I was just thinking about the relative success of Nintendo against the relative lack of success (both fiscally and overall) that the HD platforms which follow the razor/blade model have experienced. It takes one financial year and two at most to crown the Wii as the most financially successful home console of all times.

The consoles of this generation lack the one major ingredient that the razor/blade model requires and that is to lock the consumer in to one particular brand for a long period of time and then milk them with expensive razors. Console generations only last about six years, seven if you want to consider an extended version whilst someone who buys a razor in 1999 is probably still buying blades for it till this day at the same rate. Someone who bought a PS2 in 2002 isn't likely to be buying games at the same rate and if that person already upgraded, it could have been just as easily to a Wii or Xbox 360. Game attach rates fall over time whereas razor attach rates don't, see the distinction?

Nowadays there is a slight variation to the Xbox 360 and PS3 operations which brings it closer in line with a true razor/blade model and that is the online service and content these consoles provide. These can act to lock in a person to a particular brand of console, but it isn't 100% foolproof as one important reason for upgrading is growing bored of the content that you have available.In addition if theres a ground swell of support for another console brand then you have the incentive to follow your friends across anyway if you want to continue to play with them online.

Selling the consoles for a loss introduces a huge risk to the operation of releasing a console. If you have to cut the price earlier than expected due to competitors actions then you're going to pull an Xbox 1 or PS3 and lose a big wad of cash. In addition if you fail to differentiate your console enough you're setting yourself up to compete strictly on price terms which is again sets them up to lose a lot of money like the Xbox 1, Xbox 360 AND PS3. In addition to this arguably the Wii proves that the PS1 and PS2 didn't make as much profit as they should have.

So what does the Wii do thats so darn smart?

The Wii is a smart console because it made Nintendo loads of cash from day one and its both differentiated so it does not compete strictly on specifications or price and its uniquely compelling so it doesn't try to be exactly the same console as the other two. You can't substitute the Wii for an HD console but you can easily substitute the HD consoles for each other and choosing between them is often a case of 'which is cheaper' / 'which gives me better value. Execution trumps the ability to cut the price quickly almost every time when it comes to a consumer electronics product and by example other than Nintendo we have Apple doing just that.

So how does a console be more like Wii and less like the 3 financial stinkers in this example?

The console should be built to execute well what the consumers actually want now rather than what they might want in three years from now is a good start. Its hard enough trying to predict what people want a year down the track and gambling billions on extra hardware may not be such a wise decision.

The console shouldn't make trade-offs to appease one group whilst handing negative trade offs to everyone else. Some people may want MOAR GRAFIX, but for other people that may mean MOAR HEAT, MOAR NOISE, MOAR UNRELIABILITY, and MOAR THAN I WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Soon you can add MOAR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS.

A prettier picture isn't console distinguishing material. What is distinguishing is making a compelling console and executing with compelling and hopefully exclusive content quickly, as in within about a year of launch having a BIG system seller or three is a big help. This is where complex architectures and expensive protracted development gets in the way of a good time.

Finally what every good soon to be the next Wii console replacement needs is a great gimmick. I can't predict what that might be but its best that its implemented in software somehow as you can divide a large R+D investment over a lot of consoles and that cost doesn't increase with every console sold so more sold = profit, rather than more sold = more expenses. See a need and fill a need is all you have to do. My best guess is interactive educational 3D immersive software built on next generation interface technologies because school kids will need a new one every year and they have like 5 different subjects. 5x 60 x 4 years = $1200?

You only say this because you know the Wii is no threat to your precious PC lol.

My PC is not precious. Its currently in bits and pieces in my dining room. My HTPC isn't precious as the 53" Bravia its hooked up to. Its very overshadowed.

Hello captain obvious :P

Good thread, though I see people trying to debate many of these points. Honestly the mass of people that game still see SNES games as looking really good. It's just not that big of a deal to them and its only hurting console/game makers by making everything more expensive.

(see http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=96165&page=1&str=1128642870#)

But the game industry refuses to see this right now, they see the "gamers" as the masses, when they're not, and never have been. Would be great for the game industry to see why things like NSMB Wii sells out when its hard for great games like Chronicles of Riddick to sell much less sell consistently over time. I say it'd be a great time in gaming for both consumers and the business as a whole.

Good read, OP. I enjoyed it.

I felt this one was special as I had a long time to think things through and its sort of a culmination of sorts to my other thread which got locked as my thoughts have developed further on the issues.

To be honest I feel the industry is stuck in a rut. They don't want to give the Wii a true AAA development effort and their old mojo just isn't paying off like it used to on the HD consoles + PC. Nintendo has done really well when they have stretched the borders of what is conceivably called a game and/or extended the audience who can play them. Noone bar Nintendo have shown the balls to really stretch these concepts and Nintendo cannot come up with all the ideas alone.

Im also kind of sick of people praising the two retards in the room. Yes one is less retarded than the other but they are both still retards trying to out retard each other. If their daddies weren't so rich they would have really had to face the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately it still remains to be seen if they can actually do something productive with their new fangled interfaces.

Haha the last bit made me laugh.  Honestly I see that the PS3 and 360 have their place but I really do think they're too early, not only for the practical reasons of dev costs and console costs.  But the game industry has to grow in many ways, one is they have to mature and make better business choices, two they need to learn how to combine graphics and gameplay in a nice mesh, and three like you said they need to learn how to think outside of the box.  Sega is starting to see this thankfully and instead of the next Sonic being a 3D game thats meant to impress people with its sense of speed that hasn't worked in years, they're going 2D which will hopefully feel more addictive cause of the speed like the old sonics instead of 3D sonics speed feeling shoehorned in there.

Well yeah, the model requires the customer to buy blades. This becomes problematic when your razor has functions that doesn't require you to buy blades, such as BD player.
The more "non-blades" you have on your device, the more stupid the model is.

The first Playstation wasn't sold at a loss, as far as i know, but it didn't make that much money because a huge amount of games was sold at a laughably cheap price, which hit the licence revenue and Sony didn't have strong first party, so the profits came mostly from 3rd party licences, instead of strong first party sales.

I seriously doubt that the industry as a whole will acknowledge what you just wrote any time soon. While it would be nice for the industry to finally grow up i get the feeling that we're going to be stuck in limbo until something grave happens for instance one of the big three leave the market.

      Its funny you mention Riddick. I found the game to be...grotesque. It took a while to wrap my head around the controls, and I ultimately did not like it. The style just seemed like something a rapist came up with (no offense if you liked it or not). It was just too weird and different from the Riddick films for me.

I don't have to explain to you why Mario sells.

     As for the SNES, I know first hand that people in the majority who do not roam message boards and such do enjoy simpler gaming. Look at Farmville, just a 2D-looking farm sim. Harvest Moon should be almost as popular, but alas it hasn't been marketed correctly, or at all to the right people.

     Graphics do not have to be a shiny bump-mapped mess to be great looking. NSMB may have low poly-count characters, but the level design is EXTREMELY clean and crisp. I said it myself that it might as well be a 360 or PS3 game. Thing is, I say that because I would be satisfied if thats what those systems were capable of putting out.  Too bad the "gaming industry" is so obsessed with graphical output that we have seen such a sharp decrease in the amount of new IPs being released. Add to that the dev costs and sense of creative entitlement. It is misconstrued who these games are being made for.