Current vs Last, a Console Sales Story (COMPLETE!)

[Osc89]

RolStoppable said:

Osc89 said:

I don't understand this part of the argument. Why is going for cheaper hardware good for the customers? Selling hardware for a profit is definitely good for Nintendo, but obviously gives the customer less for their money. Also cheaper hardware with short lifecycles will cost you as much as more expensive hardware but with longer lifecycles.

I think it is probably safer to go for the longer generation cycle anyway, as you attract the enthusiasts early on who buy for the hardware. They drive the cost of producing the console down and give third parties a reason to start producing games for the console, all while there are few games that are actually available for them. Plus if you are close to what the competition are doing, you get third parties.

Do you really think the success of the Wii dependant on the price? I think that if it had been pretty much a 360 but with Wiimote and the same Wii games, it would have done as well but with a better last couple of years. And we wouldn't have got the Wii U, which would have been too early and too weak.

 

Cheaper hardware means that customers have to pay less. I don't know why you are under the illusion that third parties will definitely develop for Nintendo. It's not a matter of processing power and the like, just look at the recent examples of PSP+PSV multiplatform titles that skip the 3DS. Games like Toukiden and God Eater 2 aren't coming to the platform that hosts the #1 hunting game. The 3DS has the necessary power, it has the control scheme, it has the installed base and it also definitely has the userbase that would buy such games. Yet those games aren't coming. And this is on handhelds where the third party bias against Nintendo isn't nearly as strong as on home consoles.

A long lifecycle is not dependent on processing power, but commitment. The Gameboy was nine years old when Nintendo provided better hardware with the GBC, but even then almost all new games were still playable on the original GB. I am using the GB as an example, not just because it is a Nintendo system, but also because it was a system that was as primitive as it could get. On the other hand, any system that is released nowadays won't have consumers begging for more expensive hardware, because graphics have already hit a level where they are good enough forever.

Is it a common thing, having PSP+Vita game that doesn't make it to the 3DS? I really can't see the sense in it, unless Sony are paying for it. To me it has looked like the 3DS has the far better third party support, but I don't have either console so I can't really comment. However power is perfectly vaild excuse not to bring games to the Wii U. If you are aiming to release a game for the PS360, why go to the extra trouble for such a small userbase? And if you are going for PS4+XB1, why scale your game back as well as deal with a different architecture for a userbase that looks very likely to smaller than PS4+XB1 in quite a short amount of time? Do you not think they would have a better chance at third party games if the hardware was the same?

I think power does have some impact on the lifecycle. If we look at the Wii U, we have a lot of people assuming they will support it for 3-4 more years before trying again. If the PS4 did this badly, I don't think people would make the same prediction. They would have more room to make changes, as it will decrease in price and effectively become a different product with a different audience. Consoles that start weak don't really have the extra chances a more expensive one has.