Slashdot Mirror


Does Microsoft Have First-Mover Advantage?

Gamasutra's question of the week feature just finished gathering up reactions to the query "Is the 'first mover' advantage an important factor in launching a next-generation console?" From the article: "For first mover advantage to work, the new platform must have credibility in two areas. First, it must be seen as being a significant technical advance over the current generation, otherwise it has no real purpose in the market. Secondly, there must be confidence in the new platform from both the public and the industry, without this the new platform will struggle to reach critical mass. The second mover can negate the first mover's advantage by having a higher level of credibility in these two areas. This explains the current tone of Sony spin."

5 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Article's credibility by dannyitc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Quoted from TFA: You never get a second chance to make a first impression. The Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, and PlayStation were the leaders of their respective generations. They were also the first. Is this guy crazy? First of all, SNES outsold the Genesis on the worldwide market, with the Genesis barely outselling the SNES in the United States. Also, the PlayStation's launch was predated by the Sega Saturn, so the claim that they were the "first" is clearly wrong. Someone needs to work on their fact checking.

    1. Re:Article's credibility by dogbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And the Atari 2600 was hardly the first as well.
      That honor belongs to the Fairchild Channel F. That ugly sucker was out about a year earlier...

      --

      These pretzels are making me thirsty.
  2. Re:It's not the XBOX that'll lock users, it's LIVE by Godeke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, please... make the primary function the ability to be verbally abused while playing games and the primary upgrade the fact they will be able to flip me off in video as well.

    Wow: Sign. Me. Up.

    --
    Sig under construction since 1998.
  3. Re:It's a little bit of everything by Saige · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Additionally, if you're into online gaming, Sony STILL hasn't announced their gameplan in that area; Live is probably one of the few things Microsoft got REALLY right with the first gen Xbox.

    If you think they got it right with the first Xbox, then wait until you see the new Xbox Live that's coming out with the 360. I've seen so much about it, actually seen the thing running, seen some of the support things coming with it - this is the #1 thing that's got me so interested in picking up a 360.

    --
    "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
  4. Why are we still talking about this? by DeltaSigma · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A console's success is directly tied to its titles. The faster you can get more titles from bigger publishers the more successful you will be. Microsoft's early debut will help simply because they'll be given more time to acquire a greater game library (quantity and quality-wise) than Sony will have at their launch. Microsoft and Sony both have a critical mass of game developers. However, Sony does still have the most licensees.

    Microsoft knows this, that's why they're attempting to release so early. Getting out early is going to put both systems with nearly an equivalent number of quality[1] titles three months after the PS3s launch (which is about the only time we could really start forcasting how this generation's console wars will go). The only way this won't end up with them on a fairly even playing field is if either of them (or their licensed developers) screws up royally.

    Understanding these facts, one can clearly determine that the beginning of the war will be fairly even. Playstation still has a slightly greater number of hard-hitters licensed but Microsoft is closing that gap as fast as they can.

    Even though I will never own an X-Box (OMG TEH M$ IZ TEH SUK! SONEH 4 TEH WIN1), I think Microsoft is going to pull ahead thanks to the developers they've just bought outright. Microsoft's acquiring a nice line-up of in-house developers, while Playstation seems to have forgotten that it was largely their in-house developments like Warhawk, Twisted Metal, etc. that got them ruling during the Playstation era.

    To summarize: It is to Microsoft's advantage to be the first-mover. It does not give Microsoft the advantage.

    [1] - For those that can't guess, I'm not trying to define quality titles in any artistic sense. By "quality" titles I mean games that sell well due to consumer satisfaction not simply hype. I personally find most of these "quality" titles to be average in execution and enjoyability, but my personal tastes don't define the gaming market. To summarize this footnote: Please don't try to argue with me about what makes a quality title. Chances are, I already agree with you.