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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Console Wars abhor a tie

By now, most people are agreeing that compared to the last gen, the Wii and 360 will both see increased sales, while the PS3's will be lower. Infact many people are even considering the idea of a three way tie. On the one hand, the evidence seems to point to that end. But at the same time, the nature of that is so unprecedented that I'd find it almost impossible. In the past, there's always been one market leader, with the competition pretty far behind. The closest exception to this so far is the forth generation, in which the Snes only managed to beat the Genesis by 20 million units. But thats still a lot. So will this be the gen that changes everything? or will some outside market force put the squeeze on one or more consoles. Is there a VHS/Betamax effect at play on consoles? or will we find that everybody can succeed this time around. One more question, if everybody does do lovely business, will others be enticed into the game? Will Apple, Toshiba or Mattell see an all console loving sales field and say me too? does my thread even make sense? who is the father of Anna Nicole Smith's child? These and many more questions will be answered, on the days of our lives...



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Around the Network

It may be good for hardware sales. I knew a *LOT* of people who owned both a PSX and N64 since there were loads of must-have exclusives on each. If this gen encourages lots of people to buy (eventually) two or three systems, that could be good for the industry. re: Apple, EA, or whoever wanting to get in on the action, if MS and/or Sony keep hemoraging money that may disuade others



I believe the issue for a near 3-way tie will be the question of how soon the Wii (if it does) gets an early console revision. %-wise, this will be the closest ever, but I still think the difference between #1 and #2 will be somewhere near 15 million units. The Wii obviously has the momentum - It sells well worldwide (unlike the 360) and is cheap (unlike the PS3), but doesn't have the power, nor ability (IMO) to capture graphics junkies and more casual markets with games like GTA, Final Fantasies, and other PS2 titles that have yet to goto the Wii party. Having said this, again, it comes down to if Nintendo bows out the Wii due to HD penetration and follows with a beefed up Wii. If it doesn't, it'll probably give Sony a run for its money, as Sony is the only compeditor with the ability to sell worldwide. The 360 would easily be the major threat to Nintendo, but it's lack of any sort of Japaneese sales prevents it from beating a true worldwide threat. Personally, I see the PS3 still coming out on top due to the fact it will do well everywhere, and won't get a console revision, as Sony can't afford it. However, if Sony did win, it'd be at a huge loss and they run the risk of having to either bow out or merge on a PS4 with MS or someone else (Apple? Of course, MS owns a large % of Apple anyways) So again, my predictions made a year ago - PS3 at 70 to 75m units (6-7 year lifespan due to Sony losing massive $$$, eventually doing well w/w, but only due to Sony trying to pull a PS2 and have sales after the next-gen is out) 360 at 50-55m (due to 35m units, a near PS2-type sale in the US, and better/suprising numbers in Japan and Europe vs. last cycle) Wii at 47.5m-52.5m (yes, strange, but I believe Nintendo will cut Wii production off in 3-4 years in favor of a Wii 2. If Wii 2 counted toward the Wii's total, I'd change this, but for sake of argument and keeping numbers from a year ago, I do not include it). So overall, the Wii will win in terms of # sold per year worldwide, Sony wins a superficial "win" by selling the most systems despite letting it become old on the market, and MS wins because they now own a dominating share in the US, a good share in Europe, and an improving share in Japan and other territories. So a tie can be seen in various ways. A real tie will be that most developers are tied in who they support - we won't see developers go all-in on the Wii, PS3 or 360, but split. Some will dev for the 360/PS3 as they are, some will move to the Wii, even more move between all 3. Really, the words of sony will come true though: most devs go multi-plat, forcing each console maker to have their own studios. Next generation will be the battle of the studios, not the hardware itself.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Does anyone else thinks it sucks if there's a tie? All that means to me is that there's going to be a lot of compelling titles spread out on 3 different systems. I really don't want to spend $1250 on 3 consoles. My point is that because the prices for all the consoles are so high, many people aren't going to get a chance to buy multiple systems, at least not for many years. Last generation, for $500 I got a PS2 and GC at their respective launches. For that kind of money, I can't get any two systems. I think the lack of multiple console owners will hurt the 360/PS3 combined sales over a similar time frame as the last generation. That's one reason why I think the 360/PS3 are going to remain on the market for far longer than any other console except perhaps the NES. Too much has been invested in both systems to kill 'em off after 4 years or even 7 years like the XBOX and PS2, respectively. Plus, every new console generation causes everyone to lose way too much money. I don't think the industry can survive another self-destructive change in consoles.



My Top 5:

Shadow of the Colossus, Metal Gear Solid 3, Shenmue, Skies of Arcadia, Chrono Trigger

My 2 nex-gen systems: PS3 and Wii

Prediction Aug '08: We see the PSP2 released fall '09. Graphically, it's basically the same as the current system. UMD drive ditched and replaced by 4-8gb on board flash memory. Other upgrades: 2nd analog nub, touchscreen, blutooth, motion sensor. Design: Flip-style or slider. Size: Think Iphone. Cost: $199. Will be profitable on day 1.

jman8 said: Does anyone else thinks it sucks if there's a tie? All that means to me is that there's going to be a lot of compelling titles spread out on 3 different systems. I really don't want to spend $1250 on 3 consoles.
Exactly. It's because of this that I'd imagine something has got to give. I'm also wondering just how strong the individual software will be, as by and large, third parties are turning to cross platform development to recoup the higher dev costs. First party titles seem to matter now more than ever, but I don't see any one company (not even the big N itself) having the muscle and franchises to significantly dominate over another. But what does that mean? I have no idea. I started this thread because I really have no idea how this leveling of the playing field will pan out. It really is a wild card, which will make this Gen quite an exciting one. Good news for us I guess.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Around the Network

stof said: First party titles seem to matter now more than ever, but I don't see any one company (not even the big N itself) having the muscle and franchises to significantly dominate over another.
I am rather new to the video game scene (last console owned was SNES), but what first party titles does MS and sony have (halo comes to mind for MS...)? I thought sony produced a minimal amount of games and relied on third party developers? Also, what the heck is second party developers?



euclid said: stof said: First party titles seem to matter now more than ever, but I don't see any one company (not even the big N itself) having the muscle and franchises to significantly dominate over another. I am rather new to the video game scene (last console owned was SNES), but what first party titles does MS and sony have (halo comes to mind for MS...)? I thought sony produced a minimal amount of games and relied on third party developers? Also, what the heck is second party developers?
Sony actually has quitea bit of dev capacity. A recent net article stated that in sheer person power, they were number one. Here's a quick list taken from wikipedia. Internal division Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. * Clap Hanz – Hot Shots Golf series * Polyphony Digital – Gran Turismo series, Omega Boost * SCE Japan Studio (Project SIREN Team, etc.) – Ape Escape series, LocoRoco * Team ICO – ICO, Shadow of the Colossus SCEI Subsidiary Divisions Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. * Incognito Entertainment – Twisted Metal: Black * Naughty Dog – Jak series * SCE Bend Studio (formerly Eidetic) – Syphon Filter series * SCE Foster City Studio (includes 989 Studios) – Rise to Honor * SCE San Diego Studio (includes 989 Sports & Red Zone Interactive) – The Mark of Kri, NBA '07 * SCE Santa Monica Studio – God of War, Kinetica * Sony Online Entertainment LLC. – EverQuest * Zipper Interactive – SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs series Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd. * Guerrilla Games – Killzone series * SCE London Studio (includes Team SOHO & Camden) – The Getaway series, SingStar * SCE Studio Cambridge (formerly Millennium Interactive) – MediEvil series, Primal * SCE Studio Liverpool (formerly Psygnosis) – Wipeout series, F1 series Sony Computer Entertainment Korea Inc. * SCE Korea – EyeToy: EduKids, GloRace: Phantastic Carnival As for microsoft, they're probably the smaller of the three, but they used their wallet well to get into gaming, purchasing Bungie and Rare, and some others. Here's there Wiki list In-house studios * ACES Game Studio — Flight Simulator series, Combat Flight Simulator series and the upcoming Train Simulator 2 * Bungie — Halo series, Myth series, Marathon series * Ensemble — Age of Empires series, Age of Mythology series, Halo Wars * FASA Interactive — Shadowrun, Crimson Skies, Mechwarrior series * Feel Plus! — A new studio set up in conjunction with Mistwalker (they will be producing a new RPG titled Lost Odyssey) * Lionhead — Black & White series, The Movies, Fable series * Rare — Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark series, Kameo, Killer Instinct series, Banjo series, Viva Pinata * Turn 10 — Forza Motorsport series * Wingnut Interactive — A new studio set up in conjunction with Peter Jackson (they will be producing a new game based in the Halo universe) As for second party developers. It's usually a term for independant devs that sign contracts to work exclusively for a console manufacturer. Rare was a second party company for Nintendo, till they were purchased outright by Microsoft.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Wow. Thanks for the detailed response! If sony has the most developer 'muscle' then it should have plenty of games out by the end of this year.



euclid said: stof said: I am rather new to the video game scene (last console owned was SNES), but what first party titles does MS and sony have (halo comes to mind for MS...)? I thought sony produced a minimal amount of games and relied on third party developers? Also, what the heck is second party developers?
Sony makes a *lot* of games, but most are not particularly popular. God of War and Gran Turismo are examples of A-grade Sony first-party titles. "Second party" is a term that doesn't make a lot of sense anymore honestly: it is/was an outside developer that's exclusive to one platform, usually owned partially or wholly by the system maker. Back when e.g. Nintendo and Sega had large central development houses, but were also affiliated with outside developers (e.g. Rare with Nintendo) this was a useful distinction (Rare wasn't Nintendo, but they were a 2nd party to Nintendo)... but now that MS and Sony are really just collections of 2nd parties the distinction isn't very clear (even Nintendo farms out so much these day's it's becoming a lot blurrier).



The concept of this thread is exactly accurate. There has never been a "console war" where the leader walked away with less than 60% of the net market. Even the only proper "console war" in history, the SNES vs. the Genesis, where both companies were mismanaged and ended up well below their sales potential, SNES walked away with over 60% of the market. And yet people think that there will be a three-way tie... And even say "competition is a good thing." Competition will KILL this industry. Videogame consoles are media formats, and the bulk of people would rather invest in NO format than invest in two. People will hold out and continue to buy the old format until they know what new format is going to get the bulk of games. And when support falls through on the old format, while nothing new becomes dominant, the industry simply crashes. The leader, with over 60% of the market when all is said and done? Mark my words--Wii.



"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.