Slashdot Mirror
Nolan Bushnell Disappointed With PS3
An anonymous reader writes "Atari founder Nolan Bushnell points out that PS and PS2 got lucky with their release, 'It wasn't anything brilliant that they did. With the PS and PS2 it was timing. They had the right pricing at the right time [and were] almost the accidental winner.' But he sees things differently this time around. 'It would not surprise me if a year from now they'll be struggling to sell 1 million units.'" I find that kind of hard to believe, but he raises some more salient points in the other parts of the article.
They have almost half of that sold in pre-orders/campers already...
Is this guy like the Dvorak of video games or something?
FanFictionRecs.net
Oh? Where would that be? I seem to remember that the Atari 2600 was anything but a huge failure.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Bushnell left Atari in 1978. Methinks he didn't have anything to do with the Jaguar, 5200, or E.T.
Doesn't anyone pay attention to history?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
ET was a console? What planet are you from?
Haida Manga
I'd have to agree that Atari has failed enugh times he's probably very capbable at telling what will NOT suceed. However, the name brand "PlayStation" is still very strong and will probably keep it going.
He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
I'd be more enclined to beleive a guy who WANTED to do consoles, than a marketing/PR department who doesn't give a flying fkuc about the console and only cares about the paycheck. And the statistics.
This is my opinion. Everyone has a right to my opinion.
Doesn't anyone pay attention to history?
Note that I didn't say he had many failures, I said that the company he founded did. Atari basically had one major success, the 2600. Bushnell, as a person, seems to have had two. The first part of Atari's life, and Chuck E. Cheese's. His other things seem to be failures as well. And the 2600 was definitely an instance of nothing but good timing. As his first computer game box (Computer Space) was considered a commercial failure because it was too far ahead of its time.
Actually, from a business perspective, he was quite successful. He sold Atari to Warner Brothers. He wasn't around when Atari was burying E.T. game cartridges into a landfill.
In real [2006] dollars, most of the consoles that have ever existed cost more than $300, save for maybe the N64.
"I think the ps3 will do fine, its going be a good system, the others out there are just too, well "uncool" the Wii is well just lame, the Xbox360 is from M$ nuff said, Thats just my view tho" I really don't want to start a flame war, but dude get off the $ony fan boy suff, like it or not the guy is right, everything sony is doing is pushing away everyone but the hard core gamer. Seriously its not like people have millions of dollars to go and buy every video game thing for themselves or their kids, like it or not $ony is gonna take a big hit this time around with everyone. The PS2 and PS1 sold because they were what like 300 at first and now are barely over 150, which is relativly cheap, but unless they live in Beverly Hills or something, I doubt most kids see a PS3 under the christmas tree this year or even next, untly $ony decides to take a huge hit, which would probably bankrupt them and drop it the the same price as the Xbox360. Just my $.02
Thank you!!
Jesus H. Christ, Slashdotters are driving me nuts on this one. "His company had failure ehe he stupid me smart him not know so much pblblblbl".
In Atari's early days, when Bushnell actually WAS there, they were a staple of the technology industry as a whole. Heck, Steve Wozniak got his start there (and his education, as much as he ever had one. the man seems to have just been born brilliant), and anyone who knows much about Apple knows the name Wozniak.
Also, Id like to point out from the article:
In short, I dont care if he HAD still been in Atari when the Jaguar and other failures happened, the man is more accomplished that Id say easily 95% of the people here at slashdot, and did more for the technology industry than most of us will probably ever be able to claim. When he speaks out, even if he's not entirely correct (which I have no problem conceding to), he deserves more fscking respect than this.
"And the 2600 was definitely an instance of nothing but good timing"
As a former 2600 game programmer I disagree. It was the brilliant low-cost, deeply flexible design of the 2600 that kept it dominant when there were plenty of competitors around.
IIRC my xbox was ~190 or something in around 2003 [I know it was less than 200]. My DS was 120$.
The SNES was 400 when it first came out but quickly dropped down over a few years.
The xbox360 is way too expensive as it is, the PS3 costing more just makes things worse.
I'd gladly do without either to know I'm not shelling out tons of money for a platform I can't legitimately hack.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"That said, I don't really care what some random asshat says about a yet-to-be-released console. What? Will slashdot start posting articles about my opinions?"
/.
:-)
You know, that's pretty funny, given the usual content of
But it would help if you put your opinion on a blog first
"Wii is well just lame"
"Xbox360 is from M$ nuff said"
Can you please expand on your thoughts? I don't see how the Wii would be considered 'just lame' or how the 360 suffers the horrible affliction of having one of the world's most successful companies behind it.
You sound like a Sony fanboi, but seriously, I do want to know if you can justify your feelings on the matter, or if it's just blind devotion.
Hmm, If I remember correctly the Atari 400/800/XL/XE/ST/etc computers sold OK... (And yes, he didn't have much to do with a lot of these, but the company did.)
I agree with the upper poster there and I'm not fanboi of any company. I don't like Microsoft, but Sony hasn't been impressing me either. I'd love to go get a Nintendo, but graphically, the Xbox 360 and the PS3 are doing to kill that Wii thing. I don't use consoles for movie players, so I could care less about the blu ray or the HDDVD aspect of things. That's why I'm actually leaning more towards an Xbox 360, but it's Microsoft and I hate them. I already own:
NES
Super Nintendo
Playstation
Playstation 2
Xbox
So, once one of the two major competitors, ie Sony or M$, come down in price, I'll consider buying one. But more than likely it will be the PS3 since I'm guessing again that it will have a wider game selection and again, I won't be helping Microsoft.
The SNES was 200 when it first came out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNES
one of the main resons i like sonys consoles is the fact that they make is easy to make games for it, if you look, the ps2 (rigth next to the NES) has had the most games ever made for it, the Wii, well the controller is well, odd i dont like it, too weird, and the xbox360 just doesnt suite my taste in the games that are made for it,
That's exactly what Sony thinks - they've actually said that a significant number of people will buy the console just because it's a Playstation, no matter how good or bad it is.
That's the same kind of hubris that a certain administration had a few days ago. See where that got them?
That said, I don't really care what some random asshat says about a yet-to-be-released console. What? Will slashdot start posting articles about my opinions?
Nolan Bushnell is not "some random asshat". He is the founder of Atari, the most venerable game company in the world, and knows (from both sweet and bitter experience) what can make a console succeed or fail.
And if you by some miracle eventually gain that kind of stature in the video game developer community, I'm sure that slashdot will gladly post an article about your opinions.
2006 dollars are the least real dollars since the civil war ended. Inflation has outstripped the minimum wage for like two decades now. The only metric that makes sense to use even given all that is the value of the dollar at the time of sale - which is why we use the MSRP. By THAT metric, no console over $300 has been successful since the first generation or so. Think about it: Neo-Geo, TG16 with the CD addon, Jaguar with the CD addon, Sega Saturn, 3DO, CDi. All over $300, all flops. (N64 was $199, by the way.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, he's the guy who founded Atari, and single-handedly created the Video Game industry.
Depends, did you invent the Video Game Industry? No? Then STFU.
Busnell was responsible for Atari's early arcade games, their Pong machines, and the Atari 2600. Save for the poor showing of the Space War arcade game, none of those were abject failures.
Bushnell left Atari in 1978, partly because of a disagreement over the 5200 strategy. Warner wanted to branch out into computers (the Atari 400/800) while Bushnell wanted to keep the 8-bit technology for the next game console. Warner effectively pushed him out of the company, at which point he went on to dedicate his energies to the highly successful Pizza Time restaurant. (Known today as "Chuck E. Cheeses".)
Warner continued with their 8-bit computer plans, while developing new technology for the next console. Unfortunately, the technology for the next console failed to work out, causing Atari to repackage an 8-Bit computer as a game console. (The 5200.) At that point, however, the 5200 was late to the market, overbuilt for being a game console, and had these poor analog controllers which failed within hours of use. It was absolutely nothing like the original vision for the console, and failed from a combination of consumer pushback and Atari's own failure to support it.
E.T. was a rush job to get an E.T. licensed game out for Christmas 1982. That was another Warner/Atari failure. The video game crash caused the company to be sold to Jack Tramiel (of Commodore fame) who gutted the company. Tramiel's legacy was the poorly supported Atari 7800, the Atari Lynx, and the Atari Jaguar.
*sigh*
Bushnell Leaves Atari: 1978
Atari Releases 5200: 1982
Warner sells Atari: 1984
Jaguar Released: 1993
Hallelujah! Someone who actually got it right!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
> Oh? Where would that be? I seem to remember that the Atari 2600 was anything but a huge failure.
And what was the PS2?
Most of the interview wasn't about the PS3 anyway. Zonked again!
Really, it's Zonk that actually has me rooting for the PS3 to be a roaring success, just so I can shove the fact into his smug pimply face.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Sorry, dude. I hate to do this to someone who's friended me, but you really need to bite your tongue on this one. Especially since this was already discussed. :(
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'd rather use consoles to play games, thanks. And with the Wii coming up, it might even beat the old keyboard+mouse combo for some games. As for "PC games", well, there's the Xbox 360.
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
>And buying a more expensive PC simply to play games on it is better how? Not to mention all the usual Windows problems that goes with it? Service Pack 2 or not, there's always new holes being discovered and you'll never been 100% safe (or, in the case of Windows, even 50% safe I guess). Very few people buy a PC "simply to play games on." In fact, almost every household that has a recent game console also has a PC. So it's not so much a matter of buying a PC or a game console. It's a matter of buying a game console in addition to your PC, or saving your money and just playing games on what you already have. And yes, for most people the cheap wimpy computer they use to do their email and web-browsing is also good enough to play the games they want to play. And regardless, when you upgrade your PC and spend more money on it, you get just that many more functions that a console can't do. >I'd rather use consoles to play games, thanks. And with the Wii coming up, it might even beat the old keyboard+mouse combo for some games. As for "PC games", well, there's the Xbox 360. That's great. For some games, I'd rather play them on a console too. And I'm really excited about the Wii. But consoles are not a replacement for PCs, and no console controller will ever beat a keyboard+mouse for games that keyboard+mouse have always been better at. They might come close for FPS games, but that's still a ways off. For RTS games, not a chance. The huge amount of keys and keyboard shortcuts used by good RTS players completely excludes console controllers from ever coming close to being as useful. And why play stripped-down versions of PC games on a console when you can play the real version?
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Best known for founding .... the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant chain -- which brought kids, pizza and video games together...
... In fact, why haven't any of the online services done this already?
Maybe he could pair up with Sony's On-line Service to make a pizza ordering service you can use while you're playing?
You'll have to explain what you mean by 'make games'. Fact is, the PS2 was not 'easy' to develop for. It was more difficult to develop for than the GameCube, due to it's hardware (also, why the PS2 was 'more powerful'). The GameCube's simpler (and less powerful in some regards) hardware also made it easier and faster to develop on. The XBox was "easier" as well as it used DirectX which was already being used by lots of programmers for computer games.
Otherwise, I think that the licensing fees where pretty comparable for both systems, but I cannot recall ever reading an article that made developing games easier for the GameCube/PS2 due to company licenses. I do recall reading that Nintendo lost a large 3rd party support with it's NES due to their Monopolistic license fees, which carried over the SNES (as well as it's late release) and caused plenty of people to jump ship to Sony when they released their PSOne and had very relaxed fees. That was the foundation for the whole PlayStation empire.
Just the number of games a console has, is not a very strong indication of how easy it is to develop for. In fact, the reason Sony has so many games is simply because it has the largest market share. It's the same phenomenon that the NES had in it's day. The NES had tons of crappy games with a few real winners, much like the PS2. Of course, that's an overly simplistic view, as I'm sure there are a lot more market factors, but for the most part, this would be the biggest reason.
Of course, once a system gets so many people working on it, soon code gets shared and libraries get built that make it easier to take advantage of the hardware. It's one of the reasons why game engines such as Unreal get sold to other developers. They did the 'hard' part already, so the development teams can focus on other things.
Cheers,
Fozzy
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
Even with the invective. Spot on.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Ugh... when will /. catch up with 1999 and give us an effing EDIT button?
>And buying a more expensive PC simply to play games on it is better how? Not to mention all the usual Windows problems that goes with it? Service Pack 2 or not, there's always new holes being discovered and you'll never been 100% safe (or, in the case of Windows, even 50% safe I guess).
Very few people buy a PC "simply to play games on." In fact, almost every household that has a recent game console also has a PC. So it's not so much a matter of buying a PC or a game console. It's a matter of buying a game console in addition to your PC, or saving your money and just playing games on what you already have. And yes, for most people the cheap wimpy computer they use to do their email and web-browsing is also good enough to play the games they want to play. And regardless, when you upgrade your PC and spend more money on it, you get just that many more functions that a console can't do.
>I'd rather use consoles to play games, thanks. And with the Wii coming up, it might even beat the old keyboard+mouse combo for some games. As for "PC games", well, there's the Xbox 360.
That's great. For some games, I'd rather play them on a console too. And I'm really excited about the Wii. But consoles are not a replacement for PCs, and no console controller will ever beat a keyboard+mouse for games that keyboard+mouse have always been better at. They might come close for FPS games, but that's still a ways off. For RTS games, not a chance. The huge amount of keys and keyboard shortcuts used by good RTS players completely excludes console controllers from ever coming close to being as useful. And why play stripped-down versions of PC games on a console when you can play the real version?
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
I find that kind of hard to believe, but he raises some more salient points in the other parts of the article. No he doesn't. Not about the PS3 at least, which is the ostensible topic which the submitter claims gets more treatment in the article. This submission is based on his answers to the LAST TWO questions, the only questions about anything but Bushnell's new gamer bistros. WTF, this isn't a submission, it's agit-prop.
However, the name brand "PlayStation" is still very strong and will probably keep it going. That's what Atari used to think. And Nintendo. Both had what seemed to be an unbeatable combination of market share and brand recognition...until they bought into their own perceived invulnerability and started making bad decisions. Sound familiar?
Actually, it's more than just the N64.
Atari 7800
SNES
Dreamcast
Gamecube
I'd say it was more of a majority of them were more than $300 in today's dollars.
Of worthy note is that the Genesis ALMOST makes it into that club (~$306) and the
PSX is bumped out of it by $48 in today's values...
Right now, Sony's making the NeoGeo play (In terms of the then dollars, it was about
the same price and had a vast leg-up over the other consoles in terms of power and
display capabilities, etc...)- and we all know how well that worked for SNK;
while they stayed afloat, it was more due to the Arcade unit sales than the
console ones...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I don't know where people get this idea from (you're not the first one to say it), but it's much harder to write for Sony's and Nintendo's consoles than for Microsoft's. Even the president of Sony was spinning "if it's easy it's not next-gen" (paraphrased, I can't find the link) to try to justify this.
I can't go into details without breaking NDAs, but the reality is the exact opposite of what you're saying.
gcc: no input sig
Way to buy American there. All we need, more of our money flowing out of this country.
i am kinda anti-mircosoft / pro-liunx guy
Not to mention, I used to spend $500-$300 on JUST upgrading my graphics card .. every other year ..
A decent gaming PC will run you $2500 minimum, maybe less if you can swap the mobo, have decent RAM already, and you monitor isn't a junker. A high-end gaming system is upwards of $4000 out of the box.
OR .. I could spend $400 on my 360, $1700 on a 42-Inch HDTV (with a VGA input for my computer), and have a machine that I never have to fiddle with drivers or rebooting to do anything, and there's that whole video-on-demand and HD-DVD for another $200 on Friday ..
Yea .. it's not worth getting at all. Granted, it's a 'toy' .. but now I can watch the shows I capture to my Media PC on my home theatre through a Cat-5 .. (used to have a DTS encoder, DVI-HDMI, wireless keyboard + mouse, 25' USB cable/hub, all hooked up to my 6-fan PC under the entertainment center), play awesome games (I never got Farcry to work with my graphics card, and Quake 3 looks fantastic) @ 720p/1080i x 42" .. and downloadable TV shows/HD movies by the end of the month .. probably one of the best investments in 'Toys' I've ever made.
Not to mention that the visualization tool + my 50GB MP3 library is a fantastic DJ for parties. Oh yea .. 'just a toy' .. forgot.
That's two more billion dollar successes than you've had, I wouldn't brush it off so lightly. Most business ventures fail. Very rarely is a runaway success that entrepeneur's first project (if it was it was probably a fluke), and once they do get a success their "next big thing" doesn't usually pan out either.
Dismissing the man because he's "only" had two success is completely ignoring the realities of being an entrepeneur. People who are successful are persistent, and they are optimistic. They don't let a failure stop them. They learn from it and move on the next project.
As a former 2600 game programmer I disagree.
Wow, you guys are still around? What was it like carving circuit boards out of sandstone?
Ahhh I'm just kidding, actually I was part of the Atari generation too...
Excuse me, but teenage slash-dorks aside, can anyone really tell me they'd put a black chip on ol' Nolan's foresight here?
;)
Reading the Wiki someone referred me to, it seems that he's had more success in food service software. Almost nothing I find here game-wise seems creatively challenging or notably popular. Name that Tune? Can I get a witness on this?
Speaking as a casual geek, Nolan comments do seem a little out of touch, as can be expected with mostly managing a pizza restaurant with Skee-Ball since selling a failing toy company.
His new restaurant wants to lure in gamers by making this obliquely "hip" cafe wall to wall terminals with what his comments allure to being 'simple' games. I can't remember the last time the promise of Tetris sold me a chicken sandwich. I'm pushing 30. Arcades are kiddy-bait, or haven't you been to a Dave and Busters, forgotten it was 'bring the sprouts Friday' and left immediately?
Finally, completely aside, uWink's website implies that you'll order food through a machine at your table. This concept has proven a nearly universal failure for a chain.
In other news Uwe Boll said that the Halo movie would probably fail. (True) Consider the weight of that opinion, (remembering that he's referring to box-office sales.
From reading the article, Bushnell is forecasting that Sony will not do well with the PS3. He's not dissing the machine itself, he's dissing Sony's marketing scheme and price point. No mention of him being "disappointed" by the PS3 at all.
Julie Moult is an idiot.
What actually matters is that in "real 2006 dollars", all of the PS3's competitors are significantly cheaper. It's irrelevent what a loaf of bread sold for in China 50 years ago. If someone sees 3 consoles that do the exact same thing, and one costs hundreds of dollars more than the others, you're expending a metric shit-ton of "real 2006 brand loyalty" trying to bridge that gap.
I find it particularly funny/ironic when people say they buy Sony products over Microsoft, because they hate Microsoft as a company. Now last time I looked, Sony wasn't a bunch of saints. They are an enormous company, and as i understand they have done pretty much all the same crap that Microsoft has... probably to a greater extent. Sony is not a happy little company whos sole purpose is to make toys for people to enjoy. They are out to get your money, in any way possible. And apparently they are doing an even better job of tricking consumers into giving it to them than Microsoft.
My hand touched her hand. Her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I got some boob! Algebra is awesome!
Are you kidding me? There isn't anything left in this country that is truly made in the USA. Where do you think Microsoft employs these whiz bang engineers and programmers who write the code and design the hardware. Hint: It's not in the U.S. The only people profiting in the U.S. from buying Microsoft are the executives like Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates.
This spin is pretty silly - Nolan said he didn't think Sony's pricing or timing on the PS3 were as good, he didn't say anything about not liking the PS3 itself.
His claim they are going to have trouble selling a million within a year ignores the early preorder prices systems are going for on eBay. They could sell a million by Christmas if they had them - in the US they should have around 600k-800k by the end of the year, and people will be snapping those up.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A decent gaming PC will run you $2500 minimum, maybe less if you can swap the mobo, have decent RAM already, and you monitor isn't a junker. What exactly do you mean by decent? Lets see. By ballpark figures: CPU - $300 Mobo - $80 Graphics - $300 Case - $60 PSU - $100 HD - $100 Memory - $250 OS - $150 Monitor - $300 Sound - $100 That would get you a VERY decent gaming rig by my book for $1740, if you salvage networking/keyboard/mouse from your current computer. Of course it's still more than twice the price of a PS3....
You could also use [blockquote]blablabla[/blockquote], it prevents newline messes.
Did you even bother to read what you linked to?
uWink *is* the "upscale Dave n Busters clone" that you don't think exists.
one of the main resons i like sonys consoles is the fact that they make is easy to make games for it...
No, in fact, the PS2 was the most difficult to program for in the previous generation. Xbox and Gamecube were designed around familiar architecture and established standards so that it was easy for developers to embrace the platform. Sony did what it has always done and took its own completely untraveled path.
The number of games available on PS2 has WAY more to do with the large established user base of the PS1, and a combination of the timing and price of the PS2 (it was a "cheap dvd player" for so long, that lead to a large PS2 ownership). There are more games for it simply because there are more units out there. It's a much bigger group of fat wallets to grab money from than say the nGage and its measly unit sales. Nintendo didn't have such a large group of loyal fans coming off the n64, and Microsoft had the skepticism of the entire industry to battle.
As for discounting the Wii, I think unless you are one of the lucky few that has had a chance to use it already, you have no idea what you are really in for. You can do what you want, but I bet once you try one you will like it. Even Sony is nervous about it, else they wouldn't have added the tilt sensors to the PS3.
It sounds more like you are discounting the alternatives because they aren't the choice you have already made.
Actually he sold it because he was unsuccessful from a business perspective because of that. He sold to Warner *because* Atari was having financial problems at the time (1975-1976). The arcade division (the main source of income) was having problems (mainly due to a deluge of PONG sequels) and the consumer prouct line was just starting out. Warner was at the end of a list of companies to sell to, to get some cash influx and try and save it.
There's a reason the PS2 has a larger catalog then the other consoles... The PS2 had over a year head start on the Xbox and Gamecube in the US, and closer to 20 months in Japan.
Consumers and game makers alike had the choice of: Buy/make games for PS2 or don't do anything at all. This is what Bushnell meant when he says it was a success based on timing.... Sony owned the market because they had no competition.
This kind of lead built on itself, companies made all of their games for the PS2 because it was the only console around, gamers all only bought the PS2 because it was the only console around, and then once Nintendo and Microsoft showed up it didn't matter because Sony already had an insurmountable install base, companies continued making all of their games for the PS2 because that's where the gamers were and gamers kept buying the PS2 because that's where all the games were. It had nothing to do with the ease of programming and everything to do with market share and the lack of options to consumers.
The tables are turned this generation, Basically MS and Sony find their positions swapped. MS has the market to itself and Sony and Nintendo are launching a year later. It's not exactly the same though, because many people were turned off by the $400 price tag of the 360, last gen consoles are still worth while (while the PS1 and N64 were showing their age when the PS2 rolled out) and based on the creeping market share by the Xbox and Gamecube by the end of the last generation people are more likely to wait to see what the PS3 and Wii have to offer. Even still a full year lead is a full year lead, and it would seem that Sony's tech while powerful isn't as far ahead of MS this generation as MS was ahead of Sony last generation, nor is Nintendo's new offering as boring as the GC was in terms of innovation.
I don't think anyone will run away with a market lead this time around, and I don't think Sony's consoles are popular because they did anything particularly well.... just released at the right time.
Collector's Edition
Here are the prices of most consoles, adjusted for inflation.
s ole-prices-or-500-aint.html
http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-con
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
ET was one of the best selling games ever at the time! 1.5 million copies was nothing to be sneezed at.
I don't know where you got that idea from - the 2600 was released at a time that was anything but good. The winter of '77 saw the first video game crash, with a deluge of low end Pong consoles at closeout prices in stores as well as big competition from the emerging electronic handheld market. Within the next year it also faced competition from the Odyssey 2, APF M1000, and Bally Professional Arcade. There's a reason in fact that the release of Space Invaders (also the first licensing of a game) for the 2600 was considered the savior of the console, giving players a reason to buy it.
As someone whose spoken with and interviewed some of the designers, I have to say I partially disagree with you. It was not seen as a deeply felxible design at the time of its inception - it was created for a limited scope of games. If anything it was the brilliance of later programmers (such as your self) to squeeze more out of the hardware and realize its limitations also included latent flexibility, that kept it a dominant development platform.
Why does everyone forget about the Dreamcast when making statements like this? The DC was very much alive and competitive up to a full year before the PS2 launched with comparable hardware and some pretty stellar games. (Soul Calibur 1, Shenmue, Sonic Adventure, Seaman, Rez...)Even AFTER SEGA threw in the towel after the Christmas 2000 Season, the console was an excellent deal and could be had for a THIRD of the cost of a retail PS2 for some time- at least until the Xbox and GC launched, IIRC.
The PS2's success is due to many factors, but "lack of competition" was not one of them.
Circumcision is child abuse.
1. Oblivion (the PC version is modable)
2. Star Trek Legacy (the PC version is modable)
3. Neverwinter Nights 2 (well, when they patch it, but consoles get patched too)
4. Spore
5. Nearly any RTS game: galactic civilizations II for example
6. Tycoon games: just picked up railroad tycoon 3 for $9 and had a blast
The console wins in sports and racing games, which in my opinion are fun too. However, the recent version of madden sucked, and the 360 version of burnout takedown isnt that much different than the xbox version, so I really have no reason to go next generation at this point. Consoles also have more j-rpgs but I'm sort of out of that phase. The Wii may be a blast, but I'm taking a wait and see approach. I figure after 2 years they will release a version with more precise controls and then most of the Wii games will be $10-20. And before you discount modding, the mods for oblivion have made the game so much better IMO, from improving the interface to the textures.
Don't forget that the original Playstation launched at (basically) the same time as the Saturn did, and sold at approximately the same rate as the Saturn (a system with no games) until the N64 launched 18 months later; the N64's launch (essentially) killed the Saturn and the Playstation began selling at a remarkable rate. I don't have North American data, but here are some charts showing what I mean:
& name2=SAT&type=2&align=1& name2=N64&type=2&align=1
http://www.vgcharts.org/japconscomps.php?name1=PS
http://www.vgcharts.org/japconscomps.php?name1=PS
Had Sega delivered a reasonable system with the Saturn, or had Nintendo released the N64 9-12 months earlier, the Playstation may never have had the opportunity to build steam.
Man... both of you guys lost all credibility when you started using the $ in MS and Sony. Guess you cancel each other out rather niceless in background noise.
To be fair, Atari didn't have anywhere NEAR the brand success Nintendo and Sony currently have. Nintendo's been a dominant player in the field since 1985 with no less than four profitable consoles. An argument can be made that they've been substantially less successful in that area since the SNES, but even so the SNES and NES and the properties established on those systems were so popular it can be argued they've been coasting on them ever since. I remember reading an article once where Mario had surpassed mickey mouse worldwide in terms of recognizability. You can't buy that kind of brand loyalty and recognition.
Until the PSP launched, The Gameboy had virtually no competition at all and was practically a money factory. Other attempts at competition (Lynx, N-Gage, Turbo Express, Game Gear..) quickly became niche handhelds and died quick deaths, regardless of technical superiority. Simply put, You had a handheld system from 1990-2005, you had a Nintendo. End of Story.
Since 1994 when the playstation launched in Japan, Sony managed to ship/sell (let's not get into that argument today) nearly 210 MILLION consoles. The Playstation is far and away the most recognizable and best selling system in history and a runaway success for nearly 12 solid years. The 2600 isn't even in the same league.
Atari may have been a pioneer, but they didn't dominate the market anywhere near as well as These two companies have.
This is always the point that I've made in a number of message boards. That the GC, like the N64 before it, launched a full 18 months after PS2 (GC launched in September 2001 in Japan, PS2 in March 2000).
Considering that a typical console cycle lasts perhaps 5 or 6 years, launching a console a year-and-a-half after your main competitor is just too late. Particularly when your competitor happens to be Sony (pre-PS3 era) who had just built-up a brand of 100 million Playstations shipped. I don't have the link but Sony Computer Entertainment had built up a commanding lead of over 10 millions PS2's sold before even a single Gamecube console had shipped.
One thing alot of people don't realize is that there is a reason PS2 consoles still sell. It's because it's around 1/5 the size of an original PS2. The new ones are amazingly small. Both Nindendo and Sony improved on thier technology. They don't just throw it away like MS. The DS market is only booming because of the DS Lite. And in another coulple of years there will be another version of the DS. Nintendo is still improving on thier original gameboy. In 5 years the PS3 will be as small as the current PS2 and will still be selling well. The Xenon will still be the same xenon. And it will be thrown out the door just like the Xbox was when MS pushes the next generation of technology onto the market to early.
SNES didn't come out in 2006. It was released in 1991, so it cost $200 in 1991 dollars. That isn't the same as $200 in 2006 dollars.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
BTW - The reason why the PS2 still sells well is because it's cheap, and there are a ton of great games on that platform. Of course, this holiday season is going to be the last time we see good games launched for the PS2, as more and more development becomes focused on the next-gen consoles.
-- jchenx
Even better, we're hiring. Lots of opportunities are available (and that's just for Xbox, not including PC games). Oh wait, nevermind, according to you, we don't exist.
-- jchenx
Don't get me wrong I love the Dreamcast, IMO it still has some of the greatest games any console has ever offered. But Sega really didn't factor into it at that point. Consumers and Developers avoided it like the plague because of Sega's track record at that point, having earned little to no 3rd party support and subsequently dumping the Sega CD, 32X, and Saturn midlife people were expecting the same fate of the Dreamcast and it became a self fulfilling prophecy. It certainly didn't help that most of the 3rd party games that DID make it to the console were PS1 ports which in tern cause people to think it was more a competitor of the PS1 then it was of the PS2. As a result their sales in the first year weren't as much as the PS2 in the first couple of months even with the shortages.
The reason the Dreamcast was selling so hot after the PS2 was released was because it was already announced that it was over and they were going for $50 a pop new. Sony launched the PS2 in late 2000, Sega Announced that they were canceling the Dreamcast in January of 2001. Even thought it sold better then predicted even Sega knew it was little more then a last hurrah. More of a thanks to their hardcore fans so they went out on more of a high note instead of the painful death of the Saturn.
I love the Dreamcast but I didn't mention it because I don't think it really factored in at all. The further dwindling negative image Sega had built up over about 8 years leading up to the Dreamcast was just too great a force.. the Dreamcast was doomed for failure even if they were giving them away (and they practically were at the end).
Collector's Edition
Totally False. Blue Stinger. Resident Evil: Code Veronica. Dead or Alive 2. Grandia 2. Half Life. Soul Calibur. Jet Grind Radio. Quake III Arena. Metropolis Street Racer. Power stone 1 and 2. The DC had a substantial lineup of EXTREMELY impressive exclusive third party games that simply COULD NOT be done on the Ps1 without severe compromises. Soul Calibur 1 in particular was widely considered THE 3-D Fighter to beat until it's sequel released years later. SEGA lacked support from EA, but Sega's own NFL2K1 series was a highly regarded competitor that actually managed to OUTSELL Madden that year.
Your assumption that the PS2's sales in a couple months exceeded DC sales for it's first year are also completely off. The DC had sold 4.1 million consoles in the US and Japan (NOT including Europe) by the time the Ps2 launched. (source: www.vgcharts.org) Those sales are hardly anything to sneeze at and easily comparable to Sales of the Xbox and GC during their respective first years. The DC also did not drop to $50 us until the very end of it's lifecycle. Definitely NOT In January 2001.
It wasn't lack of sales or games that killed the DC, but the fact that sega was bleeding money as a result of a faulty business model and in some cases poor marketing. Microsoft lost 4 BILLION on the original Xbox. Had SEGA been in a similar position to keep blowing cash as microsoft is, we likely would have seen the DC perform similarly to the GC and Xbox.
This signature carefully hand-crafted from recycled electrons.
Whoops! Fair enough. I didn't even know the pictures I linked were of mock-ups (I figured since it was September, that the PS3 was retail, I guess not).
Now I'm curious, how large is the PS3 compared to the original Xbox? And more importantly, does size even matter? The claim as to why the original Xbox didn't do well in Japan was because it was too big. If the PS3 is close to the same size, yet still does well in Japan, then it blows that theory out of the water. (Personally, the reason why any console bombs is not due to silly things like size, but mostly due to the games available)
-- jchenx