The Next Gen Consoles - The Bigger Picture

Next Generation Magazine is running a series of articles on the next generation consoles, and what they mean in a larger perspective. The Xbox 360, PS3, and Revolution have a lot riding on them as the start of the next round of console wars gets underway. All three companies have their own goals and histories to consider when it comes to the business of games. From the 360 article: "Someone, somewhere, probably still believes Microsoft got into console games for the kudos of putting out Halo. Good for them. The world needs believers, and every time you say 'Xbox is a Trojan Horse', a fairy dies."

Comments

Broadly agree

[RogueyWon]

I think I broadly agree with the conclusions of these articles, although I would raise a couple of counter-points and cautions.

First of all, I'm not so sure that MS want the 360 to be a Windows-gaming-killer. If they do want this, then quite frankly, I think they're mad. The fact that Windows remains the only realistic platform for home computer-gaming (and yes, I know you can play UT2004 on Linux. When you can play every other game on my shelf on it, I might start to listen) is a huge advantage for Microsoft on all kinds of levels. It keeps Windows on home PCs... nobody wants to have to tell the kids they can't play their games any more because daddy wanted to experiment with Linux. By doing so, it keeps the population at large extremely familiar with Linux. This means that companies and government departments have a huge incentive to stick with it on their desktops; there's a reasonable expectation that new employees will already know it to a basic extent. Windows gaming has many problems, the ease of piracy perhaps chief among them, but MS would be crazy to kill it.

Other than that, I agree that MS are putting a lot of eggs into the 360 basket. I'd be a bit more optimistic than the article about their chances; I'd also be more willing to say that a lot of people who work in MS games have a real passion for games - they put out a lot of high quality (and often fairly niche) titles. Personally - I'd see the 360 coming out of the next round as a strong second, with perhaps 2/3rds the sales of the PS3.

The PS3 article did make me smile. It's true that Sony have taken what could be seen as a soul-less, corporate attitude to the console market. It's also true that they've managed to give their customers a lot of fun by doing so. Their ability to draw high quality third party developers to their platform is going to remain the single most important factor in the console next-gen. Personally, I suspect the PS3 will win the next-gen battle, with slightly better overall sales figures than the PS1 or PS2.

On the Nintendo front (and this is where I get modded down by the zealots), I agree that they've got a tough fight for survival in the next generation. Putting so much faith in the ability to play games from previous systems is going to please the hardcore, but the mass-market just aren't going to care. The controller might be wonderful and innovative, but we're not back in the early 90s, when Nintendo could lead the market in this respect. Chances are, the controller will end up as an oddity used for a couple of first and third party games, but otherwise be largely forgotten. And yes, the point about how the DS's strong standing isn't as positive for Nintendo as you might think is *very* valid. Of course, they could pull off something spectacular with the Revolution and leave the generation as market leaders. I woudn't go betting the ranch on it, though. Microsoft and Sony can afford to accept losses today, while they maneuveur for the market position that will allow them to make much bigger profits in the future. Nintendo don't have the pockets to allow for that; if their profit stream dries up, they're in trouble. Personally, I suspect the Revolution's going to flop.

Oh well, this is all just speculation. I suspect we won't have any real kind of picture until this time next year.

Re:Broadly agree

[Ralin_JM]

Contrary to popular belief, nintendo has very deep pockets. The have a very large cash reserve they've been keeping for a rainy day, and have yet to ever dip into it.

Nintendo may not be a market leader, but every gamer I know owns a GC in addition to thier PS2 or x-box. I don't think sony or ms can "steal" Nintendo's customers when people are willing to buy both. Nintendo has a very stable niche market that isn't going away any time soon.

Re:Broadly agree

[alvinrod]

Microsoft really needed to spread out into the gaming business. Considering that consoles are becoming more and more popular and PC gaming has seen a bit of a decline (and no I'm not predicting its death!) and that Linux is becoming more gamer friendly, Microsoft won't be able to hold claim to PC gaming king for terribly much longer.

Expanding into the game market gave them to opportunity to do some innovative things for the console market. Built-in HD and networking hadn't been done before and allowed for some really nifty gaming experiences. It also allows them to take away some of the market from their competitors.

If Sony had lived up to a lot of the promises that it had made about the PS2 things could be radically different. Interestingly enough, Sony has said some similar things about the PS3. If the rumors that it will have Linux installed out of the box or freely be able to run it are true, that means a PS3 could easily serve as a computer. It wouldn't be a great one, but if it could handle Word Processing, email, and simple things like that, why would anyone need to buy a new Windows PC?

Sony has problems of its own though. It's spent a lot of time and money to make the PS3 and some of the included technologies. In order to compete in the marketplace it has to sell at a lose or the PS3 would be too expensive for most people to go out and buy.

Sony also has several other areas of business that it likes to incorperate into the PS3. Note how they're going to be using the same type of memory stick in the PS3 as they are with the PSP. I wouldn't be surprised if they included some type of music store or tried to include some aspect of their motion picture company into the mix as well (similar to how the PSP can play UMD movies). Sony seems to exist to sell a product so that it can sell other Sony products.

Whether or not all of this interconectivity will work or just piss off consumers remains to be seen. Sony could just have made a video game console, but they've made so much more. The thing used to be a router, can be a DVR if you buy an HD for it, could possible serve as a computer if it runs Linux, and just might make coffee for you if you ask it nicely. The fact that it plays games almost seems like side note. Some have suggested that this all in one feature is geared towards Japanese consumers who have small living spaces and would benefit most from having one piece of hardware that takes care of everything.

Nintendo is trying despirately to make up for past mistakes. Not using CDs or something similar for the Nintendo 64 really hurt them a lot and turned away a lot of developers. They're starting to get some of those back but many are still angry at Nintendo. They've realized some of their mistakes and have tried to rectify them as the article points out.

At the same time, Nintendo can't follow the same model that the other companies use. Nintendo doesn't have a division making a widely used OS or one that sells movies and music to fall back on. They can't make a $500 console, sell it for $300 and hope to stay in business. Sure they've got a nice cash reserve, but that's for when things really turn South.

Because Nintendo doesn't want to look bad by admitting they can't compete on the tech spec level with their competitors, they've adopted a "Game's are where it's at," creed that they at least follow to some degree. More or less it stems from their inability to produce something on the same power level as the PS3 or Xbox 360. They need something to say to make their console look worthy of purchase so they talk about good games and innovation. They've been saying this so long now that whether or not it was true to start with, they now believe it and follow it, to their graves it necessary.

Nintendo has a pretty good shot and doing well with the Revolution. If it launches 3Q 2006 it could be somewhat less powerful than the Xbox 360, but more than capable of producing high quality graphics and at a cheaper price as well. The ability to play games

Re:Broadly agree

[FLAGGR]

I wouldn't be so sure of the power of the Revolution (er, that sounds weird.) Nintendo has never exactly played up their tech specs that much. For example, the gamecube. It's definantly more powerful than the PS2 (except at flat polygon count, which is pretty irrelevant) and actually in most cases is better than the xbox. While the xbox has bigger numbers, a higher clock speed, the gamecube is designed much better. For example, the xbox uses shared RAM. The gamecube uses very fast 1T-SRAM (although only 24mb of it), their ppc cpu proforms better / mhz than xbox's intel x86 one (although not as much a gap as the ppc mac zealots may say :) ) actually I don't feel like listing off stuff, you get the idea. That's why you get games like metroid prime, RE4, rebel strike etc looking so good. However, the xbox has much better support for shaders. Anyways...

The point is, Nintendo isn't going to pack an gamecube up in a new shiny black box and call it a Revolution.

If it launches 3Q 2006 it could be somewhat less powerful than the Xbox 360
Quite the opposite. If it launches almost a year later, then prices of hardware will have dropped, and new technologies will have arrived, so I would assume they would take advantage of this and make it much more powerful to make up for the time loss. Also, no date has been set yet, last I heard, sometime around E3, was spring 2006 (iwata?)

Re:Broadly agree

[rAiNsT0rm]

I'm not sure you know who your trying to argue with, but I have been a member of the Sony PS2 media as well as a playtester since SNES. I'm no Nintendo fanboy spouting garbage.

First off, what do you think about Katamari Damacy? That was basically a one man idea/indie developed game that did pretty damn well, wasn't it? I could go through at least 50 more in just the last 5 years over a number of systems. Snood must only appeal to "hardcore" gamers then too... but wait my grandfather has a copy and so does almost everyone. You're an idiot.

You also have a lack of grey matter if you truly think the Revolution Controller isn't going to be a massively unique design that takes gaming by the balls and twists. Notice how they named it "Revolution" the name is all based on the revolutionary controller. If you think that is just "marketing" you are sadly mistaken. Naming an entire system after a revolutionary designed controller and then not coming through is not even an option, unless monkeys with hot grits in their pants are your marketing department. The controller will be amazing, you seem to forget Nintendo revolutionized controllers to begin with: Game and Watch (the d-pad), The SNES (the shoulder button), the Analog stick (N64), the most ergonomic controllers and well built... gee, they must be full of shit on this new one.

I love how you bring up games like Halo, GTA, WoW, GT4 as being mainstream games. THOSE ARE ALL HARDCORE GAMER GAMES! No mom/child is playing GT4 to unwind and have some fun. No regular joe is playing WoW. Halo and GTA have a target audience of immature teens to early 20's... which is most likely your demographic but far from the "casual" gamer demographic. Wake up!

You have no basis to even try to argue your paper thin case, I'd love for you to keep trying though as it gives me great pleasure to pick apart your fallacies and attempts. Next.

THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[rokzy]

please bear in mind that Nintendo is the only profitable game company of these 3. no "Nintendo is dying" claims please.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[RogueyWon]

For the most part, this is true.

I do get the feeling that Nintendo looked at the gaming world as the SNES neared the end of its lifespan and liked what they saw. Sega had put up a good fight, but they'd been beaten by a moderate margin in the "set top" console wars and been utterly vanquished in the handheld arena. Nintendo had a huge lineup of third party developers who, they thought, needed Nintendo more than Nintendo needed them. They had a huge installed base for their current system and the would-be successors to their crown, such as Atari (remember the Jaguar) were, quite frankly, hopeless. Therefore, they sat back and prepared to enjoy exploiting their monopoly.

In other words, they took their eye of the ball.

This is, I suspect, why so many people who actually harboured affection for Nintendo took such utter pleasure in watching Sony utterly cream them in the next round of the console battle. There's no denying that the real, crippling damage to Nintendo was done during the PS1/N64 generation, when it was shown that Nintendo just weren't dynamic enough to keep up with the competition.

However, the X-Box has also played an important role in Nintendo's current woes. Outside of Japan, the X-Box has proven the more popular "second console", among people who own multiple machines. It's soaked up a lot of spare consumer cash that would otherwise have gone to Nintendo in this way. Furthermore, MS have also managed to put Nintendo, in the eyes of most commentators in the mainstream media, out of the running in the next round of the console wars. Being starved of the oxygen of wider publicity is not going to help the Revolution's debut at all.

Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC

[PeelBoy]

Sure but Nintendo isn't any worse off now than they were when Sony whooped them with the Playstation so I honestly don't think the XBox made any kind of real impact.

People in the states just prefer a different kind of game than what Nintendo has to offer and Sony happens to have all of the 3rd party developers Nintendo use to have.

I'm willing to bet most of the people who switched to XBoxes were previously Playstation fans, not Nintendo fans. I didn't like the N64 OR the PS1 (I was much more into computer games at that time). I got the PS2 for GT3 and loved it. I got the XBox next because it had more multiplayer stuff and finally I got a GameCube and haven't looked back.

Most of my friends who are XBox fans were Playstaiton fans and PS2 fans first. Me and my bro were always the only Nintendo fans out of all of our friends.

(I was a huge nes, snes and sega fan in the day but when Wolf3d, doom, warcraft2 came out I quickly got into computer games)

Also what goes around comes around. Sony will get it handed to them one day just like Nintendo did.

Nintendo Article

[anza]

"And from the technical specs, Revolution is no Cell-beater - just as Nintendo had warned."

Strange, I don't remember Nintendo releasing any technical specs. The writer of this article is just pulling information out of his ass, and the article reflects this. He's another "Nintendo's next consoul is going to fl0p!!!11" because it doesn't appeal to the inner-city "hip" crowd that wants more games where they can shoot heroin and kill anything that moves. He never once mentions that due to the Revolutions price-point (which, by the precedent of other Nintendo consoles compared to it's Sony and Microsoft brethren, as well as Nintendo's own statements about it) will be significantly lower than the competitions. There's a bunch of parents out there that aren't going to buy a $300-400 game console, and they trust the Nintendo brand.

Just another Nintendo-naysayer with no idea what he's talking about.

Last Xbox...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a suspicion: The Xbox360 is going to be Microsoft's last console. Why? If the Xbox360 "performs" as "well" as the current Xbox (i.e. making billions of loss) they're going to leave the console market and concentrate on Windows gaming. And if the Xbox360 dominates the market they try to leverage this popularity to move more games onto Windows.
They have already started with XNA and Longhorn to bring a lot of their Xbox experience into the Windows platform. And in the end you hear Bill Gates speaking about placing the PC running Windows as the main entertainment platform - with windows media centre replacing stand-alone DVD, CD and TiVos. So where is the (incompatible!) Xbox going to fit? It is a trojan horse. See? Another dead fairy.

Hiding in the shadows

[clu76]

Right now, the main event is Sony Vs. Microsoft. The Xbox 360 will, eventually, support HD-DVD. The Playstation 3 will use Blu-Ray technology. Which ever HD technology gets adopted by the masses could make or break Microsoft's or Sony's video gaming initiative. And they are both spending a lot of money trying to out do each other in various ways.

Then there is Nintendo, hiding in the shadows, watching the two titans waste their hit points (and money) fighting each other. Nintendo could potentially give the fatal blow to the , with a low cost unit, and huge classic game library. They're taking a risk by not supporting HD. But probably a very calculated risk, as HD won't be fully adopted until the very end of this next generations life cycle. And they aren't betting the farm like the other two.

My guess is, if someone is going to fall this next round, it will be either Sony or Microsoft. IMHO.