Launching Early Doesn't Equal Success (An Amateur Analysis)

[theaveng]

I keep hearing people say, "If Gamecube2 launches early, Nintendo will win the next console war!" But, it doesn't work that way.

 

-1989 Sega launched the first 16-bit system... they only got 40% of the market (respectible but not dominant).

 

- 1995 Sega launched the first 32-bit system called Saturn. We all know what a major flop that was.

 

- 1999 Sega launched the first 128-bit system called Dreamcast. That console was pulled off the market, and almost bankrupted Sega.

 

So the "first console on the market is the winner" theory is bunk.

.

.

.

.

.

Here's my OWN theory of why companies become dominant:

 

1979 - Atari won the rights to Space Invaders. That game sold millions of consoles. Atari continued getting the major arcade hits like Asteroids, Missile Command, Defender, and Pac-Man... and so they remained dominant.

 

1983-4 - crash... killed everyone. Atari never recovered.

 

1985 - Nintendo used a new tactic of exclusive agreements... preventing third-party companies from porting games to other consoles... and thereby becoming THE console with the most games. Sega and Atari were squashed like bugs.

 

1990 - Even though Sega Genesis launched first, Super Nintendo still had all the rabid fans from the NES. The success of the NES sold the Super NES.

 

1995-6 - Nintendo launched with a limited cartridge setup. It didn't even have a chance against the full-motion video-equipped competiton (like it or not... gamers like the pre-recorded CD movies and audio).

 

That left Sony and Sega. Why did Sony's PS1 become dominant over Sega's Saturn? I have no idea. Saturn launched first, but that didn't give it any advantage. PS1 crushed Saturn. Perhaps it was the "killer ap" of Final Fantasy..... just as 20 years early Space Invaders sold millions of Ataris?

 

2000 - Even though Dreamcast launched earlier, Sony fans remained loyal. Just as Nintendo fans 10 years earlier upgraded from NES to Super NES, Sony fans instantly jumped ship from PS1 to PS2.

 

 

 

So, what makes a successful console?

- A Killer application like Space Invaders or Final Fantasy... followed by more killer aps like Asteroids, Pac-Man, Tomb Raider, Grand Theft Auto, et cetera.

 

- Brand loyalty. Gamers become very loyal to a brand. Super Nintendo succeeded because the Original Nintendo was a smash-hit. PS2 wiped up the market because PS1 was a smash-hit. Previous success = future success.

 

- Luck. If your competition makes a bone-headed mistake (N64 cartridges), you can break brand-loyalty with your superior technology (CDs), marketing hype, and a few lies.

 

 

 

What will it take to beat the PS3?

- Sony makes a stupid mistake... like using cartridges or going back to 2D graphics.

- Nintendo or Microsoft get ahold of a killer ap like Final Fantasy or Grand Theft Auto.

 

Otherwise it appears to me that Sony will once again be dominant in the years 2005-10.

[Bratwurst]

What will it take to beat the PS3?

- Sony makes a stupid mistake... like using cartridges or going back to 2D graphics.

 

Nothing as blatant, I say- CDs as a medium are here to stay until something else surpasses them in quality and cost. It's always hindsight that affects postulations on the future.

 

- Nintendo or Microsoft get ahold of a killer ap like Final Fantasy or Grand Theft Auto.

 

Even this is iffy- I'd argue that Halo has driven most X-Box sales, (It certainly has me looking at it long and hard) and the Gamecube has Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Sonic, etc.

[Christophero Sly]

I don't think brand loyalty has been especially important. Obviously, the success of the NES was important to the success of the SNES. The Mario franchise was still fresh at that point, and that certainly carried over to the SNES. But the 16-bit console wars were fierce. Plenty of gamers transitioned to the Genesis after owning an NES. In it's early stages, the Genesis-SNES fight was very close, and in my opinion, favored the Genesis. It wasn't until later that titles like Donkey Kong Country were able to secure the 16-bit throne for the SNES.

 

Brand loyalty is a mixed-bag. I think it helped Nintendo's consoles because Nintendo had coherent and popular franchises with Mario and Zelda. Had Sega focused it's post-Genesis console efforts on the Saturn, instead of fumbling around with the 32X and CD, I'm convinced that Genesis owners would have been much more enthusiastic about the Saturn.

 

Adding to your criteria for what makes a successful console, I'd say backwards-compatability. Had the 5200 been compatible out of the box with the 2600, it would have been a much more successful console. Sony has capatilized on this concept.

[NovaXpress]

Sega burned a lot of their fans with the 32X debacle and the poor quality Sega CD games. Consumers were not ready to trust Sega with their next videogame purchase, for all they knew the Saturn could be another dog (it definitely was not). Meanwhile, Sony was a known electronics company that hadn't made any enemies among video game fans. The Sony commercials were much better and Sony became heavily involved with grassroots sponsorship. When the PS1 came out, I first played it at a rave in Chicago. Sony set up booths at many concerts, fairs, extreme sports programming and the like to build word of mouth. Playstation commercials were all over MTV and ESPN. Sega did very little to promote Saturn (where's the Sonic game???). By the time FFVII came out, Sony already had the dominant position. FFVII for Saturn would not have been such a hit because Sony was already in many homes and seemed to be the 'hipper' system.

 

I believe that the Genesis outsold the SNES, at least it did for many years. Most analysts felt that the SNES came out a year too late after Sega already had a foothold in the 16-bit market. Sonic was the killer app that pushed Genesis over the top.

 

So now, 2 generations later the opposite seems to be the new rule. The Dreamcast suffered by being first because Sony's hype went into overdrive. Remember how much better they said the PS2 would be? It wasn't. Under the new paradigm, being first to market means that the competition will slam you in the press and add a couple new features for their system. Rumor has it that the Xbox 2 will be ready long before the PS3. but Microsoft will hold it till Sony is ready for release.

 

No company has ever put more videogames in homes than Sony. Their customers are happy with their machines. The backward-compatibility of the Playstation series is an incredible selling point. Most video game families will be Sony for life, I don't see any other company being #1 for decades.

[PuddWakkr]

I think that what will sell me on the next generation of consoles will be a what else can you do for philosophy. Sure you can play awesome games but so can the other guy. Can you also play my MP3's and tape my favorite shows? Alot of Nintendo people consider the GC a "gamer's machine" because it only plays games. If I could spend $300 on a game console or spend $300 on a game console that also play movies, allows me to surf the internet form my couch, or to record shows to a HD then I'd buy the latter. A lot of adults buy console for themselves now not just for their kids and want to do other adult things with them. Sony is in good with the digital video recording stuff now and I'd bet you see something like that built into the PS3. MS has a good strangle hold on the internet with their Internet Explorer so I think you'll prolly see XboxPlorer. I don't know what Nintendo has up their sleeves but if there's nothing up there then I see them falling farther down the lists in my eyes. This might not be important to dedicated game players, but the majority of sales don't always go to the hardcore players.

[chrisbid]

why are people getting excited or even talking about the next generation of consoles? what improvements are left to be made? I seriously doubt any company is going to introduce anything hardware wise that will make me want to jump up and down and buy yet another freakin console.

[ubersaurus]

Yeah its safe to say the Genesis did win the 16 bit war, outselling the SNES and turbographx. Of course I think the tg-16 came out first...

 

Anyhows, the NES did see a release before the SMS and A78. That would make it appear as though that, for a time, being the only viable console on the market allowed them to get those exclusivity deals to actually mean something, i.e. get all the games people want on their console first, before the competition came out, giving them a large edge on them. In that instance, first to launch was definitely to their advantage.

 

In the Saturn's case, the Playstation was announced to launch pretty quick after it. Add that to the system's hype and lower price tag, it's safe to say that sony had that one in the bag. On the other note, the PS2 launched after the dreamcast, but since it was still riding the wave of the psx's success, it was able to eventually beat out the dreamcast. The DC died for other reasons, it died because sega lost alot of money with the saturn, and because it was their vice presidents baby, and when he retired, they cut the support for the console. By staying out of hardware for a while, they could save up the money and reestablish their name and maybe further down the line, come along with a new platform. It's failure was a byproduct of sega's own sorry state while it was being supported.

[Starscream]

why are people getting excited or even talking about the next generation of consoles?  what improvements are left to be made?  I seriously doubt any company is going to introduce anything hardware wise that will make me want to jump up and down and buy yet another freakin console.

 

If everyone thought no more could be done, we'd all still just have our Atari 2600's to play and that's it. Just because you or I can't think of improvements and better features, does not mean people who are in the industry can't. There is always room for improvement for anything. I mean come on, the PS2 could use more improvements than I could even list. The GC could use a better controller and some digital sound would be nice. The Xbox could use a bigger hard drive and be smaller. These are only things I can think of right now, but imagine the wheels that are turning in the respective systems developers minds. Except maybe Sonys - half assed and overhyped is about all they know how to do....

 

Back on topic, release of a system has never mattered at all if ya ask me. It only seems important now because of the enormous lead Sony gained by being first out on the market for the current systems. But even if Sony is dominant next time around, it still will not prove that Sony does it better - it just proves they can sell more. But in a way, I do believe Sonys arrogance about the console wars may lead to a pleasant to watch downfall of Sonys dominance. Now that would be a beautiful thing to see

[kisrael]

Yeah its safe to say the Genesis did win the 16 bit war, outselling the SNES and turbographx. Of course I think the tg-16 came out first...

 

No, it's not safe to say that at all. Sales wise, the word is they were about even in the USA, but with SNES having a big lead in Japan. And in terms of big pop cultural fond memories, SNES had RPGs, Marios, some others, Genesis had Sonic and great sports games. All in all, the safest and most accurate thing is to call it about a tie.

 

Backwards compatability seems to be a bigger deal than I would have thought a couple of years ago, at least anecdotally, if you look at the sales of Playstations and also Gameboys.

 

Just to make up a threory that sounds good, I'd say a dominant system needs 2 of 3 things:

1 first to market, or at least the promise of something technology new

2 killer apps/exclusives

3 backwards compatability

 

Atari 2600 had 1 and 2.

NES had 1 and 3.

I'd argue both the SNES nor the Genesis had one only (2 and 1, respectively), which is why it was a tie.

PSX had 1 and 2

PS2 has 2 and 3

GBA has 2 and 3.

 

Eh, it's a very arguable theory with some holes but it's interesting to think about.

 

And in terms of "is there something new to be had" with the next generation of games...absolutely. PS/N64 -> DC/PS2/GC/Xbox cleaned up the graphics, sometimes I forget how much, put in the older generation and am surprised at the framerates and low poly counts. There's some more room for improvement to be had in graphics (especially in modeling humans and especially faces) but I think even more exciting will be the ability to make richer worlds with a lot less faking. GTA3 is a good example. Fun physics model, but sometimes the illusion of a world that's going on behind the scenes is all too apparent, especially the way autos disappear when you look the other way. And there's tons more room for more realistic NPCs, like the pedestrians, and even the enemies when their not being seen in the cutscenes.

 

Admittedly, it's less of a paradigm shift than the move from Genesis/SNES to PSX/N64...

[ubersaurus]

Yeah well I could give a shit about how consoles do in Japan as far as this argument is concerned...it wouldn't be fair to mention atari and shit if you want to talk about Japan, since they were never popular there in the least. You may as well bring up the SMS was big in Europe and the NES was damn near a failure there, or that the Saturn was more popular in Japan then everywhere else.

 

Perspective, man. And the perspective here is North America.

[Antalos]

-1989 Sega launched the first 16-bit system... they only got 40% of the market (respectible but not dominant).

I thought the TurboGraphix was the first.

 

- 1995 Sega launched the first 32-bit system called Saturn.  We all know what a major flop that was.

I thought the Amiga CD32 or 3DO was the first

 

- 1999 Sega launched the first 128-bit system called Dreamcast.  That console was pulled off the market, and almost bankrupted Sega.

I thought they were having financial problems way before then.

 

That left Sony and Sega.  Why did Sony's PS1 become dominant over Sega's Saturn?  I have no idea.   Saturn launched first, but that didn't give it any advantage.  PS1 crushed Saturn.  Perhaps it was the "killer ap" of Final Fantasy..... just as 20 years early Space Invaders sold millions of Ataris?

I think it had partially to do with the fact that the Saturn was hard to program for.

[kisrael]

Perspective, man. And the perspective here is North America.

You're pretty blind if you don't realize how much more important Japan is to the US gaming market than Europe...

 

But, if you want to just stick to system popularity on a per country basis, fair enough: the SNES and Genesis competition still did not have a clear winner in the United States. Depending on what you which system you were more exposed to, which ones you or your buddies tended to have, that probably seemed like the dominant system (for me it's the SNES) but overall it all about evened out.

[Clock]

Brand loyalty is very important to sales, the PS2 sells to sheep who had the PS1. Why else does the weakest of three by far out sells the others?

 

PS1 sold well due to Sony's excellent marketing. PS2 sold on the success of the PS1. Sony is also a good brand name.

 

Snes far out sold Genesis/Megadrive worldwide.... There is a whole world outside the states.

 

Atari 7800 suffered in Europe because hardly anyone knew it was even available....that's bad marketing....no actually that's no marketing.

 

Xbox is out selling the Gamecube in Europe and is starting to in Japan now. This is not a good sign for nintendo. The PS2 however is selling 5 consoles to every xbox ands 6 to every Gamecube, here in Europe. I do not know what the situation is in the USA but I believe the PS2 is ahead.

 

The PS2 is selling now due to it being the biggest seller - i.e. safe bet it won't go out of date and cease to be any time soon. Also friends will own one. The Xbox sells due to MS major investment in merchandising and advertising as well as the fact that it is the best of the three. Gamecube sells on reputation of previous consoles and the fact that it is the cheapest by far.

 

Nintendo don't need the gamecube as the Gameboy range is a massive profit maker and sells in huge numbers. So don't expect Nintendo to go away.

 

The next gen console war will be very interesting as MS intend to realease Xbox2 just before the PS3 and they are now an established console. I don't know if Nintendo want to play with these guys anymore when it has the portable market to itself.

 

That's my 2 cents. I'm sure someone will dissagree or flame me.

[theaveng]

FUTURE: There's lots of growth potential: (1) The consoles need to upgrade from lo-res 640x480 NTSC to hi-res 1280x1080 HDTV. (2) More detailed textures with no pixelation. (3) Characters that move like people instead of puppets on strings.

NES had 1 and 3.

What was NES backwards-compatible with?!?!?

 

You're pretty blind if you don't realize how much more important Japan is to the US gaming market than Europe...

Nonsense. The U.S. - Europe consoles sales is about 9-10 times larger than Japanese console sales. A company doesn't need Japan to succeed..... as Microsoft demonstrates. Even with lousy Japanese sales, their Xbox has surpassed Gamecube.

[kisrael]

NES had 1 and 3.

What was NES backwards-compatible with?!?!?

Sorry, typo. 1 and 2.

You're pretty blind if you don't realize how much more important Japan is to the US gaming market than Europe...

Nonsense. The U.S. - Europe consoles sales is about 9-10 times larger than Japanese console sales. A company doesn't need Japan to succeed..... as Microsoft demonstrates. Even with lousy Japanese sales, their Xbox has surpassed Gamecube.

In terms of game creation, you don't think Japan is more important than Europe? Rare and Rockstar are all that easily come to mind about games from Europe. It's less of a neccesity than it was, but in the Genesis/SNES era it was huuuge.

[Foxy Cleopatra]

Well I think with this thread theaveng has once again proven his sole purpose is to create controversy, while talking out of a hole lower on his body.

[theaveng]

CLEAOPATRA: Such a juvenile attack is un-necessary. GROW UP.

 

 

 

KISREALl: Japan is important for game creation (rpgs mainly), but it's the bottom line that matters, and it's America-Europe than makes a company succeed or fail. The Japanese sales are so small as to not matter.

 

If you don't believe me, look at the NPD data. American-European console sales are measured in millions. Japanese sales in thousands.

 

 

(Quoting from memory, I believe in the year 2002 PS2 sold ~30 million units in America-Europe. In Japan, it was only ~900,000 units. Even if Sony sold absolutely *no* PS2s in Japan, they'd still have the dominant console.)

[kisrael]

Japan is important for game creation (rpgs mainly),  

And Nintendo and Sega core dev teams...esp. in the early 90s.

but it's the bottom line that matters, and it's America-Europe than makes a company succeed or fail.  The Japanese sales are so small as to not matter.

 

If you don't believe me, look at the NPD data.  American-European console sales are measured in millions.  Japanese sales in thousands.

Actually what's a good source for that kind of historical data?

[AtariDude]

The next big console will be coming from Atari. They are working on a super, super, top secret console that will make all current consoles look like toys. If I told you anything more, I would have to shoot you

[kisrael]

The next big console will be coming from Atari. They are working on a super, super, top secret console that will make all current consoles look like toys. If I told you anything more, I would have to shoot you  

Alright! I can't wait to do the math...again!

 

Maybe we can get Minter to do Tempest 4000 this time!

[theaveng]

America - NPD - this information isn't handled out except to businesses. So people "steal" the data and then post it online.

 

Europe - ?????

 

Japan - the-magicbox.com

[Jasoco]

All I have to saw at this point is that the next Nintendo system had better play GameCube games or else.

 

I am running out of room. I hate having 5 fucking systems. And System switchers only go up to 5. If I add a 6th system, I'll be screwed.

 

If they can make the GameBoy backwards compatable, why the hell not the Consoles?

 

The SNES should have played NES games. The N64 should have done SNES and NES.

 

The GCN would be a harder thing to pull off, but I could live with that if the N64 had the ability to play my other games. They have the right idea with the GameBoy adapter for the GCN. If they could create a device like that to play the other consoles on as well, that would rock. People would actually be buying more old cartriges from the GameStops and Electronics Boutiques. Though, the drawback is prices on them would probably go back up.

 

I'm SURE the PS3 will play PS 2 and 1 games. I'm SURE the Xbox 2 will play Xbox games. WHAT is Nintendo's problem? Do they not GET IT?

[Ze_ro]

Two words:

 

MOD CHIP

 

How has no one mentioned this yet? The PSX was popular because people could easily get FREE games. It didn't matter that most of the games sucked, they were FREE!

 

This advantage has mostly died out, since piracy for the Playcube, Gamebox, and X-Station is a waste of time... until DVD burning becomes common that is...

 

As for new systems, there's no point whatsoever. No one but the hardcore fanboys are going to bother buying a PS3, because barring any revolutions, it'll be a PS2.25 at best... no point in wasting $300 for that. For ANY next-gen system to be successful, it needs to be a LOT better than what's already available. Personally, I think if someone wants to take the market, they need to attack the Gameboy market. Make a PSX quality handheld system that can put the Gameboy to shame, and you might be able to knock the stranglehold away from Nintendo. I know what you're going to say... that Nintendo is an unstoppable juggernaut in the handheld business, but the GBA has one weakness*: it's not terribly powerful... it's a SNES with a SuperFX at best. Unfortunately, people like Nokia seem content to release underpowered, battery draining beasts that don't have much chance... *sigh*...

 

* - Okay, there's a second weakness: Lots and lots of shitty games. Make a handheld that can do Tony Hawk without making it overhead perspective, and you'll make millions.

 

--Zero

[Starscream]

Mod chip was the only reason I ever got a PSX. Not worth modding a PS2. Nintendo was challenged in the handheld market - the Neo geo Pocket. It was better, had quite a few unique games but no major support besides Sega really. Add the fact that Nintendo pretty much did every single underhanded thing they could think of to "convince" retailers not to stock the NGP. It was doomed from the start. Nintendo can have the handheld market. I really see no use for competition there.

[Ze_ro]

A few more replies...

 

I am running out of room. I hate having 5 fucking systems. And System switchers only go up to 5. If I add a 6th system, I'll be screwed.

 

Well, you can daisy chain them... but that's a pain in the ass. You could also get another TV, but that's expensive...

 

The SNES should have played NES games. The N64 should have done SNES and NES.

 

Well... the SNES was quite successful without NES support, but it would have been nice. Playing SNES games would have much helped the poor N64, but I don't think playing NES games would have helped it. By then, most NES's had been relegated to closets.

 

The GCN would be a harder thing to pull off, but I could live with that if the N64 had the ability to play my other games. They have the right idea with the GameBoy adapter for the GCN. If they could create a device like that to play the other consoles on as well, that would rock. People would actually be buying more old cartriges from the GameStops and Electronics Boutiques. Though, the drawback is prices on them would probably go back up.

 

I'm SURE the PS3 will play PS 2 and 1 games.

 

Don't be so sure... Playing PS2 games is likely, but PS1 will be pretty old by that time, and they'll likely not bother. Keep in mind that it costs money to make the system backwards compatible, and often causes more trouble than it's worth (Remember the 386 having protected mode, XMS/EMS memory, etc, etc? x86 architecture gets might complicated in order to preserve backwards compatibility), plus it makes the final product more expensive.

 

- 1999 Sega launched the first 128-bit system called Dreamcast.

 

Ugh... please don't call it a 128-bit system... bit terms are so archaic and mostly childish. We really need to stop referring to systems by these marketing-dept. numbers, since they really have very little bearing, and are often based on different aspects of the system.

 

- Nintendo or Microsoft get ahold of a killer ap like Final Fantasy or Grand Theft Auto.

 

Nintendo has more than enough franchises to keep in going. All they need to do is pump out some more Pokemon or Mario games, and people will flock to the system... by the way, where the hell is Mario Kart Cube? This game REALLY should have been out at launch.

 

One of the reasons I think that the N64 died a slow death was lack of these franchises... where was the second Mario game? Forget Banjo Kazooie, Nintendo should have made Mario 128 or whatever instead. Where was a REAL Pokemon game? That is, an RPG instead of Puzzle League or Snap or Stadium. Where was Metroid? Nintendo really dropped the ball on this system with lack of software.

 

I don't think brand loyalty has been especially important.

 

It is, but not in the same way as stuff like cars. People buy Sony stuff because they think Sony will be the company that lasts. People bought the SNES because they knew the NES was a winner, and didn't think Sega could beat Nintendo.

 

Brand loyalty is actually working against Microsoft, since there's lots of people who actively dislike them.

 

I think that what will sell me on the next generation of consoles will be a what else can you do for philosophy. Sure you can play awesome games but so can the other guy. Can you also play my MP3's and tape my favorite shows?

 

I don't think it's that important really... Most people who are well enough off that they can afford video games probably already have a DVD player. I'm sure it costs them a few sales, but a lower price (or higher profits) can make up for that.

 

I should also point out that "all in one" machines have a poor history... remember the CD-i? It was meant as an all-in-one box that played movies and stuff like Encarta... and it died a rather slow death. 3DO also tried something like this. Dreamcast's internet abilities might have sold some units, but probably not as many as you'd think. Who wants to browse with a joypad when I can use my computer?

 

If everyone thought no more could be done, we'd all still just have our Atari 2600's to play and that's it. Just because you or I can't think of improvements and better features, does not mean people who are in the industry can't.

 

So, what? Holograms then? I honestly can't see the next generation being noteworthy unless they do something revolutionary like VR or something. New rumble packs won't do it. A few more polygons won't do it either.

 

I thought the TurboGraphix was the first.

 

You're right... but it did even worse than the Genesis! It might have had about 1-2% of the market.

 

Nonsense. The U.S. - Europe consoles sales is about 9-10 times larger than Japanese console sales. A company doesn't need Japan to succeed.....

 

I wish this were true. I remember when EGM said the Lynx was doomed without Japanese developers, and I was majorly pissed off. The NA market is bigger than the Japanese market I'm sure... but most of the companies are based in Japan (especially developers). Frankly, I'm sick of everyone jumping on the "Japan is great!" bandwagon. There's already too many Civics on the streets...

 

The next big console will be coming from Atari.

 

Nonsense... the Phantom will crush Atari's puny system!

 

--Zero