The critical criterion for a winning product is not only timing but also the following:
A. The right target market
B. The right features/content
C. The right price
Let's take these each in turn, because these one liner 'sega', 'ipod' and 'virtual gameboy' proofs are simplistic and don't shed any light on this discussion.
A. The right target market: by this I mean demographics (type of games being created and marketing perception), market timing (not in the sense of who is first, but time between generations of consoles. Also skipping ahead to 'B', the right features for the target market. After the initial wave of original home consoles such as the Atari 2600, Intellivision, there was a successful second wave: Colecovision, SNES et. all, and then there was sort of a period in the mid-ninties where people weren't ready for a new console. There wasn't a technology leap for the mass market until the advent of the first 3-D in the Playstation and N64. There was a similar period in time in the mid-eighties after the 2600. I don't have market figures handy but this timline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console#Ti meline illustrates the 'gaps' in the market. The consumers in this market are not always ready to shell out $300 every two years, unless they see a greatly increased perceived benefit which brings us to...
B. The right features. In this case this means both features and content. Sony and Microsoft included a DVD player into the PS2 whereas Nintendo didn't. For a lot of people the PS2 was their first DVD player. The HD in the Xbox is a definite differentiator for them. The next generation console might be a credible media centre, providing a hub for mp3s, digital photography and internet browsing on televsions in addition to gaming. The convergence of two key features (I call this 'point convergence') seems to be a pattern for killer apps. I'd put my money on internet browsing and gaming being the point-converged feature that characterizes the successful next-generation console.
C. The right price. Pretty self-explanatory, but pricing is really hard. Not even Microsoft has the luxury of losing money on consoles indefinitely. It would be interesting to see the statistics of profitability (or lack of) between the 3 console makers.
I have a PS2 and therefore have an upgrade path to the PS2 but this is the first non-hype article I've read on XBOX and it does get me interested in it. If the interface *is* really well thought out it might make for a usable media centre to view pictures, playback music etc., and serve a real need to consolodate the functionality multiple existing devices in a potentially elegant interface.
Interesting comment,I too read the books of magic when they came out originally. a few years ago when I finally cottoned on to the whole HP phenomenon, I thought, "Geez, why did Gaiman rip off this Rowling person for DC?" thinking that HP was obscure for years before hitting it big. When I looked at the dates I was blown away. Gaiman was hindered by the fact that he was trying to tie a whole bunch of DC historical backstory and characters into the Books of Magic in only 4 initial volumes, which in my opinion didn't feel very coherent. I'll pit his imagination against any author (except Grant Morrison and Jorge Luis Borges) on any day. Bottom line is I think it's a heck of a coincidence that at the very least should have been picked up by mainstream media more.
Slashdot Mirror
The critical criterion for a winning product is not only timing but also the following:
i meline illustrates the 'gaps' in the market. The consumers in this market are not always ready to shell out $300 every two years, unless they see a greatly increased perceived benefit which brings us to ...
A. The right target market
B. The right features/content
C. The right price
Let's take these each in turn, because these one liner 'sega', 'ipod' and 'virtual gameboy' proofs are simplistic and don't shed any light on this discussion.
A. The right target market: by this I mean demographics (type of games being created and marketing perception), market timing (not in the sense of who is first, but time between generations of consoles. Also skipping ahead to 'B', the right features for the target market. After the initial wave of original home consoles such as the Atari 2600, Intellivision, there was a successful second wave: Colecovision, SNES et. all, and then there was sort of a period in the mid-ninties where people weren't ready for a new console. There wasn't a technology leap for the mass market until the advent of the first 3-D in the Playstation and N64. There was a similar period in time in the mid-eighties after the 2600. I don't have market figures handy but this timline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console#T
B. The right features. In this case this means both features and content. Sony and Microsoft included a DVD player into the PS2 whereas Nintendo didn't. For a lot of people the PS2 was their first DVD player. The HD in the Xbox is a definite differentiator for them. The next generation console might be a credible media centre, providing a hub for mp3s, digital photography and internet browsing on televsions in addition to gaming. The convergence of two key features (I call this 'point convergence') seems to be a pattern for killer apps. I'd put my money on internet browsing and gaming being the point-converged feature that characterizes the successful next-generation console.
C. The right price. Pretty self-explanatory, but pricing is really hard. Not even Microsoft has the luxury of losing money on consoles indefinitely. It would be interesting to see the statistics of profitability (or lack of) between the 3 console makers.
I have a PS2 and therefore have an upgrade path to the PS2 but this is the first non-hype article I've read on XBOX and it does get me interested in it. If the interface *is* really well thought out it might make for a usable media centre to view pictures, playback music etc., and serve a real need to consolodate the functionality multiple existing devices in a potentially elegant interface.
Typical, that the largest creative force behind the movie (i.e. the Author) is hardly mentioned and should at least be on the Bios page. Bah.
...that we don't even have a Minister of Modernization. If we did, maybe our government would be thinking along Norway's lines.
Interesting comment,I too read the books of magic when they came out originally. a few years ago when I finally cottoned on to the whole HP phenomenon, I thought, "Geez, why did Gaiman rip off this Rowling person for DC?" thinking that HP was obscure for years before hitting it big. When I looked at the dates I was blown away. Gaiman was hindered by the fact that he was trying to tie a whole bunch of DC historical backstory and characters into the Books of Magic in only 4 initial volumes, which in my opinion didn't feel very coherent. I'll pit his imagination against any author (except Grant Morrison and Jorge Luis Borges) on any day. Bottom line is I think it's a heck of a coincidence that at the very least should have been picked up by mainstream media more.