| dunno001 said: While I have to say that I agree with all the people facepalming, that doesn't really add to discussion, so instead I'm going to post what I think, and indicate what I see as the flaws in your argument. First, the only company I would put 100% odds on being around next generation is Nintendo. Nintendo has said that they develop systems to release their games on. With the sheer profit the Wii has generated, their exiting the arena after this generation is simply foolish. Shareholders would question why they left, and it would shake things up. As for Nintendo's properties, they're not going to either Sony nor Microsoft. As long as Nintendo has at least 1 system out (and you agreed that they will still be in the portable market), they're going to stick to what they know. And even if they did leave systems entirely, their blue ocean strategy knows what the biggest barrier is on both their competitors' platforms- the controller. Many of the new people Nintendo has picked up can pick up and use a Wiimote because of its similarity to something with much greater market penetration: a remote control. Coupling this with the people on the HD systems that won't touch a Nintendo property for being "too kiddy", they know that they would lose sales. Yes, Nintendo knows there is a risk with new systems. But as long as they generate profit, they're not leaving. Microsoft is likely to stick around. The past couple of quarters, the 360 has actually been pulling the E&D division upward. However, with the mire of numbers not being clear, the stockholders may see this division still posting continual losses, and want an answer as to why. I do believe that Microsoft can provide an answer to them as to why the 360 should stay around, but if the shareholders try strongarming, the 360 could be in jeopardy. Right now I would say that things are hinging on Natal's success in general- not just on 360, but the PC also. If it flops, I expect to hear about increased pressure on E&D. I'll put Microsoft at a 90% chance of sticking around next gen. Sony is in the worst position. PS1 and 2 were easy to justify. They were propping the company up in times of weak sales. But now it's very different. Electronics sales are very weak, and now instead of offsetting those losses, the PS3 has contributed heavily toward them, going so far as to have lost the entire profits of the PS2, the most successful console to date saleswise. And the PS3 is not done bleeding yet. With the losses that Sony posted last fiscal year, I'm predicting that stockholders are going to be much more scrutinizing, looking for things to chop to try to see a return on their investment. The losses from SCE could make it a target, especially since it is known that the PS2 and PSP are generating revenue, yet the PS3 eats it all, and leaves it in the red. I can see a couple of other divisions being more likely to receive the axe, such as Sony Ericcson, but I can't rule out the stockholders getting fed up with the losses of the PS3. If the decision is left to the Sony execs, I put 98% odds on them being around, if it goes to the shareholders, that drops to 75%. Now, I'm going to address some of your points. I'm not saying they're wrong, as this is speclative, but I will disagree with some of them as being reasons. I'll go in bulletpoints- 1. Yes, Sony is a large hardware company, which is what consoles are. But SCE has adopted what many call the razor-&-blade method. Right now, Sony is not selling enough blades to overcome the razor's loss. Meanwhile, they're pouring all this money into the factories (studios) making blades (games), and seeing marginal return. Way back when, Sony actually was a 3rd party company. If, in an attempt to save money, Sony wants to streamline, I could see the system being put aside and going back to trying to be 3rd party. It's unlikely, as I think a streamlining would also result in Sony wanting out entirely, and they would sell off the studios. (For the record, I see Microsoft as being the one to snap some of them up.) Game publishing costs have spiraled out of control, so remaining in that market still bears great risk. 3. Umm... why would you advertise PS3 games and show them off with things not possible on the platform? Yet, Sony's done it before. As you said, Sony's been a large pusher for 3D; this has been true from before the PS3. Part of the reason they sunk so much money into the R&D of the PS3 was to try to make games like the ones they've shown. Sometimes they're successful. But if you're saying that the PS3 still can't handle these games, then wouldn't it all be for naught? 4. Will blu-ray be the standard for gaming? Sure, Sony will still use it for the PS4. And while it's probable that at least one other company will also use it, I don't see it as "undoubtable." If flash memory comes down enough in price, my prediction is that Nintendo will go back to a cartridge format. It's been called overkill in another thread (and I agree that it is), but a 64 GB chip already exists. This is more space than a dual-layer BR, with faster seek times. Smaller games could use smaller chips to conserve on cost. Microsoft will more likely go download-only if the PSPGo is met with success. Otherwise, I could see MS going any way, but I lean more toward an alternative HD-DVD format, for reasons of cost and as a form of anti-piracy. Now, your Nintendo reasons: 1. Yes, Nintendo does have more software R&D. However, it is also done with their systems in mind. In fact, I'd not be surprised to find out that the software side is what drives the hardware side. We want to do X, but there's no system that lets us. Make one for us! Note how Miyamoto has wanted Mario to be able to ride Yoshi since the NES. It took the SNES to make that happen, and things go from there. 2. They can create things as powerful as their competitors, look at the Gamecube. It just doesn't fit their overall strategy. 3. But... Nintendo already has a devout following for their systems. If Nintendo went 3rd party, it would split their market, with part of the split leaving Nintendo's fold. So I don't think they would sell more copies, if anything, I'll leave it at the same. But, higher development costs for the HD systems, coupled with the lost revenue from not selling systems, means that Nintendo would be making significantly less money. 4. Nintendo's actually been taking some risks since the NES days. But if you're going to say that we should never take risks, then we would never innovate. Nintendo's innovation (and risk) is what led them to where they are today. They know better than to bet the company, so that they are shielded from a mistake (see: Virtual Boy), but they're not going to stop. As long as their software teams come up with new ideas, the hardware will continue. 5. I've pretty much touched on this one already. The controller is the barrier to entry, and making games still has a high risk potential. (Gah, I didn't intend this to run so long...) |
Please don't ban me
