Sevengen said:
@Mr. Khan said....
"Sounds reasonable to me. It's more likely in my mind that Microsoft and Sony aren't going to take as big a leap with their next consoles as they did with the 360 and PS3. One easily forgets that PS360 were easily 3 years too soon, as evidenced by their unprecedented sales patterns."
How does one 'easily' forget that the PS360 were released 3 years too soon??... lol.
I'm pretty sure, well absolutely sure actually, that neither console was released early. I think they both came to retail at the exact time they're respective producers intended.
I think what you're easily forgetting, or not recognizing all together, is that the PS3 and 360 are drastically different video game consoles than they're predecessors, incorporating so many different types of entertainment into single, convergent-type machines, that basing expected lifetime market performance on the historical sales curve of prior consoles is completely inaccurate, if only because those previous game-decks were just that, simple gaming consoles.
These ain't your daddy's video game systems so to speak.
I think what you term as '3 years too soon' is in reality a testament to the amazingly, long-term design approach that both Microsoft and Sony employed when building their consoles, ensuring themselves a stable gaming platform that would be powerful enough to at least keep pace with the flux of technology as the general public sees it, and adaptable enough to fool those people who pay closer attention.
If you look at the 360 today.....
'one easily forgets this is the same console that launched with an entirely different user interface, a comparably weak, if almost non-existent, menu of alternative entertainment options, and a game catalogue that included the likes of 'King Kong' and 'Perfect Dark Zero'
Those unprecedented sales patterns you referenced are a result of the intuition, hard work, and opposition to convention that both companies have demonstrated in growing their consoles. The network of games and entertainment options offered is like absolutely nothing before, so why would the sales patterns of either follow historical record?
|
You're acting as if everything played out exactly as Microsoft and Sony intended. It is clear that the PS3 and Xbox 360 were nowhere near as well-received initially as either company had planned (PS3 moreso than 360 for obvious reasons), and so they scrambled to make the devices acceptable, a process which was only partially successful under their own power, and the true success was due to market forces beyond their control and a spot of ineptitude from the competition
Also you argue that the nongaming functions of these devices have anything to do with how well they sell, which i would argue is a crock. Years of excellent third party support (due to the anti-Nintendo conspiracy) combined with the general decline in technology prices are what make the PS3 and 360 worth buying in the last couple of years. Early on, they were niche, trapped in a place too advanced in price and features for what consumers actually demanded, and i would argue that they remain a little too far out for some people, but that the preponderence of third party support due to the conspiracy fixed their problems (as well as the spectacular way Nintendo dropped the ball with Wii headed into 2011) fixed their problems
"Your daddies" game systems sold because they played games. 360 and PS3 sell almost solely because they play games, or create environments centered around gaming (the appeal of LIVE would be nil were it not for its primary function). 360 and PS3 struggled out of the gate because they did not play the kinds of games consumers wanted, because they tried to be more than consumers cared to ask for.
