By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony: Xbox 720 and Wii 2 will beat PS4 to market

Smashchu2 said:

Microsoft is definatly not stalling. They have never been interested in the expanded audience, so why start now? They are a shooter console, not a fitness one. It's to stop Nintendo. Natal is (or was) possitioned to stop Nintendo's disruption. The reason they will leave Microsoft is because a fire broke out in their core market. Scott Anthony talks about it here. The fire broke out and Microsoft has to put it out. Seeing as Microsoft is incompitent, it will fail and Microsoft will not bounce back.

What fire in what core market? I watched that video and then I considered Microsofts core markets. Their Windows market? Its fine. Their office market? Fine. Xbox 360? Fine, I.E. they are making profits which are at the industry norms for a single console.

Finally what have they done to prove they are not interested in an expanded market? Did they not pave the way in this industry to take advantage of on demand services like Netflix and movies on demand. Are they not interested in ESPN and Zune music? These are all expanded beyond the original core market.



Around the Network

The fire in MS's core market is caused by Kinect, since E3, Kinect has been roundly bashed and slammed, because MS's direction with Kinect is at odds with their core market, where Wii had people sprinting to get in line to try it out, Kinect has been viewed very negatively.



I hope he's right about the Wii 2. That just means more fun for us Nintendo fans :P



"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' " ~John 14:6 (NKJV)

I read the first 50 posts of this thread.

So what's he saying?  That the PS3 will soon be the weakest console on the market and that everyone else will be playing on the next level of gaming while Sony still pushes their old console?  Is he saying that the PS3 will have a 10 year life span like the PS1/PS2 and ignoring the fact that the PS1 was about 5 years old when the PS2 came out and that the PS2 was about 5 years old when the PS3 came out?  Is he saying that they can give Nintendo/Microsoft a headstart like they did with the Saturn and the Dreamcast--because Nintendo/Microsoft are NOT Sega and I think they demonstrated that this generation.

Or is he just saying that they'll release their next console last?   Maybe we're reading too much into this.



Smashchu2 said:
snfr said:
axt113 said:
snfr said:
 

Wasn't Sony also disruptive with the PSone and PS2 in your opinion?

Anyway, just imagine the Wii2 is just an HD and 3D update of the Wii with much better graphics of course. If this is the case then I wouldn't know why I had to buy a Wii2 (except for the exclusives, of course) instead of a cheaper PS3 (then).


No Sony and wasn't disruptive at all with PS1 or 2, those were sustaining.

 

Except the next Nintendo system won't just be a 3D, HD upgrade

Why?

And if the next Wii is just an 3D and HD upgrade or not..., well, no one knows, but I think there is a big chance that it could end like this.

Double post, I'm sorry.

Sustianing Innvoation is making it better. The PS1 was better than the SNES. The PS2 was better than the PS1. Disruptive innovations are ones which doing it differently, like being more affordable, more customizable, simplier, ect. Here is a video one it. Note how he pulls out a Wii Remote.

If you want to look at it this way, then no one is disruptive.  The NES only improved on things learned from the Atari gen.  The SNES was really only a graphical upgrade from the NES.  And so on and so on.  Even the Wii was just an improvement on already existing motion controllers.  I mean it seems the argument is Nintendo always changes the game (or are "disruptive), but others, regardless of what they bring to the industry, are just improving on what Nintendo did.  That is just rediculous.

As far as real game changers go, each company has brought us something.  In the NES era, Nintendo popularized an improved D-Pad and the Start & Select buttons.  During the SNES era, Nintendo  popularized the shoulder buttons, as well as the four action buttons arranged in a "diamond."  During the PS1 era, Sony popularized the dual analog, as well as an overall control design that many have emulated since.  They also standardized disc-based media.  During the PS2 era, Sony helped push DVD into the huge success it became.  MS also brought about Live, showing how online gaming could be big on consoles, as well as a standard HDD in every console (something they have oddly abandoned this gen).  During this gen, which I will call the Wii era, Nintendo has popularized motion controls in gaming.  Sony has brought out a new media format that won't constrain developers as games get larger, with better graphics/HD textures.  And MS has brought us Achievements, an added reward for further excelling in a game.  These have all been game changers.



Around the Network
thismeintiel said:
Smashchu2 said:
snfr said:
axt113 said:
snfr said:
 

Wasn't Sony also disruptive with the PSone and PS2 in your opinion?

Anyway, just imagine the Wii2 is just an HD and 3D update of the Wii with much better graphics of course. If this is the case then I wouldn't know why I had to buy a Wii2 (except for the exclusives, of course) instead of a cheaper PS3 (then).


No Sony and wasn't disruptive at all with PS1 or 2, those were sustaining.

 

Except the next Nintendo system won't just be a 3D, HD upgrade

Why?

And if the next Wii is just an 3D and HD upgrade or not..., well, no one knows, but I think there is a big chance that it could end like this.

Double post, I'm sorry.

Sustianing Innvoation is making it better. The PS1 was better than the SNES. The PS2 was better than the PS1. Disruptive innovations are ones which doing it differently, like being more affordable, more customizable, simplier, ect. Here is a video one it. Note how he pulls out a Wii Remote.

If you want to look at it this way, then no one is disruptive.  The NES only improved on things learned from the Atari gen.  The SNES was really only a graphical upgrade from the NES.  And so on and so on.  Even the Wii was just an improvement on already existing motion controllers.  I mean it seems the argument is Nintendo always changes the game (or are "disruptive), but others, regardless of what they bring to the industry, are just improving on what Nintendo did.  That is just rediculous.

As far as real game changers go, each company has brought us something.  In the NES era, Nintendo popularized an improved D-Pad and the Start & Select buttons.  During the SNES era, Nintendo  popularized the shoulder buttons, as well as the four action buttons arranged in a "diamond."  During the PS1 era, Sony popularized the dual analog, as well as an overall control design that many have emulated since.  They also standardized disc-based media.  During the PS2 era, Sony helped push DVD into the huge success it became.  MS also brought about Live, showing how online gaming could be big on consoles, as well as a standard HDD in every console (something they have oddly abandoned this gen).  During this gen, which I will call the Wii era, Nintendo has popularized motion controls in gaming.  Sony has brought out a new media format that won't constrain developers as games get larger, with better graphics/HD textures.  And MS has brought us Achievements, an added reward for further excelling in a game.  These have all been game changers.


well said



i find this not surprising - however I don't think Sony will wait too long after the others - one year max



I started making videos for youtube; check them out.

Contra (No Deaths): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_OdnbGgupM

Super C (No Deaths): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHoJrHWATgU

Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! (Mike Tyson TKO): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4L7oDV79aw

Systems owned: Atari 2600, NES(3), Top loader NES, Yobo NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, Sega Gamegear, Sega Nomad, Sega Saturn, Nintendo 64, Gamecube, Playstation 2, Wii, PS3 (slim 120 GB), Wii U

You should congratulate me. I destroyed the vile red falcon and saved the universe. I consider myself a hero.

WilliamWatts said:
Smashchu2 said:

Microsoft is definatly not stalling. They have never been interested in the expanded audience, so why start now? They are a shooter console, not a fitness one. It's to stop Nintendo. Natal is (or was) possitioned to stop Nintendo's disruption. The reason they will leave Microsoft is because a fire broke out in their core market. Scott Anthony talks about it here. The fire broke out and Microsoft has to put it out. Seeing as Microsoft is incompitent, it will fail and Microsoft will not bounce back.

What fire in what core market? I watched that video and then I considered Microsofts core markets. Their Windows market? Its fine. Their office market? Fine. Xbox 360? Fine, I.E. they are making profits which are at the industry norms for a single console.

Finally what have they done to prove they are not interested in an expanded market? Did they not pave the way in this industry to take advantage of on demand services like Netflix and movies on demand. Are they not interested in ESPN and Zune music? These are all expanded beyond the original core market.

First, Microsoft only cared about the new market in 2009, almost 3 years since it was formed with the Wii. if they actually cared, we would have seen something in 2007 and 2008. Their other E3 press conferences and actions do not align with the expanded market.

The fire is breaking out iver Kinect. A lot of XBox fans are ferious over Kinect. Sony has motion controls too, but they did not have the sheer outrage that Microsoft fans did over Microsoft's conference. Here is an example:

To say I was disappointed with Kinect would be putting it mildly. After waiting at the Galen Center for a couple of hours, other than the name, Kinect, nothing was revealed except a handful of pre-recorded demos where actors clearly pretended to control the on-screen characters (avatars) with their own body movement. At several points the avatars would move before the actors did, ruining the illusion of a real live demo of Kinect. This body-synch debacle makes Milli Vanilli’s legendary lip-synch outrage look tame by comparison.

I did not see the anger here, but I definatly saw it at other forums (like NeoGAF). Microsoft fans are not happy. Nintendo never got any flack for their motion controls at E3 06. Sony didn't either with Move. Yet, everyone hated Microsoft's conference. It is a sign of things to come. This will explain it better.

@thismeintiel: Scott Anthony is a co-author for the disruption books. He also runs a firm that helps companies with disruptive ideas. If he says the Wii Remote is a disruption, it is. No argument.

EDIT: You are trying to over apply disruption. A disruptive innovation is doing it different. A sustaining innovation in gaming would be better graphics. A disruptive innovation would be motion controls.



NES was disruptive, gaming was no longer on consoles, they were dead after the crash, gaming was on gaming PC's, the NES was doing things differently than they were, it was a crappy product for crappy consumers, those who were nonconsumers of gaming PC's or overshot by the gaming PC's


Motion controllers weren't being used on consoles, not as the main controllers.

People need to realize something, disruption is not necessarily about having tech that doesn't exist, its about using it in ways that don't exist, that target nonconsumption or overshot consumers



@ smashchu2

Because some guy I've never heard of co-wrote the book on what is "disruptive" and what is not, there is no argument?  Sorry, I don't buy into that.  I will choose what I want to see as influentual to gaming in big and positive ways.  And someone coming up with their own terms to try to make others' contributions seem not as important will not change the impact those contributions have had.  And sorry, Nintendo is not the only one with these "disruptive" ideas.