Like in Highlander "There can BE only one". Hahahahaha. Of the thousands and thousands discussing gaming's future direction, that is.

History is my guide. Most of the work done to secure a generation is done before the generation even begins. You can put your own percentage on it but whether you say 50% or 75% or 90% most of the work is done in the planning stages. How the system is designed, how it is priced, how the system aims to be marketed, how it can attract the developers, what momentum it has from the previous generation if any. Lots of factors go into the pre-stage. E3 2006 gave everybody a glimpse of where the Wii was going. It was never a surprise to me because I saw the generation won as soon as Nintendo unveiled that Wiimote. It wasn't just a refinement of the old NES control standard everybody's been using but a whole new direction (I hate the word paradigm).

This whole generation is playing out just like I predicted long ago (save for one detail not factoring a potential Sony self-sabotage):

Me from 2005: Future of Next-Generation of Gaming 

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=3254

After the preplanning stage, the 1st year where all consoles are gathered shows how it will play out. And ONLY the 1st year. Momentum-based industries work fast and the pecking order is set early on. Any Nintendo fan should know this since we ourselves lived under this for the past 10 years. Maybe that's why I'm so sure about it.

PS1 got a near 2-year (Dec. 1994 Japan) 5th gen headstart on Nintendo, beat out its near-simultaneously launched competitor, the Sega Saturn which came off of the momentum of the famed Sega Genesis but also the infamous momentum of those 32X/Sega CD fiascoes. Nintendo sabotaged itself with that Dream Team business continuing to bully and overcontrol the 3rd parties and made the arguable decision to stay cartridge instead of going to CD like everybody else (long load times and durability are indeed worthy issues but high cartridge prices and less media room are issues just the same). It didn't matter that Super Mario 64, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Banjo-Kazooie, or Goldeneye 007 were some of the greatest games of all time. The generation was basically finished before it started based on the decisions made before the gen started. Games were few and far between regardless of quality and the 3rd party left them in the lurch decreasing the variety of selection. By the time those technically sound Star Wars games came out toward the end it didn't mean a hill of beans. Nintendo was a firm and dsitant #2 in the console marketplace race. Didn't mean I couldn't enjoy my system anymore but I had to face the fact that the competition bested Nintendo. Lots of stuff I wanted to play on the PS1. If I had the money and the space I would have gotten it.

PS2 came off of the fantastic record-breaking success of the PS1 which dethroned Nintendo as king of the consoles. Its only competition was the weakened Sega who came in 3rd with the Saturn and launched the Dreamcast roughly 1 1/2 year earlier (Nov. 1998 Japan) aborting the Japanese success of the Saturn which gave a deja vu feeling of Sega being fickle with supporting its hardware (Sega CD/32X/etc.). Dreamcast was great but Sega made too many mistakes and were in a precarious position businesswise. Sony continued to push out the other remaining pure gaming company in the business with excellent marketing and hype making Dreamcast irrelevant to potential buyers who forgot about it going for the upcoming PS2 instead. Then they just flexed their momentum from the last gen and basically became the only 6th gen game in town for almost 2 years straight. By the time weaker Nintendo joined 6th gen with Gamecube and Microsoft filled in the 3-way fight after Sega folded with the new XBox it didn't mean a hill of beans. Luigi's Mansion was great fun but PS2's library was all you saw in the stores and it didn't stand a chance. Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee was used goods when it transitioned over to the X Empire and didn't mean a holy damn when faced with PS2's monster library. Plus XBox was the new boy in town and had to prove itself in the first place. The Metroid Primes couldn't stop the PS2 Tyson-style domination nor could the Halos as big as they became. Super Smash Bros. Melee nor Dead or Alive 3 could block Michael Gerard's crushing PS2 blows and the PS2 bested and is STILL besting the record success of its predecessor the PS1. With all that momentum behind it, it was simply too late for anybody to stop it. All done before gen starts and within 1st year of all consoles competing in the market.

Shelf space is your clue. I've seen the Wii shelf space double from its single column Gamecube dimensions in my local Wal-Mart. I see XBox 360 with 2 columns and the outgoing PS2 with 2 columns. The PS3 has 1 column. I see DS with 2 columns and the PSP with 1 column. The most visible sell the most bizness-full (had to make it rhyme). Always has, always will. This is why DS & Wii in Japan is on bottom floor while the others are on higher floors in big retail chains. You have to do more work to get to the lesser selling which make them lesser selling. You want people to come right in and buy the highest selling without effort which makes them the higher selling. No middle ground in this industry.

So what do you ask can the competition do about this situation with Wii?

Two things: Nothing...and like it.

And I'll tell you why that is. It is the way their systems are designed. Neither XBox 360 nor the PS3 will appeal to the people far beyond the people they are already appealing to now. And this is not even talking about the pricing situation which makes a difference too. This is purely talking about name, system design and library. XBox 360 and PS3 are very masculine intimidating systems. The color scheme and size of both make them look really tech heavy and ominous especially the PS3. 360 is less intimidating than the original XBox was that's for sure but it puts up a wall of resistance based on its identity. EX-BOXX! It's a hard "seek and destroy" type of name. Three Sixty! Putting a bunch of numbers behind a system makes it sound overly technical and inaccessible to most buyers outside of established gamers. Nintendo suffered from some of this too with N64 but because of its family-friendly heritage and the colorfulness of the console varieties it offset that a good bit. Not enough to make big sales to beat PS1 but enough to allow girls to like playing Banjo-Kazooie on this system without being a techhead.

PlayStation 3. A softer name than XBox but as in the movies sequelitis can set in. PlayStation and PlayStation 2 were able to get away with this but going over 3 sequelwise is a risky move. Naming by numbers can confuse people after awhile especially with the still strong PS2 on the market. Imagine a kid begging an out-of-the-loop parent for the new Playstation for XMas only to get the cheap and common PS2 out of the giftwrapping on XMas day. The look of the system makes it seem expensive too as if this is not made for working class folks. Elitist and BOSE speaker like. The Gucci of game consoles. The Cristal of game consoles. This may work for status seekers but most people don't seek status that hard. Intimidating for a general buyer.

And then the games themselves. So overly realistic and moody most of them are. Or perennial sports titles from EA. There are different games of course but they get overshadowed by the general image the console sets forth. True or not, XBox 360 is seen as the FPS console. PS3 is seen as the big high-end tech console. Just as Gamecube rightly or wrongly got seen as the kiddie console. All of this hampers its sellability.

Wii? The look is compact, inviting without looking overly toyish. And the name is not at all intimidating. It even plays on our cultural reasonings of color using white instead of black. It's feminine and will best induce women along with other people who never play into buying this system. I got many personal accounts attesting to this.

The Wii will not only gather the existing audience that the XBox 360 and PS3 share but also gather an audience totally off-limits to the others by way of its name, design, library, and pricing.

As you know I'm not one to make wishy-washy bet-hedging statements.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the competition to beat the Wii at this point. 2008 begins the full Nintendomination and heaven have mercy on our souls.

John Lucas 

Are you familiar with the Pareto Principle?

How do you think it relates to your above statement with respect to the console/video game industry?

Nice product evaluation analysis, johnlucas. I would normally blurt "Blue Ocean FTW" but your post explains things a lot better.

nice well written rant john... and 1 i agree with =O

Had to look that one up. Wasn't familiar with it.

So you're saying the 80-20 rule means that 360 and PS3 can possibly counter the Wii's broad appeal with their strong narrow appeal. Well I offer this:

Why hasn't that worked in the past 6 generations for other underdog competitors? Why didn't that help Neo-Geo who appealed strongly to arcade-pure enthusiasts? Why didn't the Turbo-Grafx 16 overcome its other 4th gen competitors despite being backed by the powerful NEC with its powerful system and unique library? Why hasn't the PC market made gaming computers AKA game consoles irrelevant altogether seeing how strongly they appeal to the ones who swear by the PC Gamer bible. So much so that no expense is spared getting the top of the line setup available to play the latest tech-powerful games. Why didn't it help Nintendo themselves who appealed strongly to Nintendo enthusiasts like myself?

80% of the wealth may by owned by 20% of Italy's residents, Mr. Pareto (R.I.P.), but that isn't because the other 80% of the population is meaningless because of their ownership of 20% of the wealth. In fact it evens out on paper because it's all 100% in the end. Simple human greed is why that is. Unrealized by the pure on-paper percentages, however, is enthusiasm of the populations. Most of the wealth held by a few neglects the reality that the less wealthy who make up the majority of the populace make the whole system run in the first place. They are where the wealth begins. The masses is where you make your BIG money because simply they are many. Wal-Mart didn't become the behemoth it is by catering to J.G. Hassenfras and the country club set. It did it by offering low prices for the many many poor and poorer (middle class is an illusion BTW). It ROLLED-BACK prices using the thankless fruits of cheap Chinese labor to sell to other poor folk. It sold in bulk to those who were bulkless. Rich people by definition get rich by spending less frequently. They may buy big ticket items but they pretty much have everything they want and are apt to buy less often. The poor have nothing and want something so they spend spend spend which keeps them in some degree poor.

The Poor have more motivation to spend and to want to obtain than the Rich do. Your economic status flavors your view on life. A starving Rwandan would kill to be placed in a competitive eating contest because he has no food to eat. You never hear of problems like bulimia and anorexia from poor nations because they don't have the luxury of wasting a morsel of food. Nicole Richie with her spoiled ass is starving herself to death to fit some preconceived fashion of how she should look. Food is plentiful around her along with everything else so it becomes a lesser appreciated bauble.

The Many Poor may have less individual capital than the Few Rich do but collectively put together their capital is massive and because of their nature of having less they want to spend more. You go to the supermarket checkout and you see those less than a dollar snacks as you wait in line to get checked out. Small expense so it lowers the bar for purchase. You don't think it's that much. It's only 33 cents. It's only 2 for a dollar. It's only buy one get one free. FREE! OOOH! So many of these minor things are bought up everyday and overtime that makes BIG money making the maker extraordinarily wealthy where they can BE the 20% people-wise who own 80% wealth-wise.

The big problem with the PS3 is not only that its role as the powermachine has been usurped by the XBox 360 but more importantly that it placed itself as a mass market item at an elitist price. To sell to a niche market you must cater to the whims of a few and sell at a premium because of the rarity of having a company design what you are looking for. Mercedes in Germany is just a car like any other but in America it's a class symbol because of its rarity of access and it sells inflatedly higher. Sports cars sell big bucks with their souped-up engines and specialized features but a car company couldn't survive unless it also sold those economy cars and SUVs to the poorer family-filled masses who need room and affordability. This is why Toyota is on top in Japan and in the world where Ferrari only goes but so far.

PS3 made the mistake of playing Cristal to a Red Dog market (I know somebody out there hates that I used Red Dog as an analogy. They don't like the flavor. Maybe I shoulda used Rolling Rock, Budweiser or Miller Lite instead. You fill in the proper beer analogy). And now they're paying the price for that decision desperately playing catchup with these price drops which will only be matched and surpassed by the competition most especially its doppelgänger the XBox 360.

Wii meanwhile will not only tap into this audience that MS & Sony fight over but also capture the beer drinkers vs. the champagne imbibers. Wii becomes air. Hardly nowhere can it not infiltrate. Not many vacuums to prevent its spread. It gets everywhere within everything. It understands the masses and knows how to lower the barrier toward mass acceptance better than has ever been done before. Yes, currently the XBox 360 has a strong software base in USA which makes it viable as a competitor. But the hardware grows slower denoting that MS is focusing on catering to the needs of the 20% with the 80%. Currently Wii's software base is less but its hardware grows considerably meaning that it has the potential to solidify the software base later to broader audiences. Different groups of people to cater to in this broad category all of which will turn out in powerful sales to each respective group. Some explosive 1st week charters, others softer lingerers who just hang around on the top 20/50 for years on end.

Rules of thumb always miss the fingers and toes that make up the rest of the appendages.

John Lucas

if the 360 is a Doppelgänger of the PS3 does that mean some sort of horrible thing will happen to the ps3 soon? ive always heard Doppelgänger were foretelling of badluck, or warnings not to go a certin way.

I'm completely on John Lucas side on this one. Completely my opinion.

When I state "Wii" I use it as a proxy for both the hardware and the games. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the hardware (although I acknowledge that some people might have an issue with motion control as it isn't for everyone). Hardware is good provided it does what it is supposed to do and doesn't break. The Wii achieves both those aims. I genuinely enjoy my 360 but as we've seen the hardware is crap (software is mostly very good however).

I really don't think there's any scope to complain about the Wii's hardware, in fact I would consider such arguments to be silly, I think that for the most part when people, legitimately, complain about the Wii they do so because of the game library. Sure Nintendo's offerings have been mostly excellent but they are only a small part of a big library. The third party offerings tend to be awful and rarely worth the price of purchase, and that is a problem and people should complain about that.

It is afterall a legitimate complaint, if we buy a system to play great games and have great experiences then we should be unhappy if there are only a handful of games that offer such experiences (Even if those experiences are very, very good). The Wii has tremendous potential that has only come close to being realised in a handful of cases. Right now it would be hard to argue that motion control has been a huge success in terms of quality of output (although its been a big success in terms of sales). Feedback (including complaint) plays an integral part in the game making process, and if you stop Wii owners from complaining about bad games then the end result is that game makers simply keep making them. If owners complain loud and strongly enough perhaps it could provide the right incentives for third parties to actually try a little and make the Wii a worthwhile purchase, beyond just for Nintendo's games. Would that not be a good thing?

Ultimately I just don't see how one can argue that Wii owners shouldn't be allowed to complain if they are unhappy with the system. The Wii isn't a perfect system, and we shouldn't pretend as such. When the complaints are legitimate and they are communicated effectively then we shouldn't complain about it.

Your statements of spending habits are very correct and often proved by the successes of penny slot machines over big money machines in the gambling field.

However most of your analogies such as the car and the wine are off-base. Pareto Principle is not in regards to hardware sales but software sales (games).

When you cater to clientèle such as the Wii has, you start a strange phenomenon. Lots of people begin to purchase consoles to enjoy the simple games like Wii Sports. What would theoretically make this body different from the smaller niche that the 360 and PS3 target?

The answer is game sales. Grandma may buy the Wii only for Wii Sports and that'll be the end of it. Little Timmy who buys his 360 will most likely amass himself a small library in games. Initially both Grandma and Little Timmy will look the same statistically however as time passes, the Little Timmy's of the market will start appearing. A more contemporary description of this question would be "Who has stronger legs?"

The Wii can appeal to both groups and it may convert a few from one group to another however in the long run, Grandma won't be the one supporting the Wii till the next hardware refresh, Little Timmy will. The only worry the Wii's sales have at this point is whether or not its sales are mostly made of up Grandma or Little Timmy.

What you have described as a negative aspect of the 360/PS3 is actually a positive in one way as their brands will attract Little Timmy and (for the most part) only Little Timmy. For example, if the Wii has sold 12m units, 9m Grandma and 3m Little Timmy, it will be in a dangerous position to face even the PS3 with 5m units of all Little Timmy.

That said, I have no numbers or research to back up this speculation (and speculation is exactly what it is) however time will tell us how much truth it holds in the form of software/game sales. I would be gratified to learn that my speculation is proved false as time passes.

I've also noticed that among some of those who favor the Wii now (this is not aimed at John Lucas or anyone in particular) there is a tendency to become smug, overconfident, and arrogant. Nintendo has repeatedly say that they themselves wish to avoid the stigma of arrogance and this is hopeful in my opinion. They recognize how easily fortunes can be reversed as history has taught them before. I hope Nintendo's fans can learn from the company they favor in this respect as it is far easier to live with guarded optimism than shattered hopes.