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

[Osc89]

RolStoppable said:

Osc89 said:

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.

It's more common than PSP+3DS or PSP+3DS+PSV. Indeed, there's no good explanation other than Sony paying for it. But since it's so obvious how little they care about the Vita, it's unlikely that they arranged deals. So what we are left with is no sound business reasoning at all.

Granted, for the Wii U third parties can come up with excuses, but if there are examples that the 3DS is skipped, then why should it be assumed that hardware parity would improve the Wii U's fortunes? Hardware parity would lead to a higher price of the console (with or without the Gamepad), thus the sales rate would be insufficient and third parties would still have an excuse. The result in terms of third party games would be roughly the same, in terms of financials it would be even worse than the Wii U for Nintendo.

When it comes to the Wii U's lifespan, there are also people like me who expect a five year lifecycle (with the fifth year being barren) not due to power, but because of sales. There's no point for a company to drag out a failed console any longer, because by the fifth year consumer interest will be at such low levels that there will be no backlash for launching new hardware.

If the PS4 did this badly, I wouldn't make the same prediction as for the Wii U. But once again not due to power, but because of third party support. The PS3 was a trainwreck, but third parties stuck with it despite losing hundreds of millions on it. At the beginning of the seventh generation there was a year where only Nintendo, Disney Interactive and, I think, Majesco posted profits. All other major publishers, as well as Sony and Microsoft, posted significant losses. But none of that led to changes in the way business was done, so the 360 and PS3 were the first consoles in history that could recover from really bad starts. All other expensive consoles that were launched in previous generations had their demise accelerated by their high initial launch prices. It's not processing power that leads to a turnaround, it's commitment by third parties; and that is something that Nintendo will not be able to count on, so aiming for hardware parity is suicidal. 

It's also worth mentioning that there was already a Nintendo console that had hardware parity in the current Nintendo+Sony+Microsoft mix: The GameCube. A failure that was quickly abandoned by third parties at a time when game development was cheaper than it is today. From 2004 onwards multiplatform development shifted from PS2+Xbox+GC to PS2+Xbox.

If what you say is true, and there is no business reason for third parties avoiding Nintendo, then they should do what they can to fix it. They would be a good backup to keep a decent marketshare if they don't manage to have a big hit in a generation. Without them they rely completely on having a "must have" console or peripheral every generation, which I personally think is a far riskier strategy.

How much more would power parity cost them? The PS4 sells for $399 at a small loss, so with XB1 hardware plus the cheaper Wiimote+ they could be comfortable around that price. That's only $50 more than the Wii U (or at least the version that sold). You don't think it would have done better? Also surely with all the consoles being so similar the cost of the hardware would drop faster, making it cheaper to produce in the long run.