Slashdot Mirror
The 13 Steps to Sony's Demise
An anonymous reader writes "There's an article up over at About.com called, "Nintendo's Role in Sony's Fall." The article discusses a detailed sequence of events, a time-line, that might play out over the next year or two as Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo battle it out. It references the launch of the Xbox 360, Halo 3, the PS3, and the Revolution strategy, as well as Sony's troubles with employee layoffs in 2008 and the PSP. Right or wrong? Who knows, but it's well informed and after 13 steps, the game plays out like this: Microsoft punches, Nintendo dodges, and Sony ends up with a bloody nose."
Yet more speculative wish-listing from beligerent Nintendo fans. Funny how slashdot always seems to find so much space for the "omg Sony is doomed Nintendo roxor" school of thought.
Sony are in a bad place at this very moment. This is undeniable. Furthermore, this is mainly due to an act of utterly reprehensible greed and stupidity on their part. However, this *will* blow over. A year from now, the public will have completely forgotten that the current DRM issue ever existed.
What people tend to forget when discussing the next generation isn't what's going to change - it's what's going to stay the same. Ultimately, Sony are going into the next round of the console wars with the exact same strengths that gave them such an overwhelming victory during the PS2 era. These include:
- Vast array of third party titles, covering every genre and aimed at every demographic.
- Huge brand recognition with people who don't consider themselves to be gamers, but still like to keep a console around.
- Exclusivity, or early-release deals for the most significant franchises in gaming, including (but not limited to) Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto.
At the same time, Nintendo have not demonstrated that they're prepared to address any of the issues that have rendered the Gamecube so irrelevant over the second half of the current cycle. These include:
- Inability to deliver the quantity of first and second party titles they need to keep gamers interested.
- A dictatorial attitude towards third party developers that serves to keep some of the most important away from the system.
- Very few games which appeal outside of the pre-teen or retro-gamer demographics.
- Serious under-representation in many genres, particularly driving games and RPGs.
All the fancy new controllers in the world aren't going to make the slightest bit of difference to the sales figures until Sony throw away their advantages or Nintendo overcome their disadvantages.
My own predictions as to what will happen? The 360 will make a relatively strong performance, especially with having a Christmas to itself. It won't beat the PS3. It won't even come particularly close. But I think that having a Christmas all to itself and (hopefully) a better RPG presence than the original X-Box will work in its favour. I can see it eventually selling, say, 75 units for every 100 PS3s sold, which would be better for MS than the picture at the end of this round, even if they did manage to take 2nd place in the final straight. The Revolution's only going to continue the slow downward trend out of the mainstream and into niche obscurity that Nintendo have been on for a decade now.
Unfortunately, it will be relatively easy for MS/Sony to match the revolution's features by releasing a motion-sensitive controller
Which would be about as effective as Sony releasing a harddrive for the PS2 to counter the xbox's built in harddrive. How many games support Sony's harddrive? One?
No FPS maker is going to support sony or ms's add-on motion sensitive controller because not everyone will have it.
Just like the eye-toy.. you'll get the game that's bundled with it, and that's it.
A further scenario that isn't mentioned is the relative health of MS. The article mentions that Sony may have problems resulting from its diversification, in that other divisions are currently (and may in the future) draining from Sony's overall financial health. It does not mention, but it should be said, that the same is true of MS. For the most part, MS makes money from Windows and Office, and runs pretty significant losses in other areas. MS has shareholders who may not support continued revenue loss, and despite popular opinion, MS has backed away from certain markets in the past (television being one example).
Also, MS is fighting battles on many fronts, and so it may be vulnerable to the kind of problems that the diverse Sony has as well. The popular mythos is that MS simply outlasts competitors in all areas by relying on its war chest, but if it is stretched too thin in other areas, the 360 may suffer. Think, for example, of the challenge Google and Linux represent to MS as a company. It would seem that MS's first priorities would be to the protection of its valuable assets rather than currently unprofitable ones on the speculation that they will lead to future gains.
MS also has certain (though not very severe) limitations on its flexability due to its monopoly conviction. It is possible that divisions of MS, including the entertainment section, could spin off to avoid these complications, but the resulting company or companies would not have the consolidated MS's resources.
In all of this, it should be noted that Nintendo focuses pretty tightly on one industry, and this may make them more nimble than MS or Sony. Diversification may end up being something of a liability, depending upon how other divisions perform.
Personally, I hope Sony and MS bleed each other dry a bit; having choice in consoles and games is generally a good thing (although in this era of ports it seems to be less of a factor), but both MS and Sony don't need to cement their oligopolic positions even further. That would be detrimental for everyone except them in the long run.