When Consoles Lose, Everyone Wins

Ground Glass writes "Does the traditional knowledge that 'history is written by the winners' hold true with consoles? Perhaps, but there's more to it than that. Sometimes, systems that fail do so because their most salient concept was one no one was ready for - these provide future 'innovations'. Sometimes their loudest message was one only a niche group would ever want to listen to - they provide much needed perspective. In an early medium, the failures are the ones questioning what a game should be. It's no wonder the winners keep writing their ideas back in."

Comments

Everything Evolves

[Real World Stuff]

The value to any one person is based on perception. If you perceive worth, then it is valuable.

Dreamcast

[Durrok]

What a great console. First to have online gameplay (for all 4-5 games that had it) and it was night vs day compared to the PS1. Too bad piracy, Sega pissing off EA, and a multitude of other problems caused it's downfall. It served it's purpose and paved the way for what we have today but think about what the world might be like if Sega was still in the console business...

Re:Dreamcast

[MightyPez]

First to have online gameplay

Perhaps as a first party feature, but online gaming was available during the SNES/Genesis era. Xband was released in the US in 1994.

Re:Dreamcast

[Mistshadow2k4]

Yes, I'm sure piracy was a HUGE factor, just like it was in bringing down the recording industry when cassettes became standard and everyone could copy songs freely. I'm so sick of people immeditately blaming piracy for the downfall of this or that product just because it's become fashionable with the RIAA and the MPAA -- there's no evidence that piracy has truly ever hurt any market. I think if it did MS wouldn't be a powerful corporation because Windows was pirated a great deal even before 3.1 days and their target market was much smaller. So consider that: if piracy hurts businesses so much, how did Microsoft survive when Windows and Office were pirated so much and their target market was much, much smaller in those days?

From what I've heard over the years one of the problems the Dreamcast had is that it was made by Sega, and developing games for it was too costly because they got too greedy. I don't know for sure because I wasn't there but I've heard it too many times from different sources to just ignore it. Sucks, because I wanted one. I wish it hadn't been like that because I think console tech would be at a higher level now than it is, but of course, this is a matter of speculation.

Re:Dreamcast

[c_forq]

There is a huge differnace wtih software piracy vs. music piracy. With bigger bands they receive royalties from radio play and all bands make money playing shows. With software/games you have only the sale. That is it.

Re:Dreamcast

[Abcd1234]

I seem to recall Dreamcast did not require a modchip to play pirated games. You only needed a special boot disk of some kind which makes pirating way easier.

Oh, no no, it wasn't that hard. All you have to do is burn a CD. That's all. Granted, the format is *slightly* unusual, but you can burn a working DC disc using cdrecord quite easily. This is one of the reasons why it's such a fantastic homebrew platform (I picked up a used one just for that reason).

However, the DC also supported a weird hybrid CD which had a low density component and a high density component. These can't be burned using regular CD burners, AFAIK. OTOH, most games could be fit on a single regular CD.

Re:Dreamcast

[Lord Kano]

I don't live everywhere. I'm only talking about the places that matter.

LK

Re:Dreamcast

[Duds]

Well let's look at Wii, Super Mario eleventy billion, Zelda - now he's even more gay, Pokemon shopping mall, Kirby goes to the park.

And PS3. Gran Turismo 5 - The AI still sucks, Metal Gear Movie 56, now with 3 minutes of actual game, Generic FPS everyone wets themselves over 105, hillarious gore instead of gameplay 12, Rainbow 6 "6".

Wow, that was boring.

(Note - I don't believe any of this. Just illustrating how stupid the parent post really is)

On Nintendo's side...

[RyoShin]

Perhaps, but there's more to it than that. Sometimes, systems that fail do so because their most salient concept was one no one was ready for - these provide future 'innovations'.

So we'll see the Virtual Boy again!

Re:On Nintendo's side...

[EnsilZah]

Screw the Virtual Boy.
I want a PipBoy 2000.

Re:On Nintendo's side...

[Ryan Amos]

Well, the biggest problem with the virtual boy was the headache you got even after short periods of play. That's going to be a symptom of any oscillating mirror technology. I do have to say, it was a fully immersive experience which hasn't been duplicated again though. The other big problem was it was marketed as a portable system, and the games were essentially portable games, but it was a decidedly non-portable system.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

In an early medium, the failures are the ones questioning what a game should be. It's no wonder the winners keep writing their ideas back in.

Was this submitted by Nietzsche?

Re:What?

[WilliamSChips]

Nietzsche is God.
--The Dead

Just goes to show...

[Anonymous Coward]

That zonk's bias isn't towards the 360, but rather consoles. I don't mind his stories, and neither do most people. The ps3 fanbois just cry a lot because it's all bad news about their consoles. They never stopped to consider that it's simply because there's no _good_ news about their infamous ps3.

The purpose of underdogs?

[Red Flayer]

The big problem I have with the TFA is that it states that the purpose of niche products is to drive innovation among the market leaders. From a whole-market perspective, that may be the role they end up fulfilling, but that is not their purpose at all... their purpose is to make money for their producers. Failure to enter the market strongly is still failure.

In any established industry (as the videogame industry has become) there are market leaders with enough 'mindshare', and enough resources, to adapt innovations for their next release. As large companies, and given the nature of consoles, they are not likely to take a big risk with a major release (as stated in the article). Other, small, companies take those risks, and the next generation of major consoles will incorporate some of those innovations. This is just like a lot of industries -- look at the airline industry and how most of the large airlines now have regional affiliates modeled on JetBlue's pricing and service.

What's important to note, though, is that the Wii (which, in the end, is the focus of the article) doesn't fit the bill as well as the author would like. Nintendo is not a new, small company taking a risk by innovating. Nintendo is a former giant that that still commands a loyal following, yet is now more agile than its main competitors. What Nintendo has recognized is that there is no room for three 'major' consoles. So instead they opt to compete at a different level.

Not to knock on the Wii, but it really reminds me of Go-Bots... transformers for people who don't want to spend as much cash. The differences are that they have a following that will continue to love them despite the inferiority of their machine, they have a gimmick to promote interest in the new console (the controller), and the game franchise history they've established will sell consoles and games.

In the end, I think the Wii will be successful -- not because of any innovation, but because of pricing and because Nintendo will stick with the tried-and-true focus on games for kids.

Re:The purpose of underdogs?

[soft_guy]

I tend to disagree a bit with you. I think Nintendo is doing the right thing with the Wii - trying to make a cool console that will appeal to someone.

It seems to me that with the PS3, Sony is making an assumption that they will be the market leader and then building a console around the question "How can we cash in and also gain leverage into other areas of business with our console that we assume will be #1?"

I think Sony's approach with the PS3 takes their eyes off the prize. Since they already had market domination with the PS2, they started to look elsewhere instead of trying to figure out how to hang onto their dominance. Because of this, I think it is likely that the PS3 will not be the #1 console.

Re:The purpose of underdogs?

[Red Flayer]

Well, two issues there. The first is Nintendo making a cool console that has appeal. That's the gimmick that I mention. I don't think Nintendo is really trying to change the industry (thoug hI'm sure they wouldn't mind) -- I think they are trying to define a space for themselves. I happen to think they'll succeed. I personally will buy a Wii, not because I think it will be the best console, but because it's cheaper and it's a game console, not a media center. True-to-form for the industry.

This brings me to your second point, which I think is very valid -- Sony and MS have chosen to focus on too much more than games. If anything, Nintendo's innovation here is that they are returning to the roots of consoles -- providing a way for people to have fun playing video games.

Maybe feature bloat is killing the big consoles.

Re:The purpose of underdogs?

[digitrev]

I think they are trying to define a space for themselves.

It's true. All Nintendo wants to do is ensure that they don't go out of business. They realize that they don't have the resources that MS and Sony have to throw around in research and development. Since both of those will probably out power (statistically) anything Nintendo can through, they're taking the third road, not compete. By flat out removing themselves from the competition, they stay alive. They're attempting to cater to a different brand of gamers, the "casual", and the "classic". With the innovations, they're going to get people who are otherwise afraid of the scary controllers of the Cube, Box, and PS2. And by bringing in the backwards compatibility, they're keeping the die-hard gamers who want their Super Mario Bros. 3. And of course there's the sales they'll get just by being Nintendo. They're not trying to be different, they have to be different.

Re:The purpose of underdogs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly agree, but the issue I have is when people base a console solely be its processing power (Re: "despite the inferiority of their machine"). The general public has been duped into believing that more polygons=better system.

It's not hardware alone that makes a gaming console. I would say that the games themselves play a bigger role in my purchasing decision. Blue-Ray, HDD's, and all that fancy jazz are, at least in my opinion, just filler attempting to make up for inferior games.

Nintendo will probably stick around solely for the ability to make good, and more importantly, fun games. Throw in the curiosity factor with the (oi...the name makes me cringe) WiiMote, and you have a company that's going to be a big player this round.

Re:The purpose of underdogs?

[ukyoCE]

I definitely understand where you're coming from, but this just isn't the case anymore. In fact, I'd say it hasn't been for several generations. I can't think of a single console since we made it to 32-bit that has had processing power be a make-or-break issue. If the processor is a little slower, they take out a few polygons, and things might look a *little* less sharp, but really, who cares? The game is still there, it still does everything it should, and as others have pointed out, it's still *fun*.

This is obviously what Nintendo is banking on with the Wii. They can run anything the xbox360 or ps3 can, and probably at a level of detail where consumers can't even tell the difference, especially not on most people's little 25" tube tvs.

The things that make or break consoles, and are intimately tied together, are:
1) ease of development
2) third party support
3) fun games
4) price

The Saturn and Nintendo64 both failed due to #1 and #4, which both led to a failure in #2. The only reason either console "survived" is due to great first party games. However without the 3rd party support, they went on to have problems with their next consoles, the Dreamcast and Gamecube, despite the consoles having entirely adequate processing power and much better developer support.

The Wii looks ready to dominate in all four categories. Processing power hasn't mattered in a long time, and will do nothing for the xbox360 or ps3 if they're missing those 4 things that are actually important.

The PS3 in particular looks ready to fail in all of these categories. It sounds like they've got really crazy and bad hardware, that will be extremely difficult to take advantage of. They've got a ridiculous price, which will make it very hard to gain any market share. Because of those reasons, they will have a lot of trouble getting third party games, and thus will be stuck much like the Saturn and Nintendo64, relying almost entirely on first party games and exclusives to sell the console.

Nintendo will need to do something really stupid to screw up their shot at the title this generation.

the future

[spykemail]

Nintendo and Microsoft aren't really taking any risk, Sony is. Microsoft has lost so much money on their console business that throwing the XBOX 360 out there as quickly as possible made sense - it gave them all of the customers who didn't want to wait for Nintendo and Sony. Nintendo is releasing by far the cheapest machine that, except for the controller, is full of very solid technology. Very little risk there since the controller is a great gimmick and they can always change and they will always have their own games to rely on.

Sony, on other hand, doesn't even want to admit its box is "a mere console" and it is completely full of expensive new technology that gives it a huge price tag. Worse, it's hard to develop for and its price tag has to be making developers nervous. This probably means more expensive games for a more expensive console.

Sony and Microsoft seem to want to turn the console industry into something else while Nintendo is very happy making boatloads of money doing what it knows best. I don't know about you guys, but I am not in the market for a media center or another PC. Personally, I think the concept of a media center is some sort of corporate attempt to make me pay for a bunch of crap I don't need and won't use. And I definitely do not need another PC, especially one made by Microsoft. If I wanted to play PC games I'd play them on the several thousand dollar computer I already have, not a few hundred dollar console.

Here's my question: if the PS3 flops where will Sony's followers turn? Microsoft? Nintendo? Or will they abandon consoles entirely? I'd like to say they will turn to Nintendo, but I'm not so sure. I'm certain the Wii will do well, but I seriously doubt it can steal Sony's market share back. My fear is that certain developers will turn to developing solely on the XBOX and Nintendo / games / console will become the next Apple / OS X / Mac situation.

Of course, the PS3 is not here so this is all theoretical. Only time will tell if Sony's big investment will pay off, but if it fails I sincerely hope Microsoft does not get put in a position to dominate the console industry the same way it has dominated the OS industry or non-PC games are doomed.

Waitaminute...

[thatguywhoiam]

So if the article's premise is correct, and the failures are the most interesting consoles to have... and the mainstream ones are the least interesting...

I guess I'm getting a PS3 after all!
(ducks)

BTW, this comment from the article: 'Who would have ever thought that Mattel's unlikely Power Glove would become a prototype for Nintendo's primary controller?'

Um... everybody? I sure did. It was a freaking VR glove! I swooned when I saw that thing! Like the Wii Remote.... er. oh. hm.

Amigas?

[stnf]

Though by popular definition you might well call them failures, without your Sega Saturns, your Atari Jaguars, your Amigas and GameCubes and NeoGeo Pocket Colors, the industry would be an autocracy, governed by a single dictate - indeed, one of limited perspective and shallow, if broad, concern for growth.

Surely not the Amiga 500? Maybe I'm biased as I'm european though =)