By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 25 November 2014
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:

Because no one wants to buy a console just for Mario/Animal Crossing. 

It's like a restaurant ... you can go to one restaurant that has a huge menu and good drinks/atmosphere (Sony/MS). 

Or you can go to restaurant B, which doesn't have a great overall menu and is kind of a dump inside, but they have a really killer 2-3 dishes and a fantastic desert that only they can make in the entire city.

Odds are peope will choose the first restaurant more often. Maybe they'll visit that second restaurant once in a blue moon In all honesty what people want from a home console is the same thing they want from a video format or a satelite/cable box -- the most variety. 

No one wants a movie format with just Disney movies on it, that doesn't mean they hate Disney movies. No one wants a cable subcription service with just HBO on it, even if they love HBO. 

Sony/MS offer a more balanced approach than what Nintendo does, hence they are more consistently successful with console marketshare and don't need to gamble on unsustainable gimmicky ventures to maintain their fan base. 

The Wii U/3DS is simply the ugly side of the "chasing gimmicks/fads" strategy, you loved it when they were successful, but the flipside with gimmicks is they can go bust too (audience doesn't care for the gimmick of a 3D screen all that much, ditto for a touchscreen controller). Just like Vegas. It's great when you're, but it sure sucks when you're going home down 5 gs. 

So in short, gimmicks are the reason. Whereas other people try to build a fundament for a larger argument, you opt to toss a few bricks into a swamp area and call it a day.

It's also very clear that you have serious problems with the interpretation of simple facts. Nobody in their right mind would say that Microsoft has been consistently successful with console market share when their only consoles are the Xbox, Xbox 360 and Xbox One. A failure, a moderate success and a failure do not constitute consistent success.

Investing in gimmicky ideas isn't a bad strategy at times. Everyone does it, Sony and MS have their share too ... VR, touch panel on the PS4 controller, Kinect, Move, Wonderbook. Amiibo is probably something that will be a hit for them as Skylanders is successful too. But tell me where Activision would be as a business if they bet their entire company on Skylanders? In five years when that trend goes bust they may be in a world of hurt. 

The problem is when you try to base your entire platform around a gimmick. Sony isn't relying on the PS4 touch-panel and Tearaway to sell the PS4. It's a nice little bonus, that's all. 

Nintendo is guilty of the former and they are paying a dear price for it, but it is pretty much exactly like the Vegas gambler ... sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It's not smart taking your life savings and investing it at a casino though. A mutual fund might be a better (albiet more boring) idea. But sometimes (a lot of times actually) "boring" is good. The PS4 is "boring" in its overall design, but its reaping the rewards of it right now. 

It's too early to say the XBox One is a "failure" and the first XBox was reasonably successful given that it only was on the market for like 4 years and was MS' first attempt. It would have sold over 30+ million if MS had not yanked the cord early, it was outselling the PS2 for certain months at a time towards the end of its lifecycle. As a brand the XBox was gaining momentum prior to the launch of the 360 for sure (whereas the GameCube wasn't).

In fact the main reason why the XBox One is having the trouble that it did was precisely because they banked heavily on a gimmick (Kinect 2.0) rather than the approach Sony took. If MS had designed the X1 without Kinect required they would've been in a much better spot today. Which just reaffirms my point.