Console War Just Sony's Side Quest

Next Generation is running two pieces today about Sony's upcoming console. In 'Console War a Side Quest for Sony?', they examine an analyst report suggesting that the company is more interested in winning the movie format war than in taking the lead on this generation of consoles. They also have a piece wherein some industry figures weigh in on the PS3. From that article: "The impact will be enormous. Digital distribution will allow for new ways to generate excitement for these games - from being able to purchase new game packs that extend the life of gameplay and purchasing cool new items that make your character and experience unique, to the emphasis the consoles will showcase linear programming much like an iPod or OnDemand service does. With something like Steam, the entire console channel is avoided, and suddenly the game developer is selling directly to a consumer. "

Comments

console war

[mikesd81]

I think it's not so much a side quest as it is that they think they've won when the PS3 is released.

Everything I've read about the PS3 makes it sound like a power house. Sony is claiming it's supposed to last double the time of the PS2 (5 years) so this console is meant to last 10 years. So that means that they won't release another console for 10 years. With that much confidence, they think they won the console war.

Re:console war

[mikeisme77]

They said the PS2 would last longer than the original PlayStation too... I remember reading it in some old copies of Next Generation (print magazine that doesn't exist any more). I'd have to dig up the old articles for an exact quote, but I definitely remember them saying that the current generation would last longer than the previous generation (I think they predicted 7-8 years, which it still will, but not as a primary console... it'll do the same thing as the original PS and be used by those who don't want to upgrade/used for younger children). However, they had competition and their competition upgraded, so they followed suit. If Sony had a monopoly in the conosole world (and if there wasn't this format war going on) then you better believe they wouldn't worry about moving on to the PS3 right now... But then same goes for Microsoft and their move to the 360... And same for Nintendo... But that's just why competition is good.

Re:console war

[badasscat]

Sony is claiming it's supposed to last double the time of the PS2 (5 years) so this console is meant to last 10 years.

The PS2 has already been on the market for six years and will likely remain on the market for some time after the PS3 is released (just as the PS1 was on the market for some time after the PS2 was released). The PS1 also lasted almost exactly ten years from its original launch date to the date production stopped.

I think that this whole "five year cycle" thing is a little confused to begin with. Most successful consoles last well beyond that artificial limit. The NES/Famicom was on the market from 1983-2003 - 20 years. The Intellivision was on the market for 11 years. The Atari 2600 was on the market for around 15 years. The PS1 lasted ten. I could go on and on.

In addition, it's very rare that all console manufacturers launch systems in the same year. For example, the Sega Genesis was released in 1989, with the SNES launching in 1991. The Atari 2600 launched in 1977, the Intellivision in 1980, the Coleco Vision in 1982 and the NES in 1985. Some of these systems then went on to stay on the market for years afterwards. Where are the "generational" lines there? Even nowadays, the Dreamcast launched in 1999, the PS2 launched in 2000 and the Xbox in 2001 - even as the PS1 stuck around. The Xbox 360 launched in 2005 and the PS3 and Wii will launch in 2006. So it's really hard to divide the timeline up into these five-year chunks. It's a much more organic industry than a lot of people seem to realize - consoles stay on the market for as long as they're profitable, whether that's two years or 20.

Where I think the five year cycle came from is hardcore gamers who may themselves only consider a system relevant as long as it's the latest and greatest thing. (It's also an unfortunate fact that a lot of systems popular with the hardcore crowd - like the Sega Saturn and Dreamcast - die early deaths.) But that's not the way the market or industry works as a whole. Hardcore gamers wouldn't have considered buying an Atari 2600 in 1990, but it was out there. Same with the PS1 in 2004.

And same, probably, with the PS2 in 2007 and the PS3 in 2015. I don't think Sony's out of bounds in making that sort of prediction. If Atari can take a console that was underpowered to begin with and sell it from 1977-1991 - through the crash of 1983-1984, no less - why can't Sony do something similar with the PS3?

First-mover Advantage??

[Anonymous Coward]

Any one using the phrase or concept of 'first-mover advantage' in discussing the console market has discredited themselves from having anything relevant to say on the subject.

The next gen console race is over. It has been over for months and months. Just like every other console market cycle. The battles are won and lost months to years before the actual hardware hits the shelves.

The 360 has sold a miserable 1.7 million consoles in its first six months on the market. That is the worst selling console since perhaps the 3DO a decade or so ago. The 360 is getting outsold by a wide margin by the six year old PS2 - and that was before Sony cut the price on the PS2. The 360 is completely dead in Japan. And the 360 is selling at half the rate of the US. The 360 is a walking corpse.

And Nintendo had a chance of selling N64 level numbers with the Revolution. In a week we will see if they pulled off the greatest marketing stunt in console history or simply committed marketplace suicide with a product named that brings to mind urine in English speaking countries.

Inane articles like the one referred to in the summary are almost cut and paste copies of Dreamcast/Pre-PS2 hitting the shelves era predictions. Don't worry, we only have another week to go and we won't have to read any more articles like these. The PS3 and Rev will be unveiled and reality will take over from journalistic fantasy.

The PS3 is in a vastly stronger, as incredible as that sounds, position than the PS2.

Re:First-mover Advantage??

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not too sure Sony has 'Won' the console war yet, there are certain events that can occur oustide of a companies control which can hurt/benefit them in the long run; right now the obvious one is the free fall of the american dollar.

A simple fact is that compared to foreign currencies the American dollar has droped to nearly 2/3 of its value (as compared to 2000); if this continues any longer Sony may have to sell the PS3 at $600-$700 to prevent themselves from losing too much money. Personally, I believe this is the main reason Nintendo and Sony are not telling you what their consoles will sell for in November; in 4 months the US dollar could lose 10%-20% more of its value which would have an impact on their systems price.

Remember that the only quarter Nintendo ever posted a loss it was caused because of fluctuations in the value of currencies; this dropping american dollar is a major concern to them.

Re:First-mover Advantage??

[jandrese]

What are you talking about? The Xbox 360 hasn't even been on the shelves 6 months, although it's close enough now that you can make pretty good guesses on what the 6 month figure will be. It's supposed to be around 5M units or so by the end of the fiscal year in June.

Re:I don't give a damn what anyone else says...

[colonslashslash]

Same here dude. I'm well aware of Sony's business practices, the giant marketing machine it is, and the recent rootkit fiasco, but lets face it - Microsoft and Nintendo are no saints either. That's how the corporate world is for the most part these days.

The Nintendo Revolution / Wii looks interesting, but at the price it's apparently going to enter the market at, I can afford both a PS3 and Nintendo's offering. Despite the usual marketing hype and various predicitions from market analysts, I still think the PS3 is shaping up to be pretty damn nice.

I've played the X360 a bit, I'm really not impressed, certainly not enough to even think about buying one. I think Microsoft has fallen flat on it's face in this round of the ongoing "console war".

Micropayments :/

[88NoSoup4U88]

What is with them raping the micropayments ?

Let me be clear: I think micropayments definitely have a future (on consoles, as well as on the Net), but the way they are doing it now ; by making incomplete games at first, and then releasing items/gameplay-variations for money, is imho a complete rip off.

It's funny how this comment,
- The impact will be enormous. Digital distribution will allow for new ways to generate excitement for these games - from being able to purchase new game packs that extend the life of gameplay and purchasing cool new items that make your character and experience unique -
is describing game-mods in its purest form: But no, they won't open up the Marketplaces for third party mods, as it would snoop away from their own (unimaginative at least) by-products: And people would actually notice that paying 2 dollars for some random model is complete bullshit.

When the pre-Xbox360 hype was going on, it was mentioned a few times how MS would like to interact with the community (eg. hinting on being able to sell/offer (custom playercreated) content on Live), but the only interaction that I've seen until now is one-sided: MS offers, 'we' buy.

They really should have a look at how Valve's model of great mod/tool support has lead to -alot- more sales of Half-Life, as well as HL2.

Re:Micropayments :/

[cgenman]

Micropayments and alternative transaction numbers have the possibility of really changing the way games are played. Imagine a version of DDR where the characters are dancing in licensed clothes. But the trade off is that as you play you acquire points that allow you to download other songs for free. You buy the game once, and you are supplied with a steady stream of content for the life of the system.

Or look at PC games that are given away for free, but which cost money for upgrades / etc. Imagine downloading the Tomb Raider demo, deciding you like it, and paying for an upgrade to the full version. Or maybe you just download a level at a time, and after three levels you get tired and give up. Or a free car racing game that you start out with a beat-up little beamer you can race, but upgrades to other cars cost money. You can completely exploit the First-hit-is-free style payment structure which ensures that more people play more games, are more satisfied, and not ironically pay more into their hobby. The MMPORPG I play has no monthly fee, no retail fee, but charges you for items. And if it weren't for the zero-commitment, I never would have tried it. Now I spend on average 20 dollars a month to play a game which you can subscribe to for 10, but with the control in my hands I'm loving every minute of it.

I do think "raping the microtransactions" is an apt metaphor, and certainly I've talked to some studio executives that I've wanted to strangle. "Imagine... people buy a 50 dollar game! Then they download armor and equipment for 2 dollars each! Then they subscribe to the in-game radio system! Then they give us blood, their bank account information, and their first-born child!" Not to sound too graphic, but that part is just the guys in marketing masterbating, and I like to think that the people who actually produce the games know that. But alternative funding methods can bring the overall barrier to entry to the end player down.

As far as I've seen Microsoft is still working on ways of getting user-created content into marketplace. But they're still making major fixes to their existing system (background downloading, anyone?). And so the process is going slower than it should.