Phoeniks.Wright said:
@1/: Even so, the predominant industry view was that the Wii was nothing more than a fad that would soon die out, whilst the PS3 would soon hit it's stride with the arrival of a certain game. As you see, this never happened. Your view was the minority view, if not a very small minority.
yeah cause PS3 was gonna release in 2007 with a small price but HD-DVD made soNY start early and production shortages stunted PS3.
i never before talked about it so how can u talk about miniority view,i was talkign what people were saying in 2007 and 2008 not 2006.
->Even so, it was still a minority view. I have been lurking game sites since 2006, so I remember that the predominant view was the one I outlined.
@3/: The PS3 says hi. The utter dominance of the PS2 thanks to it's huge game library sure didn't helpthe PS3 in any way.
why will library help PS3?
brand name at that point of time does and it did.how the hell do you think PS3 even came through with such a big price.
What ninty is doing now is not right as the brand of Wii has been goin down since 2010 and till 2012 it will be 2 years which will hurt next console launch
-> Hmm, why would a good games library help the PS3? Well, since you buy a video game console to play games, good games will encourage you to buy it. Simple.
PS3 only came through as you said: if the brand was so strong, it should have been selling PS2 numbers, but that never happened. But good games sure helped it. As for the Wii U, since it's the anti-Wii, it only makes sense that the Wii brand must first be tarnished for the Wii U to exist. Even if it had launched in 2010 it would be a failure.
@5/: "burn billions of dollars" means losing billions of dollars. Since it cost Sony so much to develop the technology in the PS3, and they were selling each console at a loss for a few years, they lost billions of dollars during that time. Sure, they established the Blu-ray as the HD format, but it would take a very long time to recuperate those losses if we used just royaltys.
no it won't.you should go back and check.
we ave been following the profits and losses from the start of the generation.All losses made by PS3 come to $6.5-7billion plus the R&D invested in the PS VITA and future PS4
which is cut down to around $2.5billion after PS2,PSP,PS3 HW and software sales.this loss is further reduced by BLU-RAY royalties which we don't know of.SONY is easily recouping the loss
-> I'm not too familiar with this, but I'll take your word for it. Nevertheless, I was thinking more about just what the PS3 made, not so much the whole gaming division and Sony in general.
@2/ and 6/: Business ecosystems aren't so much needed as just being here. They happen by definition automatically. ?Sure, they're shaped by customers and other company's, like distributors and fellow competitors, but ultimately, it is the customer that is king. He will decide what succeeds or not, and in the videogame industry it is the gamer.
as you can see with APPLE.consumers are jsut pickers of what technology to follow but the tech provided depends on company.
we are living in a digital world with intecommunicating devices,ecosystem is essential.
Another generation of gaming then Ninty will have problem which is why ninty should start think of it now
-> I just read the definition of business ecosystem as written by Moore, and by that definition talking about ecosystems is possible starting with the industrial revolution, one example used is Ford and the car industry in the early 1900's. So ecosystems have existed for a long time.
Brand maintenance is indeed important, and what is happening here is that Nintendo is destroying the Wii brand with the Wii U.
thats the problem that they are not actually destroying the Wii brand but WiiU is the same brand but a different console.Ninty's name changing console in the past was bad but this time they are overlaping
-> If you're saying that brand overlapping is bad, since that's how it sounds, I have to object, since the PS2 had an identical brand to the PS1, and that didn't harm it in any way. Then the PS3 came along, with the same brand, and they messed up pretty bad.
They are trying to present the Wii U as the successor to the Wii, but that's just a sick joke, since the Wii U is like a GameCube, or the anti-Wii.
thats what the problem with ninty is that they develop new things every few years,in the long term they should maintain one name and one strategy
->True, they seem locked in thought that there exists a "hardware cycle", which is wrong.
Same for the 3DS: they tried to present it as a successor to the DS, but the brand revolves around 3D, and since people don't want 3D, they are rejecting the 3DS.
yeah cause the innovation was very less,3D has nothing to do with game development but your view.
about the Wii if WiiU launched this year then they would be going for a successor but the time in betweent he brand value is going down by the minute
-> The philosophy behind the Wii U would have prevented it's success, whether it would have launched now, or at any other time. As for the 3DS, when you hear that, the only thing that comes to your mind is that it's a DS with 3D. Maybe more powerful, but the brand still revolves around the fact that it's a 3D capable device.
Nintendo is an entertainment company, not a technology one. If you look at their 4 most succesful consoles, DS, GameBoy, Wii and NES, they were all technologically behind the times, even when they launched. Nintendo's only focus is to make entertaining games.
that time the software and hardware were totally different and the ecosystems didn't exist
nintendo's focus is game but they have to learn that today's world both HW and SW are coming together and if they want to be invested in the gaming buisness long term then they gotta make changes or go software only company in a few years time
->When? In 2006? Software and hardware were different, but you only have to go back to jnuary 2011 to make that statement, when the 3DS hadn't launched yet. And as I pointed out, ecosystems have existed for a long time, but were only defined in 1993, so at least they have "existed" as you think since 1993.
When you say that HW and SW are coming together, you're going to have to make it clearer what you mean, since the only thing coming to mind is the arcades when 1 machine = 1 game. Which I don't know why we'd be coming back, since that would narrow down consumer choice.
Also, that whole idea of one device that does everything has been the computer industry's ( I believe it's them, or someone within, not too sure ) wet dream for years. It never happened. In fact, that was the reason given as to why the NES wouldn't sell. History shows how wrong this line of thought was.
the world has changed
TV's didn't have processors back in the day,phones were just calling devices and handhelds were just gaming devices and internet connectivity wasn't there like todya's integrated streamline systems. -> What does this even mean? It's so vague.
please get with the time
-> You sound very much like a tech junkie. If I safely assume that you are, it would explain your line of thinking. You seem to dream of an all encompassing device, or a competely interconnected world, with the computer at the center, just like in those houses of the future things. Yeah, not going to happen any time soon. Sony and Microsoft tried and failed to do this with the PS3 and X360, and people have been trying this since the 1980's, what makes you think they'll be succeeding?
|
