Did Microsoft win it for Nintendo?

BlitzKrieg

Just thinking here and I know we are still a long way off from a somewhat clear result.


But

Was It Microsoft that allowed Nintendo to slip in and make a killing with the Wii?


Follow my logic here...

Prior to the 360, Sony were sitting pretty with the PS2, most successful games console etc etc almost 100% third party support and generally racking in the cash.


Lets say for the moment in bizarro world, microsoft abandon the console war and its left to sony and nintendo and the Wii comes along.

Would Sony have made a PS3?

The Nintendo Wii doesnt imbrace HD support nor does it push the bar to a level that makes it beyond having ports from ps2 and vice versa.

The Wii's selling point, its motion sensing gameplay. Could easily have been countered by an add on for the PS2, much like the EyeToy.

In fact Sony could have repackaged the ps2 at a discount price with the motion sensing stuff included and made a killing over the Wii.

The only area Sony might have lacked is the packaging in selling the idea (Nintendo are very good at selling the casual market) But otherwise Sony would have easily been able to compete with the PS2. And still hold advantages over the Wii (cheaper price, dvd support, both casual and hardcore library, already in millions of homes etc)


Now in reality, Sony with the PS3 worked themselves into a technological frenzy against what they saw as their main competitor, the 360 and as such let the ball go on the PS2 and moved upmarket in price and market target and the Wii snuck its way in for victory in an area that neither of the other two were looking at.

Urgo No 360, No money printing little white box for Nintendo.

I dont know if Microsoft should be happy or not?

Climate Expert

It wrecks my head the way people talk about Nintendo being sort of competitor to MS.

The WII is a toy, has the same power as the original xbox and has games mostly aimed a kids.

MS is so far winning the sales race for this generation of consoles.

BlitzKrieg

Climate Expert wrote: »

It wrecks my head the way people talk about Nintendo being sort of competitor to MS.

The WII is a toy, has the same power as the original xbox and has games mostly aimed a kids.

MS is so far winning the sales race for this generation of consoles.

do you even read posts or are you on auto response?

I never said Nintendo was competing with Microsoft, I was pointing out that microsoft encoruged Sony into the HD market with the 360 leaving an area that originally the PS2 could easily (and did at one point with Singstar and Eyetoy) dominate wide open for the Wii to slip in as you put it *a toy* and make a killing so huge it puts the other two companies to shame.

monkeyfudge

Climate Expert wrote: »

It wrecks my head the way people talk about Nintendo being sort of competitor to MS.

The WII is a toy, has the same power as the original xbox and has games mostly aimed a kids.

MS is so far winning the sales race for this generation of consoles.

What does power have to do with anything. Gameplay is all that matters really.

Wii is the most successful console. In terms of console sales anyway.

It's aimed at and sells in large amounts to people who wouldn't normally consider owning a games console.

But on topic... yes. Both Sony and Microsoft rushed into the next gen through their competition with each other and this definitely left an opening in the casual market for Nintendo to exploit... but I think they've exploited in a way that Sony never could have done... particularly in encouraging more women then ever to play.

Climate Expert

monkeyfudge wrote: »

What does power have to do with anything. Gameplay is all that matters really.

Wii is the most successful console. In terms of console sales anyway.

.

You are wrong, the DS is.

But no I suppose you don't think that counts for some reason.

BlitzKrieg

but I think they've exploited in a way that Sony never could have done... particularly in encouraging more women then ever to play.

The thing is though, If sony didnt have to play the whole techwar (shatner whoot!) with the 360 I think they would have easily countered a large part of nintendo's strategy.

Mostly on the advantage that they were already there in peoples homes and only needed a sensor bar adaptor and new controller (not that far beyond the eyetory/buzz, guitar hero controllers) for the PS2.

The price would have been alot less then a whole new Wii (we are talking 250 vs 50-60) and the console as a whole could have easily been repackaged for the new market and still be cheaper then the wii (250 vs 120/150)

Price alone would have done the same damage to the Wii as the Wii did to the PS3.

Climate Expert

Lads, MS couldn't give two ****s about the WII. It takes near zero sales from them, their fight is with Sony.

Genghiz Cohen

Climate Expert wrote: »

But no I suppose you don't think that counts for some reason.

What are you talking about?

BlitzKrieg

Climate Expert wrote: »

Lads, MS couldn't give two ****s about the WII. It takes near zero sales from them, their fight is with Sony.

That auto response thing is still firing up there bud. Better turn it off and read the actual thread.

Never once did I say Nintendo were competing against Microsoft. In fact I said they were in different markets and that what Microsoft did was with the 360 goad Sony into the HD gaming market where the two of them are now in a bitter console war and left a market that Nintendo has calmly moved into *that* without microsoft starting the HD gaming market, Sony would still be dominating.

monkeyfudge

Climate Expert wrote: »

You are wrong, the DS is.

But no I suppose you don't think that counts for some reason.

Eh.. the reason being we're not talking about hand helds. You really didn't read the opening post at all, did you?

Climate Expert

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Eh.. the reason being we're not talking about hand helds. You really didn't read the opening post at all, did you?

And I'm talking about games consoles not toys.

BlitzKrieg

Climate Expert wrote: »

And I'm talking about games consoles not toys.

which means your way off topic and havnt read anything in this thread


we seem to be going around in circles here.

johnny_ultimate

You definitely have a point. IMO no-one could have predicted the way this generation would have turned out. Microsoft rushed out the Xbox 360, showing it before E3 2005 with their MTV launch show, which pressured Sony to present their competitor. At this point, the war was still a traditional one: traditional game consoles with traditional games. They probably didn't see Nintendo as a threat, as they had been a sizable but not huge threat for the previous generations. As the only major console producer to survive multiple generations, the battle was more between MS and Sony. When the Wii was announced, both companies probably looked at it, said "How quaint" and went back to showing off how ****ing 1080p their console was. You can never forget that Sony were probably pretty arrogant at this point, after they pretty much wiped out the competition with the PS2.

And yes, since Sony had to outdo Microsoft compeitively, they created a beast of a machine, with the added problem of it being absurdly expensive in comparison to the compeitors. So a lot of gamers (myself included) probably went for the combo of Wii / 360: the fun console, and the more traditional (but cheaper) HD console.

I don't think anyone could have banked on Nintendo bagging such a huge non-gaming audience though. Nintendo were thinking outside of traditional views of videogames, whereas MS and Sony weren't (only really now are they trying to take advantage of the new casual audience).

JPA

Since when is a games console not a toy?

monkeyfudge

Climate Expert wrote: »

And I'm talking about games consoles not toys.

Ah yes. The xbox is our lord and savior and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as lesser toys.

BlitzKrieg

I don't think anyone could have banked on Nintendo bagging such a huge non-gaming audience though

The thing thats funny is that Sony scrapped it with the PS2, they had a few casual titles released for it (some of which made it to the ps3 such as Buzz and singstar) that hit the same market as the Wii, but outside of Europe they dont sell as well.

If they werent so focused on the battle with 360 with the PS3 they could have easily retooled the marketing for the PS2 to compete easily with the Wii taking the wind out of its sails.


but its far too late now. Its something they should have done last christmas. Esp with the Wii having shortages a the time.

Overheal

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Ah yes. The xbox is our lord and savior and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as lesser toys.

everyone knows your true God is PC.

Its a little too bizarre though to think about. Microsoft smelled weakness in Sega and thats when they swooped in. Have you ever noticed the subtle similarities between the dreamcast and xbox controllers? The DC was a bold attempt but it just lacked.... well a lot. Lets not go into it. Needless to say it left a big gaping hole in the market where Sega had bore through with the DC and along came Xbox to improve on everything the DC didnt do - like successful online play, and a control that felt much much better. And good games. Gotta have that.

At that point Sony and MS were already in competition, it was only a matter of economics that MS was bound to unveil a PS2 Killer, the Xbox 360. All The Meanwhile Nintendo is stuck in 3rd gear developing a radically new console and gameplay style so naturally didnt dump a lot of energy into keeping up benchmarks with its rivals. I think Wii would have never worked if it tried: getting developers to make games for a radically new wiimote style of play and trying to code nex-gen graphics? It would never have worked out. Look what the Emotion Engine and the Cel Processer have done for Sony.

DonkeyStyle \o/

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The Wii's selling point, its motion sensing gameplay.

Look at the ads again and tell me that's all they're selling on.

DirkVoodoo

If it was the playstation that will be remembered for moving games consoles away from being perceived as a "nerd" accessory to more of a boys toy then it is the Wii that has moved consoles away from being a boys toy to a family/party machine.

I remember people who I would never have considered interested in games, because they were reserved for they shy kid who liked to sit in his bedroom (gross cliche, bear with me!), suddenly picking up PSones and PS2s because of games like pro evo, GTA. Consoles suddenly became a way for lads to socialise by grabbing a few cans and playing endless bouts of liverpool v chelsea.

Fair play to the Wii, I have never had so many friends who would have no interest in games because they were too "laddish" and complicated, suddenly become desperate at christmas to secure a console. As others have mentioned, these gamers arent interested in processing power or GPUs, they dont care about polygon counts or shader models and just want games that are big, colourful and above all fun to play. So we can ditch the lads with cans image and move on to a few 20-something girls sitting around playing mario kart or wii sports.

Anyway, I would agree and disagree about your MS analysis. I think both companies missed out on the market because the wider, untapped gaming market was in fact the casual gamer. Both companies ignored this and tried to go "Next gen" by offering hardware that had the computational complexity to make games more realistic and more visceral. Launch titles like Resistance, Gears of War, etc. were all very traditional "hardcore" games that followed on from the previous generation. I think Sony suffered more in this rout by nintendo because the cost of the PS3 was quite frankly, crippling. Microsoft had an early lead on shipping as many units as possible and with a better online service and lower selling point made the PS3 unattractive to gamers.

In fact, the only reason I have one sitting in front of me now is really for its blu-ray capacity.

At any rate, my sister (27 year old surgeon) has never picked up a controller for either console we have. However last week she came home screaming about how much fun she had in a friends house playing the Wii. She failed to point out the graphical inferiority of the console

Anyway, nintendo has a track record of backing up poor software libraries by producing a ridiculous number of accessories. The Wii is continuing this, lets be honest there are few quality titles and plenty of weak ports, but they have released steering wheels, touch sensitive mats, etc. and people love it. I think with lower selling prices, better support for downloadable media and more casual titles, the PS3 could soon turn a profit. But I think the Wii was good for the industry as a whole, hopefully we will not see the next generation so heavily focused on hardware and failed promises of "next gen" titles. No one wants to see consoles focus more on horsepower rather than enjoyment.

BlitzKrieg

If it was the playstation that will be remembered for moving games consoles away from being perceived as a "nerd" accessory to more of a boys toy then it is the Wii that has moved consoles away from being a boys toy to a family/party machine.

But the playstation 2 was so close to hitting the same point as the Wii did, there was software and hardware showing up for it that was family oriented, that appealled to twenty something girls.

Yes it wasnt the selling point of the consoles marketing but it is a simple matter to refocus the ps2's marketing this late in its life.

Without a 360 to compete with, the Wii would still have found its early legs but unlike the current climate where it has exploded into its own world the first christmas of its launch would have had Sony flood all the world market with its equivilent family oriented games and add ons at a cheaper price and the shortages nintendo suffered would have widdled its impact down to a somewhat average sales ratio rather then the runaway horse it has become.

Instead we have Sony playing catch up with both consoles, coming out far behind the 360, and being way to pricey for the Wii

Which brings it all around to the central point, no 360 = no PS3 = PS2 vs Wii console war.

In the same way OVerheal mentions the curiosity of the 360's designs compared to the dreamcast (not to mention Peter Moores involvement in both) THe PS3's announcement and development reads like an overextended attempt to outmatch both its competitors in every area. Its more powerful, it has motion, it has free online, full backward compatability, full HD, blu ray support. It feels like a console put together to specificially beat a competitor. Remove the 360 from the picture and I say the PS3 would have remained in the closest for a good number of years more.

the_syco

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

Look at the ads again and tell me that's all they're selling on.

Wii-Fit, motion detector
Wii steering wheel thing, motion detector

Yes, motion detector seems to be a large thing that they're selling.

=-=

I think the Wii is successful, as it's literally "cheap and cheerful", compared to the other two. Not only is it a fun toy, but it's an affordable fun toy. More affordable then the PS3 and the 360, which are mere toys compared to the PC :P

monkeyfudge

the_syco wrote: »

I think the Wii is successful, as it's literally "cheap and cheerful", compared to the other two. Not only is it a fun toy, but it's an affordable fun toy. More affordable then the PS3 and the 360, which are mere toys compared to the PC :P

The Xbox 360 (Alayhis salaam) is now the cheaper option though.

DeVore

The reason its MS vs Sony is that you can have either of those and also pick up a Wii on the way out of the store. The price point makes it an afterthought for a serious gamer.

If MS hadnt done the Xbox at all, Sony would still have made a PS3 but probably not THIS PS3. Personally, I think the PS has been a huge dissappointment. Its online is broken, fundamentally. Its price is a laugh considering the price of the games and the relatively small library (still).

Here's my question, why oh why did Sony not bundle support for PS2 games. If the PS3 had had support for my heaving PS2 games library, it would have been a no brainer. Why start again from scratch when I have many hundred invested in Sony already?
When they opted to reboot their offering for no good reason (certainly no reason that was "good" for me), I jumped ship to MS.

If it hadnt been for the XBox, we would have the Wii and a different PS3, probably a better PS3 to be honest as they wouldnt have wrecked it trying to please the pixel-counters.

DeV.

BlitzKrieg

DeVore wrote: »

If MS hadnt done the Xbox at all, Sony would still have made a PS3 but probably not THIS PS3. Personally, I think the PS has been a huge dissappointment. Its online is broken, fundamentally. Its price is a laugh considering the price of the games and the relatively small library (still).

The thing I find curious though is the sudden appearance of the PS3 and its really really bad early hype days in 2005 (where it wasnt even built) to 2006 where it was revamped with countless features to match both the 360 and wii, to me that stinks of a company that had no intention of starting the next console generation and were forced into it. Personnally I dont think we would have had a PS3 to compete with the Wii, they would have done what they did with the dreamcast, announced the PS3 just before the Wii launch and then compete with the Wii with heavy support of the PS2, and then when released the ps3 later in the wii's life cycle, where like the dreamcast many people would have held off getting one opting for the ps3 instead.

One of the things that I find curious is that unlike DVD, blu ray wasnt even finalised until the PS3 came around. The machine from its very beginning stank of desperation of having a one up on all its rivals. Which is a bad place to start and it was the 360 that got that ball rolling.

Here's my question, why oh why did Sony not bundle support for PS2 games. If the PS3 had had support for my heaving PS2 games library, it would have been a no brainer. Why start again from scratch when I have many hundred invested in Sony already?
When they opted to reboot their offering for no good reason (certainly no reason that was "good" for me), I jumped ship to MS.

Uhmm they did?

Early US/Jap PS3 models had full PS1/PS2 support

European 60gig/80gig models have full ps1 support and 80% ps2 support

the current batch the 40 gigs had ps2 support removed to bring price down and to focus on the ps3 software more (again stressing how the 360 pulled Sony away from competing with nintendo)

tba

Im not sure that its fair to say that Sony and Microsoft let Nintendo win a "console war"

Everybody I know who has a Wii would either never had bought a 360 or PS3, or own one as well as the Wii.

As such I don't think that the Wii is in the same league as the other two, and its success and failures cannot be attributed to other companies actions.

As an aside Monkeyfudge said that Gameplay was most important, but Innovation and Aesthetics are equally important.

Without these elements, any game and as such the console it is on, will fail.

joenailface

I doubt sony would have done anything different if the xbox 360 didn't come out, they noticed that they need to appeal to the 'hardcore' market more due to the way things went with the original xbox so they built an absolute powerhouse of a machine and details about the wii were kept so hush-hush that sony couldnt have possibly built their console to compete with it. I'm fairly confident that microsoft will have to admit defeat with the 360 and rush out a new console again or just bow out of the console wars altogether, the ps3 will become incredibly popular in a few years time when it goes down in price and the hardware is still fairly up to date, it will happen when almost everyone has LCD tvs and people want to start using blu-ray more. At that stage anyone who's going to buy a wii will have already bought one (unless nintendo do some price cuts) and nintendo will keep support for the wii and bring out a new one shortly after the xbox 1080 or whatever and try advance their motion sensing and most probably adapt a new selling point or 2, probably incredibly strong hardware with hd support to attract an even wider audience and some sort of wow factor like the motion sensing was for the wii. So yea, ps3 will eventually catch up to the wii and the 360 shall fail biblically, just my two cents, any xbox fanboys please direct your hatemail to the 'i dont care' section of my inbox, the xbox 360 one of the worst electronic devices i've ever seen.

BlitzKrieg

Everybody I know who has a Wii would either never had bought a 360 or PS3, or own one as well as the Wii.

As such I don't think that the Wii is in the same league as the other two, and its success and failures cannot be attributed to other companies actions.

Yes but the league the currently is in, is the same league as the PS2 is also currently in, there have been a good number of family oriented PS2 games and it has already proven to be a console that can take add on controllers etc with ease. If Sony werent so busy trying to compete with microsoft they could easily compete with the wii, with a cheaper more established console that can do all the fun stuff the Wii did.

DeVore

the current batch the 40 gigs had ps2 support removed to bring price down and to focus on the ps3 software more (again stressing how the 360 pulled Sony away from competing with nintendo)

How does removing support for PS2 games drop its price? Was hardware required?

Sony would always have done a next gen console because as the capacity of graphics and power increased they would become concerned that they were allowing a competitor to steal a march on them, whether that competitor had a name or not. They might not have chosen the same period in history to kick things off but it was never going to stop with the PS2. I agree that they have contorted themselves out of recognition trying to compete with the XBox 360 and imho they have lost but perhaps they can maintain an uneasy duoply (?) with MS.
The awkward thing for both of them is that the Wii has discovered a rich vein of gamers who... shock horror.... want to play games. With their mates. Like games mostly were when they were on a board

I have a Wii and it gets little play cos the controllers are pants, lets face it. Its like trying to control something while very drunk. But without the fun bit of actually BEING drunk. The games arent great, but its the way you play them with your mates (usually, ironically, while drunk).
"LIVE" is saving the xboxs ass. Sony must be tearing their hair out that its still tenaciously competing with them because the longer it goes on, the closer MS get to whatever is going to follow the 360.

Mozilla owned 90% of the browser market. Now IE is the standard.

Novell owned 90% of the network server market. Now its NT/whatever.

Vax/unix owned 90% of the server market and MS is busy taking what it can of that (if it werent for a concerted push of very clever people giving their time for free, they'd have walked it already).

When they first announced the xbox, PS2 was completely dominant, one gen later we are wondering if anything can stand against them and even Nintendo better make the most of this fortunate vein of sales they have found because they wont be allowed to have it to themselves for long.

DeV.

AlmightyCushion

I have to agree with DeV here. I think the PS3 would have been released regardless. I doubt it would have the cell processor, any online functionality or a hard drive though. They would have done what they did when they were coming up with the PS2. The PS1 worked, sure we'll just give it a bit more grunt and slap in one of these new fangled dvd player thingeys. If there was no 360 on the horizon, they would have made it more powerful and stuck in a blu ray player. It might have came out a bit later and I doubt it would have been much cheaper if at all.

@Dev - Yeah, the PS3 required some hardware for PS2 backwards compatibility.

tba

it was essentially a tiny PS2 under the hood

BlitzKrieg

How does removing support for PS2 games drop its price? Was hardware required?

initially yes, the US/jap models contained the emotion engine hardware within the PS3, this was removed and replaced with emulation to bring down costs.

After that though emulation was removed, the reasoning for which I cant find on Wiki, though I remember at the time the *spin* was to put the focus on the PS3 software rather then the PS2 software. As PS3 software sales at the time had the lowest attachment rate of all 3 consoles.

Sony would always have done a next gen console because as the capacity of graphics and power increased they would become concerned that they were allowing a competitor to steal a march on them, whether that competitor had a name or not. They might not have chosen the same period in history to kick things off but it was never going to stop with the PS2.

OH I agree completely, but at the time of the 360's annoucement and later launch, the PS2 was at a elderly high, all its rivals had officially bowed out and it was left dominate. There would have been a PS3 at some point but I dont think nintendo would have seriously pushed sony to have it as an immediate counter. Like your summerizing of microsofts domminance in other areas, Sony got a poker in the arse that it had to be bigger then the 360 in every way to hold on and its sort of backfired in some manner. Because and this is the point I'm trying to stress unlike microsoft or anyone else, Sony were with the PS2 in a position to compete with the Wii in the same market and they dropped the ball on it to go butt heads with microsoft.

the ps3 will become incredibly popular in a few years time when it goes down in price and the hardware is still fairly up to date,

This is the hardware that is already going out of date right?

the number 1 reason the PS3 is never gonna embrace this dream of staying alive when its competitors bow out is that it will never be picked as the base console.

The PS1 was the base console, so was the PS2. This time around the 360 is the base console that all multiplatform games are built up on, when it passess and its successor comes in, chances are high that it will be the next base console and games will be ported down to the ps3. Much in the fashion same games are ported down to the PS2 and Wii, inferior ports rushed on inferior engines. Sony really need to get companies like EA to start making their games on the PS3 first and then to the 360, not vice versa.


EDIT

they would have made it more powerful and stuck in a blu ray player. It might have came out a bit later and I doubt it would have been much cheaper if at all.

Blu ray probably would be the only constant as the PS3 would still have been needed to bury HD DVD, though I still think it would have come alot later then when it did come. the ps2 didnt show up until 2 years into the dvds life cycle, yes it made it a huge success, but it was allowed to find its feet before hand. Blu ray is literally tied to the ps3, if one seriously bombs the other is not walking away without some broken bones.

DonkeyStyle \o/

the_syco wrote: »

Wii-Fit, motion detector
Wii steering wheel thing, motion detector

Yes, motion detector seems to be a large thing that they're selling.

I think there's a distinction between what they're actually selling and what their selling point is.
And I think their selling point goes way beyond a PS2 with motion sensors.

BlitzKrieg

And I think their selling point goes way beyond a PS2 with motion sensors.

As in the product as a whole? Catering to key markets?

Or are you referring to hardware differences?

alexmcred

There is one very important point people are missing here and that is how many very young kids love the wii. Brand loyalty built at this age goes a very long way.

The PSP launch has cost Sony a lot so they not in a position to lower the price of it to boost sales.

Nintendo at this stage are the grand daddy of this market and the Wii was a master stroke.

noodler

For 325e I am absolutely chuffed with my PS3 purchase. For all it does etc. Free online, wireless built in, Blu-Ray (I guess-I wouldn't buy-just rent-until they get cheaper).

I still think theres a PS3 surge to be had when Sony eventually lower the price-I know alot of PS2 owners who haven't made the leap to a next gen console.

Anyway, I wouldn't be happy with a Wii on its own. Granted the Wii was a master stroke in a business sense, but I couldn't play Wii on my own for an hour or two. They got more use at Xmas when people were over etc but so did the deck of cards.

I could, as a hardcore-ish gamer, only be happy with a PS3 or a 360.

PS: I do not see the backwards compatibility thing as a good argument-nearly anyone considering buying a PS3 would already own....guess...thats right a PS2. Furthermore, are Sony still not offsetting there current losses on PS3 with pretty strong PS2 sales (software and Hardware).

carlrac

I love how people get so offended when it comes to consoles! I have almost every console created in the last 20 years (bar any SEGA, original xbox, and PS3) but don't give a poo what anyone else 'should' own. Basically I'm not a fanboy, and like anything that plays games

Anyways... Blitzkrieg appears to be the only fully informed poster here as regards the Emotion engine and console history/ trends, but Nintendo is making the most money right now because they revolutionised (recall early name for Wii...) the gaming industry with refreshing and innovative methods for playing games, which gave gaming a whole new audience through this image. This of course removed the steoreotype of gamers as socially inept males with a penchant for eating and Star Wars. (except PC gamers )
Marketing will win this 'Console War' because the industry was ready to evolve in a way only Nintendo foresaw.
All i wanna know is when they're gonna make a game about the console wars, and which company will nab exclusive publishing rights! :rolleyes:

Back on point though, the Gamecube was more powerful than PS2 (and prettier too if you ask me!) so i'm not sure even the slimmer update of Sony's console could compete with Nintendo's savvy marketing, and when you have Miyamoto working for you it seems even less likely.

By the way, PS3 will need more exclusives than just MGS4 to make it's target audience buy it at that price in my opinion...

carlrac

Also, money made from sales aside, this is articles says a lot:

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/02/nielsen-2008s-most-played-console-was-ps2/

Jazzy

i personally think that nintendo got lucky by keeping to their game plan. the cube did nothing to advance and the GBA was keeping afloat. MS and sony just went for the cock in face approach and told us how everything was going to be excellent and far better then it was.

im really honestly struggling to think why i should own a PS3 or 360. cba with the wii as its single player games are pretty much man vs. the control pad. the single player games on the ps3 or 360 are ok, but all the best games could have been done on the xbox or ps2. there is a reason why i gave my sister the 360 and why i havent got a ps3, and that is i really couldnt be ars3d to play all the apparantly good games for them. ive often found that like films, games can indeed be judged by their cover.

Little Big Planet - THE game of last year. oh that and GTA4 soz... are good. but thats it. there is nothing that is really really good about them, they are just there and will get pushed to the side in a year.

if i live to 80 so help me god, i know for a f**kin fact i will think back and go "crono trigger was a god damn great life experience". do u really think ill think the same about oh i dunno, gears of war 2?

Samurai

I'm unsure if its that as I age I enjoy games less or if its that the latest gen games are too focused on graphics, probably the age bit!

tba

its the age thing, its affecting me too.

steviec

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

initially yes, the US/jap models contained the emotion engine hardware within the PS3, this was removed and replaced with emulation to bring down costs.

After that though emulation was removed, the reasoning for which I cant find on Wiki, though I remember at the time the *spin* was to put the focus on the PS3 software rather then the PS2 software. As PS3 software sales at the time had the lowest attachment rate of all 3 consoles.

The original PS3s had the PS2 hardware in its entirity inside them. When they moved to emulation, that was only emulation of the emotion engine and not of the graphics synthesizer (the PS2's graphics card) - that was still hardware. So when they removed that aswell to cut costs emulation was no longer possible.

Sony are still said to be working on emulation software for the GS, but I hear that conventional wisdom says it may be impossible since the chip was ludicrously fast at some very specific things, faster even than the current consoles.

steviec

carlrac wrote: »

Anyways... Blitzkrieg appears to be the only fully informed poster here as regards the Emotion engine and console history/ trends, but Nintendo is making the most money right now because they revolutionised (recall early name for Wii...) the gaming industry with refreshing and innovative methods for playing games, which gave gaming a whole new audience through this image. This of course removed the steoreotype of gamers as socially inept males with a penchant for eating and Star Wars. (except PC gamers )
Marketing will win this 'Console War' because the industry was ready to evolve in a way only Nintendo foresaw.

This thinking really confuses me since Sony were doing alternative input methods like Eyetoy / Singstar / Buzz and marketing to casuals (going all the way back to the Wipeout kiosks at raves in the 90s) and Microsoft were doing motion sensing controllers on PC years before Nintendo caught on to any of that. Nintendo hit marketing gold, but they weren't any more forward thinking than their competitors and they didn't revolutionise gaming. The early supply issues with the Wii is probably an indicator they weren't expecting the mainstream to adopt the Wii so much either.

gizmo

Dev, after looking at the figures I believe it's rather obvious why Sony removed software backwards compatibility from the PS3, the continued high sales of the PS2 hardware. Apart from June of this year PS2 sales, in North America alone, have been around 75% of that of the PS3. In fact, it was only the first quarter of last year that global hardware sales of the PS3 finally surpassed the PS2, and even this was more than likely due to the combined effect of the mid-May price cut and the release of MGS4. I'm convinced said software backwards compatibility will return eventually to, as you mentioned, cater for those PS2 owners with large back catalogues who haven't made the jump but this will only happen when the PS2 sales finally subside to a level Sony are happy with.

Also, while I currently don't own a Wii I fully intend getting one at some stage in the near future. Not for, as some of the above posters would say, the kid or party orientated games but for the slew of fantastic releases currently available on the console. The likes of Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Resident Evil 4, Super Paper Mario, Okami and No More Heroes justify the purchase of the console alone. This is not to mention the forthcoming Dead Rising and awesome looking Mad World, the latter of which will certainly not be marketed as a kids title. Also, f I want party games I'll rely on Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Mario Strikers Charged and perhaps Rayman Raving Rabbids.

In short, I see no reason to resort to the child-orientated games when purchasing a Wii. However, in terms of future releases I am well aware that the number of hardcore titles being released on the Wii will probably be less than that on the 360 and PS3 and, in light of this, I still regard the Wii as a second purchase console for someone such as myself.

If anyone questions Nintendo's strategy, however, I suggest having a read of Blue Ocean Strategy, a book which promotes creating new market space or "blue ocean" rather than competing in an existing industry, the so-called "red ocean". Using this terminology it's clear that Nintendo are in the "blue ocean" and Sony and Microsoft are at each others throats in the "red ocean". In short, Nintendo has no competition in its defined marketplace as it is one they created themselves, something which has obviously paid dividends for them in terms of sales. So even if MS had pulled out of the marketplace and Sony had released a PS3 either in its current form or with slightly reduced specifications, as I'm sure they would have given the release of a new Nintendo console, I still think it would be as successful as it is today.

DeVore

Steveic: Have you actually USED a six-axis controller??

I love them... they add hilarity and frustration in equal measure to any game!! In fact, any game transforms to become the "how do I do anything even vaguely like what I want to do with this crappy six-axis controller" game. The Wii might be a bit wonky at times but its light years ahead of anything else. I would put good money that the next generation of Wii controllers are rock solid sensitive and accurate.

I'll put these questions to you all:

Do any of you think MS might not make a successor to the 360?

Do any of you think Sony might not make a successor to the PS3?



Ps3 was supposed to blow the 360 away. It was supposed to arrive mid-life of the 360 and so over shadow it we'd all be impressed by the cell chip and its graphics processors. Unfortunately, by that time the 360 had Live and a big back catalogue of games built up because developers and publishers have clambered onto the MS train. They know MS is going to put its weight behind it and they want to be inside pissing out when the time comes.
The graphics engine in the 360 is being squeezed so hard while the PS3 seems hardly taxed. Quite simply people take the same game as looking the same on the two, or close enough not to be mentioned much. That was PS3's golden ticket, their knockout punch. If the 360 can fend off the PS3 until its successor arrives (and it shows every intention of not only fending them off but possibly winning on its own) then Sony are screwed. They'll be a generation behind and playing catch up.

I'm not a fan boi for any of them by the way, I share a PS3 and own every console back to the Atari Jaguar .... I'm looking at this from a marketing/business perspective. If I was Sony, I would be seriously worried. PSP got owned by the DS and the PS3 is struggling to gain traction.

Did Nintendo win it for MS? I dont think so, I dont think sales of Wii's will have affected the sales of the hard core systems much, most gamers I know have a Wii and one other. But as a previous poster said, the loyalty factor might makes things different in future years.

DeV.

carlrac

steviec wrote: »

This thinking really confuses me since Sony were doing alternative input methods like Eyetoy / Singstar / Buzz and marketing to casuals (going all the way back to the Wipeout kiosks at raves in the 90s) and Microsoft were doing motion sensing controllers on PC years before Nintendo caught on to any of that. Nintendo hit marketing gold, but they weren't any more forward thinking than their competitors and they didn't revolutionise gaming. The early supply issues with the Wii is probably an indicator they weren't expecting the mainstream to adopt the Wii so much either.

Ye i agree with this, but i specifically meant how Nintendo marketed their 'gimmick' to the non-gaming masses. Of course Sony and Microsoft made a stab at the casual gaming market, but Nintendo fully comitted with a dedicated console and an ingenious advertising campaign. This, combined with the mainstream accessibility of the DS reformed their brand image while competitors were still confusing people boasting about frame-rates and 1080i etc. Someone on this thread already hit the nail on the head saying that most casual gamers are attracted to colourful, cute visuals in games that are easy and fun to play with friends.

Excellent point about the early supply issues though - I'm not sure anybody foresaw the success of the Wii, and clearly not even Nintendo themselves! But my point was not that they were revolutionising the games more than other companies, but that they changed the image of the games industry into something much more accessible. Mainly through targeting girls and people over 30 (yes PS2 peripherals started this to an extent, but DS and Wii focused most of their efforts on this gap in the market, and hence were more successful). Even just comparing the aesthetic of the boxes of Wii and PS3 will reveal which would appeal more to a person new to games...

noodler

DeVore wrote: »

If the 360 can fend off the PS3 until its successor arrives (and it shows every intention of not only fending them off but possibly winning on its own) then Sony are screwed. They'll be a generation behind and playing catch up.

Are they screwed though? From my view there appears to be room in the market for the PS3, 360, Wii, DS and PSP (as well as the PS2).

I think it is fair to say anything Sony make on PS2 these days is mostly profit, PSP sales are alot less than DS but they are still pretty substantial 43m), no? Also I don't know how accurate VGCHartz is http://vgchartz.com/ but 360 has sold 27.4m and the PS3 has sold 19.3m. For me this is fairly close when related to previous console wars and this is still before the price cut.

Anyway, I don't agree that there is a clear loser in this war. How many consoles did the Gamecube and Dreamcast sell individually?

Was it as much as 19m half way through their lifespan?

DeVore

Planning to break support for their massive back catalogue, right when they were facing into a fight with a new contender for the throne is an idiotic idea. Why their coders and tech-architecture people weren't *told* to design a system that could emulate their old games I simply dont understand.

Instead they designed a system to push pixels at any cost. An architecture that the best in the business (Carrmack/ID and Valve) have publically scorned as difficult to work with. Its like Sony said "you know what, we are the massively dominate incumbent but lets give MS a fighting chance and put ourselves back to where they are at: brand new archeitecture, no back catalogue and no experienced developers/distributors".
Christ, the 360 at least runs on x86 architecture... you can code for it in c++ in nice MS Visual environments and test on your computer (afaik). Sony's kit is notoriously tricky to work with.

Sony should have this industry sown up but instead they are going to lose imho. Someone should write a business study on this of how to sabotage a dominant position in one single generation. Astoundingly incompetent.

DeV.

noodler

Read my Post above.

DeVore

noodler wrote: »

Are they screwed though? From my view there appears to be room in the market for the PS3, 360, Wii, DS and PSP (as well as the PS2).

I think it is fair to say anything Sony make on PS2 these days is mostly profit, PSP sales are alot less than DS but they are still pretty substantial 43m), no? Also I don't know how accurate VGCHartz is http://vgchartz.com/ but 360 has sold 27.4m and the PS3 has sold 19.3m. For me this is fairly close when related to previous console wars and this is still before the price cut.

Anyway, I don't agree that there is a clear loser in this war. How many consoles did the Gamecube and Dreamcast sell individually?

Was it as much as 19m half way through their lifespan?

Given that the PS2 was the undisputed champion of its era, the fact that you are making an argument for the PS3 still being in this fight says more then any debate I could pen.


Also, there is no "live and let live" with MS. Certainly not with Sony.

DeV.

DeVore

noodler wrote: »

Read my Post above.

Read the conditional IF statement in my post, you quoted it in yours! Given that I was talking about the possible future , I dont see how the rest of your post applies as it deals with the current present.

DeV.

noodler

See, and this is before I was about to say your previous post had more hate-filled drivel than anything I have read on a cvg or eurogamer forum.

Check out the facts in my post (assuming VGChartz are accurate), then make a point based on them.

It is highly immature to dismiss a rational argument as fanboyism just because it is in contrary to your own.

EDIT: RE: your IF: If Sony close the gap on MS and considering decent PS2 and PSP sales I don't see how they would be screwed. They may not be the dominant one anymore but it would still be a more than economically viable business, i.e. they wouldn't be in Sega territory.