For your first point here's a few links with people discussing Microsoft's possible plans to jumpstart generations prematurely:
http://www.news.com/Commentary-Microsofts-Xbox-360-spin/2030-1069_3-5706144.html
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=26215
I have a very strong feeling that Microsoft IF they decide to continue in this business will try to jumpstart another generation to win attention from the competition. I was talking on the phone with a friend of mine and we were talking about all the consoles and he pointed out to me that the XBox 360 sold near 10 million in its first year yet has moved just over 2 million THIS year. Halo 3, the great success it was, only moved hardware up about 25,000 over Wii in this current ebbing period for Nintendo. I asked him if he thinks XBox 360 has peaked and he actually said he thought it already peaked last year with Gears of War. I don't quite agree with that but that's his opinion. Microsoft is strong here in USA no doubt but worldwide they are either modest or nonexistent in success. It's improving, yes, but what basically gives them strength is the USA where all the people are. This is what offsets Sony's PS3 who can't get in anywhere. 360 usurped their role and is gaining their audience.
With all this in mind I think they will try to steal the thunder once again because Nintendo has totally changed the game and will do so more broadly in the coming months and years. That old NES controller standard that has been refined time and time again over the past 25 years that XBox 360's using is gonna be a dinosaur and show its age very soon. I think Microsoft may incorporate some kind of motion sensing with a twist to their next machine. Perhaps even tech from that tabletop computer thing they've played around with. Businesswise I don't know how wise this is but then again I'm not blowing billions making videogames and ain't got it like MS to bling like that. If you'll lose 4 billion and keep going there's no limit to what you will do.
Four Year Console:
Although I agree that MS shortend the Xbox generation, I just don't see how those links show or prove that Microsoft would shorten it to 2009, and initiate a 4-year cycle. That'd be 2-3 years before another next-generation system launched. Not only this, with the R&D costs of developing the Xbox 360 ($1 billion USD), I fail to see how they would want to drop that much money, for litterally no reason at all.
Again, why in the world would Microsoft spend $250m PER YEAR on developing consoles, if not more, when they could do it vastly cheaper by stretching the generations out? Time has proven that longer console cycles are better. Microsoft launched the X360 to gain that quick foothold (as article #1 stated), but I fail to see how Microsoft would trend to do that.
Not only this, your sales numbers are vastly wrong. Microsoft only shipped about million consoles in it's first year (Nov 05-Oct 06). There have already been 10 thousand discussions on why MS managed 10.4m consoles by Dec. 06 - they shipped vastly too many at that time, and have shipped so few since because there was no need for it. Secondly, look at the actual sales charts: The Xbox 360 is doing better in every region than it did last year, for the same period of time.
And again, if you want to argue consoles: which one was better designed for future specifications of gaming (to counter the PC market, and other innovations in other media outlets): The Wii or the Xbox 360?
Sega? This goes back way beyond Sega. 1990's Neo-Geo $650, 1993's 3DO $700, 1991's CD-i $700, Atari 5200 even launched at $330 back in 1982. And you see what happened to them, don't you? Sega paid the price too which is why after all the 5th gen dropouts fell out of the market Sega became 3rd and last in that generation worldwide. $200 IS best. Some people won't buy a Wii right now because it's $250. Nintendo launched at $250 before with the deluxe edition of the NES. A game is included with Wii along with a lot of good free-to-use stuff. Essentially it's CHEAPER than the Gamecube OR the N64 was. You had to BUY Super Mario 64 or Pilotwings 64 for $60 in ADDITION to the $200 gamesystem making it REALLY $260. Not counting the controller pak which ran you another $20 for a total of $280. You can't save a game on Gamecube without memory card so after buying the $50 game you STILL have to buy the $20 card unless you like playing games from the beginning over and over again. That's $270. In actuality Wii is a better package deal that both of those. If counting like this Wii is ESSENTIALLY STILL $200.
Even AT $250 it's a much better purchase than $400 and $600 for a gamesystem. Always will be. Partially why it's selling so strongly and how it caught 360 so fast even after a massive year-long headstart. MS gets away with this partially because buyers have become more consumer than customer, they have a strong lineup of games and they are American U.S.-ran. But I STILL don't like that trend. Gaming is supposed to be an affordable luxury. I don't need VIP velvet ropes creating greater haves and have nots for what is supposed to be a mass market medium. Nintendo paid that price with those expensive cartridges on the N64 and thanks to Sony of PS1 era and some others now $50 is seen as cap for what a game should cost.
Videogaming = Cheap luxury. Nothing else. The medium that allowed you to get a full playing experience on a quarter. Cheap luxury. Nothing else.
I said blame Sega because they were one of the first major-brand companies to make a much higher priced console than the previous one, and actually had marketshare to risk (the 3d0, Amiga, and Neo Geo were made by companies that had no decent stake in the hardware market to lose).
Also, as much as we argue that $200 is best, within the past 10 years, no company has launched at $200 and won. The PS1 and 2 were both $300, not $200. The loosers were either more ($400 for Sat, DC) or less ($200 GC, N64).
Also, how the heck are you comparing Super Mario 64 to Wii Sports? Super Mario 64 was a top-end blockbuster game versus a cheap $10 minigame. Your using a hollow argument that the Wii is cheaper because it comes with a $10 game for $250 versus a system that came with no games for $200 - atleast you had a choice to go with budget titles, or buy a real good game.
And of course, from my angle, the Wii consumers are bending over and taking however Nintendo wants to give it to them. With the N64 and GC, you got very comparible, and in some ways better, hardware versus the competition in speficiations. With the Wii your getting something vastly, vastly inferior in hardware. Yes, your paying a whole $29.99 more for an Xbox Core, but your getting something that has 10x the specs.
People hate ads. You would hate ads popping up on this site when you wanna post. I see some of that right now as a matter of fact. We succumbed on the TV front but damned if we're gonna have it everywhere. I DEFINITELY don't want that shit in my videogames. Outside of real world emulating racing games where billboards are used for environmental immersion I don't wanna SEE people trying to influence me to buy a buncha crap when I'm trying to escape through videogaming. The internet is the internet and even there we have some control over what we see. Pop-up blockers and spam guards. Sites with their ad-free memberships. They don't belong in videogaming.
I'm Link and I'm about to open the chest that gives me the Hookshot I need to get to the other ledge. The music hits: Dun-da-da-da Dun-da-da-da Dun-da-da-da Dun-da-da-da "Buy the new liquid clear Fresca available at Wal-Mart and select Target stores. Fresh the Fresca! (Do the Dew!)" TURN-OFF. That will not fly, brother. That plane's got no wings. That dog ain't gon' hunt, bruh.
Oh and download extra characters. Yeah no biggie as long as I ain't got ta buy 'em. Download? No prob. Pay for it? Kiss my ass. Your skill (or your cheat device) should unlock the hidden content available in a game. This should never change. I don't wanna encourage people making partial games where they nickel and dime us for every bit of armor, every powerup, every bonus stage, every secret character, every bit of extra text. That'll kill the industry dead if that took place. No blessing. All curse. 'F' the money.
Have you seen the ads that they already have ingame? They're already there, and as prominent as they will ever be. In Crackdown, you see ads for Dodge trucks on the side of a building. The fact is, ads are everywhere, in games, movies, TV shows, and every other way. Your trying to dramatize what ads are about for games.
And for buying extra content - as much as you dislike it, many people enjoy the fact they can pay $10 and double the size of their game. Remember expansion packs for PC gaming? Its the same thing. And alongside the pay-for content, we're getting free content. But since your a Wii gamer, you never will see that, will you? That's another thing Microsoft has atleast done: Given us free upgrades and content for our games. As much as you want to argue, I'm still able to download free Gears maps, extra difficulty settings for Blue Dragon, new co-op modes for Kameo, and lots of other stuff. Sure, some is pay-for, but some free stuff is better than the no free stuff your getting as a Wii gamer.
See this is one department I blame both Microsoft AND Sony for. This one-upsmanship power race they're having can only make things worse long term. More and more and more tech and power and time and staff for the same, lesser or at best slightly better returns. That'll eventually run developers, publishers, and console makers out of business. EA's revenues and profits have been in decline for the past 2 years despite owning all sports licenses exclusively. Activision, EA's inspiration for forming in 1982, has passed them as #1 3rd party. All these mega publishers absorbing smaller companies squeezing all the art out of them and spitting them out like overchewed gum when it's all over ready to pounce on the next company to suck dry for the profit margins. Look at how it used to be Square and Enix and now it's Square-Enix. Look at how it used to be Namco and now it's Namco-Bandai. Look at how it used to be Sega and now it's Sega-Sammy. Merging because gamemaking is getting harder to turn a profit from because of how the industry is setting itself up.
Yeah that tiff between Silicon Knights and Epic Games over that Unreal Engine middleware surely won't spark a negative trend if you believe Silicon Knights complaints of Epic holding them back in order to make Gears of War a better received game. Making a bomb bigger than the atomic lost its purpose. Time to build a BETTER bomb instead. Don't get caught up in Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor's AWK AWK AWK power flexes. Make the money count. Still don't like incomplete games either. Add-on before you ship I say. Leave that mess for the PC world where it belongs.
See, here's the issue: development costs will ALWAYS go up. There is a price difference between making a game on the PS1. vs. the Nintendo Wii. And unless the Wii2 has the same specifications as the Wii1 does, costs will go up. Nintendo is only slowing the boat down, but the boat is still going, and prices are increasing. Atleast MS/Sony are trying to find ways to cope with that by allowing for more development packages with Havok, UE3, Gamebryo, and such.
Oh also, a quick question: what about Wii Ware versus XBLA? Don't you think that it's another Microsoft innovation in the fact that Virtual Console is a ripoff of XBLM/XBLA on the Xbox, as well as Wii Ware being a ripoff of XNA and the explosion that XBLA has had in the past few months?
Ironically, thats something that Nintendo has ripped off of Microsoft. And IMO, as much as you can tout the Wiimote, and all the greatness of Nintendo, I have a feeling that the online play aspects that MS has brought to the standard console, as well as what Xbox Live Arcade and Marketplace have, are equally as great innovations this generation as a new controller.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
