| mrstickball said: 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? -------------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. ----------------- 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, 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.
|
Four Year Console:
So why did they do it for the original XBox itself with its tremendous R&D costs coming up to around $4 billion? They aborted the XBox and were flaky on the backwards compatibility to soften the blow. Yeah I know XBox was never gonna go any further in the 6th gen but they couldn't release a little later so as not to burn the buyers so soon? So much spent on the XBox which got a flat 4 years on the market. Not even a good 4+ rounding up to 5. November to November. 2001 to 2005. Check this out. It looks like XBox 360 is stalling even though it's doing impressive software numbers in the U.S. It's stalling in its 2nd year. As soon as I joined this board in March I had already been marveling for months how 360 seemed to be standing still on the charts while Wii was swiftly catching up. When I heard people talking about no chance of 360 getting beat within 2007 it compelled me to come in and make my first post because I couldn't believe the absurdity. The price cut smoothed the ketchup bottle flow but it's still slow for a system with such a lead and headstart. If this system has already peaked then Microsoft may not be able to make its money back for this system resulting in more losses for that division along with the ill-fated Zune.
I suggest one of two options will happen: Either Microsoft cuts its losses and shockingly leaves the industry (Sean Malstrom offered this theory which is very plausible when looking at the business sense) or they try to jumpstart another gen hoping to steal the thunder of the dominant console (Wii). Games games games is only part of the equation. They need to make money on this venture or stockholders will put the brakes on this amusement park ride of videogaming. Microsoft will either have to leave or convince them one more time that they can make good on this adventure. I STILL see Microsoft as the underdog in this industry. They had the most to prove which is what I said in that "Me from 2005: Future of Next-Generation of Gaming" post where I show my foretelling of this entire race before the gen even started. They proved a lot and congratulations go to them. Even without Japan they can carve out some kind of #2 revenue success if they pick up in other markets. But revenue ain't net profits. Sony's mistakes just made it that much easier for them to get over with the crowd. I feel that if Sony didn't mess themselves up MS woulda had a MUCH harder fight to prove their worth. But even now as it stands MS must break even at least and start profitting off of this. If the hardware base struggles to build like it's seeming to do now, then they will have a shallower pool to draw from and might not be able to make that software expense-cover plan work in the long run. And unlike Nintendo who could survive crunched in like that Microsoft's business plan would make that position fatal. It's a long road between here and 2010/2011. Can they last that long? We'll see.
Sega and pricing:
You left out Atari but blaming Sega is not smart seeing as that move further messed them up. Why would anybody want to emulate that? Microsoft and Sony thought they could get away with jacking up prices where others failed. It's worked to some success for MS but not so much for Sony. Even still price actually is holding the 360 back more than people think.
You're using the $200 launch price as a signal of failure??? That's backwards! It's not because they were $200 it's because of the timing of the market and the players available at the time. The momentum negative and postive each company had. Nintendo messed up in 5th gen by pissing off the 3rd party. That messed up their NES/SNES momentum and they got cornered. This bad aura followed them into the Gamecube generation which they are only now coming out from. Sega messed up their hard-won Genesis momentum with those 32X/Sega CD fiascos along with the doubling of the price with Saturn & Saturn's tougher development environment. Any goodwill Sega had was further stamped out when they abruptly aborted Saturn in Japan where it was most successful going for the Dreamcast which launched like it was supposed to at $200 US. But by that time Sega dissolved all of its momentum and was fighting to stay alive. Sony's positive momentum crushed everybody and their market timing made sure the PS2 was about the only game in town. It has nothing to do with pricing but momentum and capturing the public's mindshare.
$200 is STILL the magic number in U.S. for consoles. And really it's extra magic when it's UNDER $200 like Genesis was when it first launched which is probably part of why they stole a little of Nintendo's thunder. And please don't try that tired "minigame" routine on me. You're probably the kind of guy that says chess and dominoes are minigames. A game is a game is a damn game. Judgment calls don't make it any less so. Wii Sports is a REAL game and REAL people enjoy playing it. Moreso than most games out here. A system has sold millions on end because of this "non-game" (haha) packed in practically ALONE for all of 2007. Fully fleshed out features and many modes. 5 games in one. Designed simply to make accessible. Included in cost, kid, and it paid off. Blockbuster just LIKE SM64 whether you accept it or not. The snobbery certain gameplayers have picked up over the years has become sickening. People weren't always so close-minded at one time about videogames and what they should be.
Oh and this is so telltale. You kept saying "hardware". Hardware. Nobody plays HARDWARE. They play SOFTWARE. I'm not here to look at the circuitry and components in the machine but to play and enjoy the games on my TV screen. Every generation they forget. Every generation. Hardware means jack without the software to back it up. And NEVER EEEEEEVER has the most powerful system won because of power. It's usually the WEAKEST system that wins in consoles. Ask Mike Intellivision about it when it comes to Atari 2600 and his namesake. Your last gen example was the PS2, the weakest of all 6th gen even under Dreamcast. DS over PSP is your recent handheld example. And B&W no backlighting Game Boy vs. all the rest is your old school handheld example. Get your head out of the tech man! Hahahaha. It doesn't work. It never did.
Ads in gaming:
Crackdown, an XBox 360 game. I got Excite Truck on Wii. No ads whatsoever. Trauma Center. No public service announcements from the AMA. Godfather: Blackhand. No ol' timey soda pop ads sprinkled all throughout the backdrop. You might accept that mess laying down but I sure ain't. You think it's benign but it will ruin what gaming is about if it's left unchecked. Sponsors will start dictating what kind of direction a game should go in to best promote their product and crap like that. Imagine someone using an Egg McMuffin as a powerup where the Egg McMuffin is in pristine detail to look better than the rest of the game. The wrong kinds of folks will get involved if unchecked marketeering is going on.
Yeah many people enjoy a lot of dumb things. Some people enjoy injecting heroin into their veins. This is what I call the difference between a CONSUMER and a CUSTOMER. I don't EAT just anything they trot right in front of me. I'm very comfortable with technology but I never buy every latest tech gadget available. I to this day don't have a cell phone and don't want one. My landline works just fine. I use email and IMs to communicate as well through media wires. It's not that I'm a Luddite but that the tech has to have a real use in my personal life for me to snap it up. Blu-Ray and HDDVD are the real fads. Both of those media types will be outmoded by a leftfield-directioned new form of media storage which won't be anything disc-like in form and most likely smaller. It's a useless fight. Plasma TVs and all that. I wait to see which will be useful and which has the longest staying power.
Free extra content? Like I said before...cool beans. Extra content? No problem. As long as it's free. Asking me to pay for that? You can kiss my high yellow ass. That's just bogus. But if they wanna do it, be my guest. You just keep that mess over there and out of the rest of the industry. I pay for my games in full the FIRST time. You can save all that nickel-and-diming. It's one concession of many that I simply won't make. You gotta draw a line somewhere or you'll never draw a line anywhere.
Game development costs:
Yep they're going up because the process of making games has grown more complex. But this doesn't have to be an inevitably upward process and Wii made a stand precisely for that. Graphics is where all this is going anyhow. Not new styles of gameplay. Not totally new game logic. All for looks and cinemas. Wii Sports probably cost $1 or 2 million at best and has become a blockbuster that so many enjoy around the world. Some things just don't need all that overhead. But see it's not even the overhead that's the issue. It's the returns. They put all this work and toil behind this stuff and it's not even pushing sales past a certain barrier.
Perfect example: Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell on XBox vs. Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent on XBox 360.
According to VGChartz themselves Splinter Cell on XBox sold 2.93 million copies
http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=2467
But Splinter Cell Double Agent on 360 sold 1.02 million copies
http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=4610
Almost a THIRD of the amount of its console predecessor. But most likely because of higher graphical output with much more money put into the development.
Now you can say maybe the 360 one sucked and wasn't as good. But then that's even worse. The new system with all its power and tech isn't helping games become better. Yet all this expense is going in. That's a recipe for a crash, bruh. This kind of thing breaks the backs of a lot of companies. Very dangerous precedent and something that needs to be reversed. Even Moneybags Microsoft can run out of money eventually. Something has got to give.
Ending retort:
Now see if you read my "Me from 2005: Future of Next-Generation of Gaming" post that's somewhere around here you'll know that I counted XBox Live as one of the strengths of the XBoxes. It's what gives them an identity outside of Sony and makes them stand out. Network play is not new but XBox made it stick and created a unique lasting community with it. This indeed is their other big contribution to consoles and YES Nintendo had to be inspired by their efforts in creating the Virtual Console and WiiWare. Many companies like Sega with Dreamcast (who Microsoft learned the business from) and others worked with online but MS's experience in that field from the OS days brought it to the limelight. The PC world I've heard is not so impressed by Live but it's definitely made a mark on the biz. That is undeniable. In the end I was talking more about gameplay than networked interaction. I think the reason so many people are mad at Nintendo in how they're handling their online is because they want the fluidity of MS's service with Nintendo properties which would make the scene totally different from the MMORPG, FPS glut of stuff that usually takes place on networked play. Different styles of games.
Sony expanded the market and helped mainstream memory cards to consoles and introduced built-in backwards compatibility to game systems. Microsoft THANKFULLY brought in the worldwide launch and added hard drives and a integrated network play experience to consoles. I give credit where credit is due. But to hold down an industry like this you have to go beyond that. I just don't feel either Sony or Microsoft is up to the task of being the guardian of this industry. I feel their roles are best in participation but not domination. In all honesty even when Sony held the marketshare with the PS1 & PS2 they never really controlled this thing per se. They knew how to market and how to capitalize but a lot of things happened from the outside in rather than the inside out. Their divisional profit margins from all that dominance showed a company working double time for half-results. It was always a shaky position and something they couldn't maintain for long if they didn't change their game plan. We're seeing the results now.
Gaming has to stay fresh, stay uncluttered from rank unrelated commercial interests, stay affordable, and be reliable. If Microsoft is at the helm of this ship those things will no longer happen. If in full control Microsoft would be a nightmare for this industry. But luckily that is not the case and they can contribute and enrichen the game experience while the guardian maintains the fertile field. It simply must be that way.
John Lucas
Words from the Official VGChartz Idiot
WE ARE THE NATION...OF DOMINATION!
