcore' gamers may mistakingly state that because the wii is such a simple system, it is a system made for children, however this doesn't seem to be the case. Adults and children alike are appreciating the wii. In fact, older folks, (Older even than these 'hardcore' gamers) are enjoying the system. This justifies the plentiful party themed games that are being released. Children with their simple minds, Adults with their stressful jobs and life, Older people who are just too tired to invest time an energy to a massive interactive story with amazing graphics, (Who, by the way, still will undoubtedly say that the picture still looks 'unrealistic,') that comes with, say an fps or RPG, want games that will excite them quickly, and will be easy to pick up and play without making them think too much. Because this strategy will target a whole new audience, I believe that the nintendo wii will sell well no matter how well Sony and Microsoft will do. (Hold on before you say I'm a total nintendo fanboy, I'm not done.)The nintendo Multiplayer strategy is also drastically different. Rather than playing against people online all the time, the Nintendo Wii indirectly encourages people to play multiplayer games with people physically beside them, which seems to add to the experience. The PS3 and Xbox 360, target a different market from the wii, but share a similar target with each other. The gamers who desire full immersive stories with breathtaking graphics will find it in the PS3 and the Xbox 360. These two consoles target the gamers who have time to sit down and play. With new rising technology such as HD disks (HD-DVD and bluray), progressive scanning with higher resolutions, the two consoles really emphasize the power that they hold respectively. Since the hardcore gaming audience has somewhat changed over the course of the last few consoles, game companies have been targeting that audience only. It isn't to say that since the wii has targeted a broader audience, it will do better, since the hardcore consoles we have had in the past such as the ps2 have done so well. All in all, even if it seems that I support the wii more, I believe the wii will do well. Because of the giant differences between the wii and the PS3 or Xbox 360, I wouldn't be surprised if households owned both a wii and a PS3/Xbox360.



Yeah, I finally have a sig.

This happened a long time ago, if you recall, in the pre-NES days. You had Atari, Coleco, intellivision, the Commodore 64 (not to be confused with the Super Commodore, or the Commodore entertainment system, sorry couldn't help it) and a couple other systems. Eventually the Atari won out and the other companies faded away. Then the NES came and as you know the rest is history oh and guess what I found? http://www.commodore.ca/arcade/duckhunt.swf



The Wii is different enough, to not really be in competition with the 360/PS3
I've been reading alot of that kind of argument. I lump them together with "Wii is just a fad, look for the demand to dive down in february!", "wii60"(as if casuals like to have more than one console), "wiis are everywhere!!!!". I suppose it's a testament to how Nintendo's strategy this early into the console war is working out great that people don't even notice their bigger ambition.