Quantcast
Console Wars abhor a tie

Forums - Sales Discussion - Console Wars abhor a tie

Kwaad said: Shadow)OS said: "...or will we find that everybody can succeed this time around[?]" We have to remember that for Sony to "succeed" they have to sell at least 80 million units. ---------------- What does that mean? From that number Nintendo has NEVER succeeded in a home console.
It's been projected through Sony's losses that for them to break even they need to sell 80 million PS3 units. As for Nintendo, they have been 'successful' this entire time. Perrin Kaplan stated that "Nintendo has never once been not profitable". At least, that's how I measure success; profits. Getting more consoles out than your competitors is really just a sweet blow more than anything.



By life end:

  • Wii- 100 million+
  • Xbox360- 35~40 million
  • PS3- 30 million
  • PSP- 30~32 million ------------- FAILURE
  • NDS- 85~90 million (Skeptical)  - FAILURE
  • NDS- 100 million+ (Optimistic) -- Success!

 

 

Around the Network

You do not have to look any further than Microsoft Windows to see how the lack of competition is a bad thing for everyone. In the short term one console to rule them all would be great. Problem is why come out with something new? Why innovate or for that matter help the consumer at all? Without Sony and Microsoft there would be no Wiimote, no PS3, or even an XBOX360. In the end competition is great even if you have to make some sacrifices so that the future is bright.



In reply to Monopoly=good posts: Monopolies are almost always inherently bad for the consumer, but the video game console business is slightly different. I don't think it's an actual monopoly in the truest sense of the word. It just seems that way because of the nature of the industry. Any company with the resource to compete is free to introduce a new console every time a new generation begins. Both Sony and Microsoft are fine examples of this. Introducing one during the course of the reign of the top console is almost always destined to fail, however.



ranzchic said: In reply to Monopoly=good posts: Monopolies are almost always inherently bad for the consumer, but the video game console business is slightly different. I don't think it's an actual monopoly in the truest sense of the word. It just seems that way because of the nature of the industry. Any company with the resource to compete is free to introduce a new console every time a new generation begins. Both Sony and Microsoft are fine examples of this. Introducing one during the course of the reign of the top console is almost always destined to fail, however.
If Nintendo was the only people who made games in the world. I bet their games would suck. But their not, and they are one of best selling publishers in the world. Windows has HORRIBLE support, and runs like crap. Now let me ask you this. Can you show me a game that looks HALF as good as Crysis... on say... linux? mac? Unix? Nope. Cant say that I have. That's because 99% of games, and 99.9% of retail games are created for windows... becuase it has a 80%+ market share. That makes me. The owner of Windows. Not have to have 5 OSes to play my games. I love that. That's why I use windows and not linux. Monopoly = bad Stuff that runs off monopoly = better than stuff that runs on 50 things. To name a few multiplatform games I care about. Mercenaries2, RE5, Possibly Transformers, and a few others. (I say possibly transformers, is, I hope it is a good game. And I hope it would be fun. I love transformers, and I am dreaming. I'm sure it's gonna suck... bad)



PSN ID: Kwaad


I fly this flag in victory!

First off I'm using the consortium concept as a hypotheitcal one. There is no way someone like Sony would just start one out of the blue, at least not in the immediate future. But I just want to address some of the missconceptions about the idea, and get your mind to open to other business models instead of pretending the only way a business works is the only way it's ever been done. first:

stewacide said: The consortium thing was tried by by 3DO. The hardware ended up being *way* too expensive because everyone was trying to take a cut at every step.
Your right 3DO did work this way but it's hardly a fair comparison. Any system that wasn't backed by major publishers failed, even some made by major publishers failed. About the expense, bringing up the price of the 3DO is an interesting subject, yes it started at an insanely high $700, even today that sounds crazy, but your forget about the consortium model. Remember those $1000 DVD players? What are they now 50 bucks? Yeah these system are expensive at launch but because of competition and all the manufacturing dedicated to it the price will drop incredibly fast, plus you'd have various versions at different price points(wifi, harddrive and the likes as options) Besides I'd rather buy one expensive console that plays everything, then shell out $1,250 to have all three.
Erik Aston said: Fooflexible... It just isn't going to happen. Why would a massive company like Sony... Who can manufacture absolutely everything in-house... Who has driven 10 years of growth in the home console arena... Want to become part of a "consortium"?? Reduce their risk, sure, but also reduce their potential returns... Its also probably going to result in a worse product... How does a "consortium" do effective hardware/operating system integration as is now essential for every console? How do the companies even get a basic direction for the system? It just doesn't make much sense.
Sony is already part of a consortium, what do you think Blu-ray is? They know the benefit a consortium can provide. And it's not just about reducing the risk, it's about reducing their horrendous losses everytime they produce hardware. According to Sony they are going to lose 2 billion dollars on the ps3's first fiscal year. Imagine if they licensed out the technology and charged electronic companies a fee to build it, instead of losing 2 billion, they'd have made a quarter billion perhaps. Either way they'd be in the green at launch, not playing catch up 3 years down the road. imagine for a moment that dvds and cd players were not designed by consortiums people, it would mean only certain bands would release on certain music players, only sony's movies would be on Sony dvd players, to get MGM's movies you'd have to buy Toshiba or something, and occasionaly you'd have a multiplatform cd or dvd that everyone can get. You notice how people are hesitating on geting a hd-dvd or blu-ray because they don't want a player that isn't going to get every movie? What's the problem why can't they accept like us gamers that you either buy both players or deal with not getting every movie? Or are the gamers the ones that have it wrong? Why is it that we accept this as a normal business practice in the gaming world but not acceptable in any other industry? Imagine for a moment having to own 3 cd players, 3 dvd players, yes 3 of every kind of applience and electronic device in order to benefit from all exclusive content? It's insane, and the only reason we deal with it is because it's the way it's always been. I don't think it will change, I don't think we should stage a protest. I'm just attempting to get people to open their minds. And if you like the way things are then fine, but America suffers greatly from lack of ingenuity, they lack it in products and in business models.



Around the Network

If Nintendo was the only people who made games in the world. I bet their games would suck. But their not, and they are one of best selling publishers in the world.
I believe that holds true for any company. Yes, I do agree that one console to rule them all has it's perks, but for me personally, I prefer the competition. It keeps me excited about a console.



Yeah, I finally have a sig.

Erik Aston said: 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.
I think people who are pretty big gamers wouldn't mind investing in two consoles. I say that because the 360 and PS3 are both trying to pull in the same demographic while the wii is different (no HD, new controller scheme, not so pricey). I think the big gamers will decide on which one they like better, the 360 and ps3, and purchase that console and then pick up a wii for all of the exclusive Nintendo games. I keeping seeing people say wii60 and pswii all the time. People who are not huge gamers will probably just pick up a wii because its "easy to use" (so far it appears that this has not been the case) and the pricing is better.



I'm for Sony, but I'm thankful for Microsoft and Nintendo because they will keep Sony honest. Monopolies are very bad and would only lead to crap. That being said, I think it's foolish to believe that Sony will not win this current war unless something ridiculous happens. The 360 is number one because it came out first: period. It will never be seen as a console that can sell well outside of America. The Wii is popular (now) because it's the cheapest: period. I don't even think it's supposed innovations would save it if it costed over $400. Sony massive 1st party and 3rd party support will win out, and I predict an acceleration of sales this year that will bring it within striking distance of first place by January '08. If the Blu-Ray technology tanked, then that would have been nasty, considering that is why the PS3 costs so much. But it hasn't, and soon PS3 owners will view their Blu-Ray player as a wise investment. 12



All this talk about a consortium reminds me of how the NFL works with its revenue sharing. If this business model was applied to video games, then there would be one console that everyone in the consortium would make games for and they would split the profit between everyone right down the line (profit from the console, games, assecories, internet fees... everything that it makes money on). You would never get sony, microsoft, and nintendo to agree to this... (I also don't think this is what you meant by the consortium)



Twelve said: That being said, I think it's foolish to believe that Sony will not win this current war unless something ridiculous happens. The Wii is popular (now) because it's the cheapest: period. I don't even think it's supposed innovations would save it if it costed over $400. 12
Foolish to think sony will not win??? Look at the numbers right now and all the press the ps3 has been getting. Everything up till right now indicates that sony is doing badly. It does not appear that they will even hit their goal of 4 (i think 4 is right...) million units sold (or was it shipped?) by april. So why do you think it is foolish to believe sony will not win? I am not understanding your wii statement. Would you like to clarify?