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."
Did SEGA have first mover advantage with the Dreamcast?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
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.
What will end up making or breaking the Xbox 360 are the games that are available when the product launches. This article has a list of probable launch titles for the Xbox 360. Team Xbox also has a few predictions. The question is, are any of these killer apps that I just need to have and that I won't be able to get anywhere else?
A quick glance at the list and I know there isn't anything on there that I just have to play right away. Some of you might differ, but to me it looks like a lot of those games are more of the same old that will probably see PS3 versions with the possibility of slightly better graphics.
The launch titles are especially important for the Xbox 360 because there are still a lot of doubts about the compatibility of Xbox games. Apparently, some explanation has been given about hos it will work, but I've heard a few rumors that say backwards compatibility won't be there. If there aren't any games I need to have for the Xbox 360 and I can't play my Xbox games on them right out of the box, then do I really need an Xbox 360 right away?
The final factor is the price and what I get for it. Sony has called the Xbox 360, the Xbox 1.5, which I won't entirely believe, but does have a few points. Right now it has a plain old DVD drive in it. Where's the next-gen media format support? A recent EGM article hinted that this might be upgradable to HD-DVD if MS feels the need to do it. The Xbox will also serve as a media center, which I really don't need. So is $300 worth the price of admission? Considering that the PS3 is expected to launch for $400 or more and include more next-gen bells and whistles, I might consider waiting for that if I needed a media center. Then again, Nintendo is trying to ship their console for $200 or less. Granted that Nintendo isn't offering an all-in-one package, but it is an affordable gaming console. The only problem is that I'd have to wait almost another year for it to come out.
As metioned in the article, brand loyalty will certainly play a part in what people decide to do. Since I own all three major consoles, I don't really see myself as loyal to any particular brand. Each has its merits though.
If I had to make a prediction, I'm going to guess that the Xbox 360 will do quite well in America taking the number 2 spot and picking up market share, but will do poorly in Japan.
I see four major factors going into this question.
1. Is it compelling? Does it offer anything significant over what I've already got? The Dreamcast gave me a big "No" on that score.
2. Is it readily available? I *wanted* the PS2 at launch, but Sony didn't ship enough and I got knocked off the waiting list... so I waited well over a year to get one.
3. Is it worth the price? I didn't buy an XBox at launch, but I bought one when the price dropped below $200. I am impressed enough by the XBox to have the 360 reserved, however, and I fully intend to grab it on the day of release; the XBox is *easily* worth twice the price of a PS2 on construction value alone. (I've completely trashed three PS2 consoles. It says something that I bothered to replace them, though.)
4. What can I do with it? If the answer is "nothing" -- no games -- I'm not really interested. So backward compatibility is critical. The GameCube was the last console to enter my arsenal, because I didn't have an existing library it could use. The key factor there was a strong used game selection and a few killer games (e.g. Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker).
That's what goes into my decisions. YMMV.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
If XBOX 360's implementation of Live can pull in enough users, and a few solid titles come along with it ... XBOX 360 should be a success. You see users will not only be invested in the system ... they'll want to remain connected to the friends they're connected to through Live. Since MS is planning on giving away basic Live on weekends for free, they should have a pretty solid connection to users, and I think their first-mover advantage WILL benefit them more than had they just released a game machine without any sort of community component.
2 x 360s, PS3, Revolution, and a few DS and PSPs?! I don't suppose you are looking to adopt a 4th child, say a 26 year old Canadian boy?
I'm already house broken and moderately clean!
I've owned quite a few consoles in my day, and I've never bought one at launch. In fact, I will wait for the next generations of console to drop to under $150 before I even consider buying one.
The way I see it, let the folks who pay twice what I'm willing to pay deal with all the hassles and bugs, and then once the product is proven and cheap, then I'll go in.
It's not because I'm cheap, it's because the consoles don't have more than $150 in value to me. I can respect the above AC wanting to have multiple consoles for his family, but I have better things I can spend my money on.
A console's success is directly tied to its titles. The faster you can get more titles from bigger publishers the more successful you will be. Microsoft's early debut will help simply because they'll be given more time to acquire a greater game library (quantity and quality-wise) than Sony will have at their launch. Microsoft and Sony both have a critical mass of game developers. However, Sony does still have the most licensees.
Microsoft knows this, that's why they're attempting to release so early. Getting out early is going to put both systems with nearly an equivalent number of quality[1] titles three months after the PS3s launch (which is about the only time we could really start forcasting how this generation's console wars will go). The only way this won't end up with them on a fairly even playing field is if either of them (or their licensed developers) screws up royally.
Understanding these facts, one can clearly determine that the beginning of the war will be fairly even. Playstation still has a slightly greater number of hard-hitters licensed but Microsoft is closing that gap as fast as they can.
Even though I will never own an X-Box (OMG TEH M$ 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.