Support NeoGAF

[wazoo]

Trust me, you didn't.

Yes, I did, looking at the Wii in under my TV.

Unless the Gamecube had built-in wireless ethernet adaptor, DVD-9 media capacity, 512 mb of Flash installed, and a beefed up processor and graphics chip that Nintendo never mentioned.

Still waiting for any of these to be used for gaming purpose.

 

[Draft]

The Console Wars are over. After this generation, no one will seriously believe the 'truths' established during the 16-bit generation.

Until they become non-quotation mark truths again in 10 years? What a silly statement. I'm not even sure what you're suggesting. Sony didn't expand the market? What claptrap. Sony didn't appeal to casuals? Utter rubbish. They just did it without tattooing the fact on their foreheads or stomping around a press conference waving self help books to that effect.

Whether or not they're shitting the bed with the PS3 is irrelevant to their history. Clearly their strategy and execution during the PSX and PS2 era was on point with what the public (yes, the mass market public) wanted. Has what they want changed? Seems so, if early sales are any indication. Does that mean that the future of video games is nothing but really pretty versions of pong and breakout? Give me a break.

The only truths in the Console War (which is far, far form over) is that tastes change, and no one stays on top forever.

 

[Pureauthor]

I don't think they're that different, as you pointed out FFV is like a bigger, better FFIII, and while FFIV was a start to FF games having some kind of plot, the difference never became that apparent until FFVI which totally ditched the Crystal-centered story.

I think the big change came with FFVI, otherwise, IV and V aren't too different.

That works out, since I specifically mentioned FFVI, huh?

Megaman X was nice but it's still a spin-off and was nothing too significant; till this day, you still find most Megaman fans clamouring for the series to go back to its classic roots.

Nuh-uh. I'm a diehard Megaman fan and I don't want the series to 'go back' to their classic roots. I want them to remember their classic roots, and give closure to at least one bloody series.

And even if they do want the series to go back, it's largely because we haven't had a stellar classic Megaman game in forever. The last great one was Megaman 5, by general consensus.

 

[wazoo]

Great examples... both SFII and MK were multi-platform.

Putting great games from one generation against bad games from another does not make a point.

 

[Magicpaint]

That works out, since I specifically mentioned FFVI, huh?

Yeah, but what is your point?

You mention FFVI and Megaman X, but really they are continuations of the series that came during the NES era.

 

[Pureauthor]

Yeah, but what is your point?

You mention FFVI and Megaman X, but really they are continuations of the series that came during the NES era.

Both of which are drastically different from what was offered during the NES era. Again: Are we discussing games or franchises?

 

[gamergirly]

I do not like to buy a console 500$, or even 400$. i do not like to buy a console twice either, just for a new controller.

You're going to have to become a 2 year PC gaming convert then.

It's the biggest and budgest Zelda ever. Don't assume they're happy about the sales in Japan.

Yep. Nintendo will continue to sell their franchises in Japan even if they only do 150,000 LTD

Nintendo isn't doing anything new. What they are doing now is what video game companies did in the seventies and eighties: focus on mass market (choosing pong over computer space, etc.), tapping into new demographics (Pac-Man for females), integrating hardware and software to create new type of game experiences (most arcade game makers), and focusing on a family friendly console (Atari 2600, NES, and so on).

Mostly true and a great post. You're a very consistent long poster

 

[cank stoochie]

i think the next few months are going to be critical for sony systems in japan.
they have vf 5 coming in 3 weeks, then the following week they have monster hunter portable, which will be huge for the psp, then the next week they have gundam musuo on the ps3, so we'll see how things go for them.
i'm also interested in seeing how eye of judgement performs. looks like the kind of game the japanese could like

 

[Eteric Rice]

I can honestly say I don't like hardly any of the newer Final Fantasy games. They've all taken a more sci-fi route, rather than being fantasy in a traditional sense.

VI was the last great FF imo. : /

 

[Magicpaint]

Both of which are drastically different from what was offered during the NES era. Again: Are we discussing games or franchises?

I'd imagine it has to do with franchises. Which is exactly why I can't see your point.

 

[justchris]

Until they become non-quotation mark truths again in 10 years? What a silly statement. I'm not even sure what you're suggesting. Sony didn't expand the market? What claptrap. Sony didn't appeal to casuals? Utter rubbish. They just did it without tattooing the fact on their foreheads or stomping around a press conference waving self help books to that effect.

Whether or not they're shitting the bed with the PS3 is irrelevant to their history. Clearly their strategy and execution during the PSX and PS2 era was on point with what the public (yes, the mass market public) wanted. Has what they want changed? Seems so, if early sales are any indication. Does that mean that the future of video games is nothing but really pretty versions of pong and breakout? Give me a break.

The only truths in the Console War (which is far, far form over) is that tastes change, and no one stays on top forever.

No, I'd say he's mostly right. I wish I could find it, but several months ago there was a study that found that, percentage wise, there are actually less households with a gaming system (in the US) than there were during the NES era. All the 'growth' from the PS1 & PS2 eras was entirely from population growth, and in fact, was tracking lower than population growth.

Sony was simply expanding the market into people who hadn't been around to buy a system during the NES & SNES/Genesis years. I assume Nintendo hopes to expand the market to people who were around then, but didn't play video games, as well as people who were too young for the PS1 & PS2 years.

Of course, again, this study was just done in the US. Worldwide it may be a different story.

 

[Draft]

No, I'd say he's mostly right. I wish I could find it, but several months ago there was a study that found that, percentage wise, there are actually less households with a gaming system (in the US) than there were during the NES era. All the 'growth' from the PS1 & PS2 eras was entirely from population growth, and in fact, was tracking lower than population growth.

Sony was simply expanding the market into people who hadn't been around to buy a system during the NES & SNES/Genesis years. I assume Nintendo hopes to expand the market to people who were around then, but didn't play video games, as well as people who were too young for the PS1 & PS2 years.

Of course, again, this study was just done in the US. Worldwide it may be a different story.

Considering PS2 sold more units than the NES and SNES combined, I'd say there's two likely scenarioes:

1. A WHOLE lot of ****ing
2. A bunch of people who weren't interested in Nintendo systems bought PlayStations.

Look, I like to bash Sony as much as the next guy, but to discount what they did for the market over the last decade is folly. And to suggest that there is one magic bullet way to design games that guarantees success and total mass market domination is just as ludicrous.

This happens all the time, in every industry. Someone scores an iPod, or a Walkman, or a Google, or a DS, and then everybody trips over themselves trying to extrapolate the magic formula that made the item such a hit. They make charts, they do surveys, they reference data, and the really ambitious write books that explain how you too can enjoy the fantastic success by just following these simple steps!

The TRUTH is that sometimes companies win, and sometimes they lose. Right now Nintendo is winning. If they keep winning Sony, MS and anyone else trying to compete in the video game market will emulate their methods in an attempt to repeat their success. That is until someone else comes along with a video game idea different than what's currently popular, and they find wild success and adulation. Then the process starts all over again.

Beware those who tell you there is any truth to business besides uncertainty. They are probably trying to sell you something.

 

[Pureauthor]

I'd imagine it has to do with franchises. Which is exactly why I can't see your point.

In which case I can easily argue that 2D Mario (NSMB), Tetris, Donkey Kong and Metroid don't hold up as well today.

But if we're arguing franchises, then the whole premise of it is absurd. Franchises that were great and made their debut during the SNES/Genesis era don't hold up today because of their start on the SNES/Genesis? Do you realize how utterly asinine that line of logic is?

Sonic sucks now because all the talent that made the old games good left, and they've seemingly forgotten exactly what made Sonic 2D so good in the first place, not because it attempted to look good graphically and be competitive when it first came out. Star Fox sucks now because it's deviated from the formula that made it so good in the first place, not because it tried to push 3D graphics on the SNES when it first came out.

 

[gamergirly]

Considering PS2 sold more units than the NES and SNES combined, I'd say there's two likely scenarioes:

1. A WHOLE lot of ****ing
2. A bunch of people who weren't interested in Nintendo systems bought PlayStations.

Look, I like to bash Sony as much as the next guy, but to discount what they did for the market over the last decade is folly.

The PS2 has "sold"(not shipped) 109 million+ now?

I can honestly say I don't like hardly any of the newer Final Fantasy games. They've all taken a more sci-fi route, rather than being fantasy in a traditional sense.

VI was the last great FF imo. : /

Themes? Nah. With FF, it seems like revamping the battle system every edition is MORE important than giving you a story you actually give a damn about.

 

[Draft]

The PS2 has "sold"(not shipped) 109 million+ now?

I'm pretty sure it's over 100 million PS2's in the wild. So maybe not "more than" but close enough that you can hopefully see my point.

 

[Pureauthor]

Themes? Nah. With FF, it seems like revamping the battle system every edition is MORE important than giving you a story you actually give a damn about.

But that's because it is more important...

 

[gamergirly]

Why would the battle system be more important than the actual story?

 

[MrSardonic]

Considering PS2 sold more units than the NES and SNES combined, I'd say there's two likely scenarioes:

There was no real expansion in the % of homes with consoles when the PS2 came out. The increase in sales over the NES where influenced by other factors such as:

- multiple units per household
- repurchases following breakdown
- population increase

 

[Pureauthor]

Why would the battle system be more important than the actual story?

Are you trying to be sarcastic or something?

 

[Jokeropia]

Considering PS2 sold more units than the NES and SNES combined, I'd say there's two likely scenarioes:

In USA, PS2 sold only slightly more than NES and this despite the population increase.

 

[TheGreatDave]

NES and SNES doing **** all in Europe would have a big part of why PS2 has outsold them worldwide.

 

[Forgotten Ancient]

Why would the battle system be more important than the actual story?

Well, I don't really look forward to the story of most games I play - including RPGs. I'd like it to have a good story, but I mostly care about the battle, leveling, and skill system. Oh, and the music.

I've never found a story in a game to be as good as a good book.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Why would the battle system be more important than the actual story?

Video Game Stories are shit, for the most part.

 

[Pureauthor]

Well, I don't really look forward to the story of most games I play - including RPGs. I'd like it to have a good story, but I mostly care about the battle, leveling, and skill system. Oh, and the music.

I've never found a story in a game to be as good as a good book.

No, duh. Videogames are videogames. Story comes secondary in their medium. I'd prefer them to just use a tired plot and do it well instead of trying something new, fresh, and edgey, and screwing it up in about ten different ways.

Besides, the real 'storytelling' strength of RPGs (videogames?) is in characterisation.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I've... I've always played them for the story more than for the gameplay. D:

RPGs could definately use an upgrade in the gameplay department.

 

[Pureauthor]

I give up.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I give up.

Before you do. I must say that I haven't enjoyed an RPG story since Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger, and Super Mario RPG.

It's been a looong time.

 

[justchris]

Considering PS2 sold more units than the NES and SNES combined, I'd say there's two likely scenarioes:

1. A WHOLE lot of ****ing
2. A bunch of people who weren't interested in Nintendo systems bought PlayStations.

Look, I like to bash Sony as much as the next guy, but to discount what they did for the market over the last decade is folly. And to suggest that there is one magic bullet way to design games that guarantees success and total mass market domination is just as ludicrous.

This happens all the time, in every industry. Someone scores an iPod, or a Walkman, or a Google, or a DS, and then everybody trips over themselves trying to extrapolate the magic formula that made the item such a hit. They make charts, they do surveys, they reference data, and the really ambitious write books that explain how you too can enjoy the fantastic success by just following these simple steps!

The TRUTH is that sometimes companies win, and sometimes they lose. Right now Nintendo is winning. If they keep winning Sony, MS and anyone else trying to compete in the video game market will emulate their methods in an attempt to repeat their success. That is until someone else comes along with a video game idea different than what's currently popular, and they find wild success and adulation. Then the process starts all over again.

Beware those who tell you there is any truth to business besides uncertainty. They are probably trying to sell you something.

Uh-huh. Between the years of 1990-200, the population of the world increased by ~806.05 million. The population of the US increased by 32,712,033 (according to census data). It would also be important to take into consideration that not all areas of the world had access to the NES/FC that had access to the PS2, the percentage of the 60 million NES' sold in the US is different from the percentage of the 100 million+ PS2's sold in the US, and the average household size in the US also changed in that 10 year period. The US census is only conducted ever 10 years, so data for 2006 is less concrete. All of this was found in under 10 minutes on the US census bureau website (except the worldwide growth figures, which were found at: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ ).

There is no denying that Sony has both grown and shaped the market with the PS1 & PS2, I am just saying they have grown it less than would be expected.

But while lapsed was partly right in his evaluation, you are partly right in yours as well. What he pointed out, was that there was a greater difference in the philosophy of the SNES & n64, than there was between the philosophy of the PS1 and PS2, or the PS2 and PS3, or even the PS1 and PS3.

In the SNES/Genesis years, Sega successfully changed the way the market was shaped, and Nintendo tried to follow this new market with the n64, and Sony just did it better than they did with the PS1. Now, rather than continuing on the same path, Nintendo has chosen to change the market again. The same thing happens with tv, movies, even books and graphical art. A certain philosophy or process becomes hugely popular, and persists for a few generations, until it stagnates and it's fanbase grows increasingly smaller, and so a new philosophy in that same art form takes precedence.

Where lapsed made his mistake was in saying that the old way established by the NES was in some way a superior form. The industry hasn't been around long enough to say whether that's true or not for certain. But if any art form continues under the same philosophy for too long a period, history has proven time and again that it will stagnate, until a new philosophy is developed to revitalize it.

I still contend that Nintendo saw the old way dying out in Japan, and were the first to take advantage of it by presenting the populace with a new form (that bears a striking resemblance to the form they originated with the Famicom), and are now trying to kill the old form in the rest of the world to hasten their dominance. I don't entirely disagree with their strategy, and even when a new form takes the lead in popularity, it still leaves plenty of room for proponents of the old form, they just have to be better at it than those who were doing it when it was popular (meaning the old PS2/Xbox/GC formula will still be there in the future, but only those who are the best at it will be able to ply their trade if the new form introduced by the Wii takes hold).

 

[Arsenal]

to be honest, it looks like sony doesnt really care, as long as they win the blu-ray war format. i heard they stand to make more money on that than ps3 sales

More and more though it is looking like the HD format war will be more of a stalemate. Both formats have established customer bases and there are not big enough advantages in either technology or price between the two to make much of a difference. Multi-format discs and players should be available by the end of the year. Now Blu-ray could eventually become the more popular format, but as long as HD DVD doesn't die off, it will still impact how much profit Sony can make off their format. Microsoft doesn't really have to win the format war to "win", they just need to neutralize any competitive advantages Sony would have from controlling the media format.

 

[charlequin]

Considering the timing, I don't think it's bad. Plus it's bound to have legs, and excellent word of mouth.

That's kind of my feeling. Recent evidence points to niche and small-scale RPGs on the DS climbing to 4-5x their day one sales on the back of fairly significant legs. It looks like Chocobo might squeak in close to 100k by the time it's done, and Etrian started out a little higher, even...

Should we spin Nippon Ichi's almost identical first day sales for Dragon Shadow Spell as an indicator that third parties should fear Sony consoles?

How much do NI games usually do, anyway? And are we expecting to see this stateside?

 

[Battersea Power Station]

So did we actually get MC hardware sales or were those numbers Famitsu or something?

 

[ethelred]

That's kind of my feeling. Recent evidence points to niche and small-scale RPGs on the DS climbing to 4-5x their day one sales on the back of fairly significant legs. It looks like Chocobo might squeak in close to 100k by the time it's done, and Etrian started out a little higher, even...



How much do NI games usually do, anyway? And are we expecting to see this stateside?

It was Flight Plan, not N1 -- I was posting while way too tired last night. Same difference, though.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

I don't think they're that different, as you pointed out FFV is like a bigger, better FFIII, and while FFIV was a start to FF games having some kind of plot, the difference never became that apparent until FFVI which totally ditched the Crystal-centered story.

I think the big change came with FFVI, otherwise, IV and V aren't too different.

Did you even finish FFIV? It has arguably the best storyline of any FF game. FFIII to FFIV was the biggest change ever from one FF game to the next (not counting XI).

 

[Bungalow Bob]

Considering PS2 sold more units than the NES and SNES combined, I'd say there's two likely scenarioes:

1. A WHOLE lot of ****ing
2. A bunch of people who weren't interested in Nintendo systems bought PlayStations.

Look, I like to bash Sony as much as the next guy, but to discount what they did for the market over the last decade is folly. And to suggest that there is one magic bullet way to design games that guarantees success and total mass market domination is just as ludicrous.

Besides population growth, you gotta remember that the NES was almost non-existant in Europe. PCs were dominant there. Then the SNES split the entire western world the Sega Genesis.

It´s only correct to say that the PS brand expanded console gaming to a new audience in Europe. This was due in large part to increased advertising (compared to previous consoles in Europe), and the ease and cheapness of pirating software.

 

[donny2112]

Very nice post, Lapsed. Some points are debatable (I don't care to debate them), but a very nice post, overall.

As a reminder, didn't Pac-Man Collection and Namco classics sell like 1 or 2 million on the GBA.

Seems like Pac-Man is never gonna go away.

Namco Museum has outsold Pokemon Ruby, and Pac-Man Collection is just below Pokemon Leaf Green. I'd say Pac-Man is still pretty popular, too.

 

[Jonnyram]

So did we actually get MC hardware sales or were those numbers Famitsu or something?

Yes we did. They were lower than the Famitsu numbers...

Wii 93,708
DSL 89,287
PSP 48,804
PS3 25,531
PS2 22,663
Xbox360 9,035

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

I actually think its too early. You really shouldn't set yourself up for disappointment.

When I want to make a prediction I'll also be prepared to admit I'm mistaken and eat my hat, and in this case, I'm not ready to do either.

Well, as a consumer, I like the highest quality goods at the lowest quality of prices. Not only that but the purchase has to be relevant. PS3 fails to me in that regard because its expensive for something I don't even want (Blu-Ray). The game lineup of the PS3 is extremely mediocre with nothing that screams a must buy. Some good games I wouldn't mind playing but for its price tag, no way.

I also stand to gain nothing from seeing a console fail. I do however stand to gain the idea that console manufacturers need to focus on video games and low prices. I don't want to buy a set top box. This is why I think Sony needs to drop the price. It might lose more money but it stands a higher chance of recuperating its lost earnings with software.

The Console Wars are over. After this generation, no one will seriously believe the 'truths' established during the 16-bit generation.

How so? With competition, software had to be aimed at all kinds of demographics or else the system would fail. Each new generation introduced a new genre of gaming that continued to sell more and more copies.

Its just that in the past, first party games were pretty much the only games that gamers could trust. Going back to the NES, people ran to the same couple dozen games in a sea of hundreds of shovelware titles, even with Nintendo's strict rules. Developers made money because the NES was such a novel craze that any NES title had a shot of producing a profit. Like all things, the crazes ended and the dynamics of console gaming had to change.

Using Sega is a bad example because the company was very poorly run and seemed to fail even the ideas of basic economics and common sense. You don't divide up your consumers and try to section them off. Genesis was able to do well because it had strong software at a decent price that aimed at new demographics that Nintendo at times refused to touch.

PlayStation succeeded because Sony was the first manufacturer that seemed to court and pursue third parties. Nintendo just looked at third parties like beggars on a street corner. Sega was too busy throwing together the Saturn to really court third parties. Besides, at the time Sega arcade ports fared well. PlayStation was a clean slate and SCE took a backseat, probably on purpose, to make the system a third party haven. Look at what happened.

It had nothing to do with tapping new demographics. Nongamers are always going to have their interest piqued about something. Last generation, it was The Sims and Grand Theft Auto. In many instances, they would buy these games only, perhaps a few bargain bin titles, and that was it.

 

[Error]

Megaman X was nice but it's still a spin-off and was nothing too significant; till this day, you still find most Megaman fans clamouring for the series to go back to its classic roots.

nah, going back to it's 'classic roots' will be such a step back. the formula has already been improved upon a lot imo with MMX1 (the run and gun gameplay style of the old MMs was improved a lot in MMX1 and it introduced wall jumping and dashing both which went on to become staples in the MM franchise) and MMZ2 (Zero2 has a couple of annoyances but it takes the melee combat aspect first introduced in MMX4 and improves upon it tenfold) sure the platforming took a back seat to the action over the years, but Zero has some really good platforming in some of the levels so I dont mind. they stroke a good balance between platforming and action with MMZ

people wishing the series would go back to it's 'classic roots' like that would suddenly make the series popular again (no it wont) havent played a MM since MM5 or something. unless you are a total nostalgic whore you cant argue against the fact that the series has improved a lot over the years the only problem is capcom's usual milking the cashcow till it runs dry company philosophy.

I love the classic series, but I just want to remember it as the series that started it all and that's it, no need to go back to it. look at MMPU is a remake of MM1 and went back to it's roots and sold like total crap.

 

[charlequin]

Considering PS2 sold more units than the NES and SNES combined, I'd say there's two likely scenarioes:

1. A WHOLE lot of ****ing
2. A bunch of people who weren't interested in Nintendo systems bought PlayStations.

3. Expansion into geographic areas that were largely untapped by the NES.

Once you account for Europe (as well as other minor markets that have opened up), that picture looks very different. Actual PS2 sales in the US (and I'm pretty sure Japan, though I can't seem to find Famicom lifetime sales data) don't show a dramatic increase when adjusted for population compared to the NES.

Regarding Lapsed's post, he's pretty good in describing the reasons behind the success of the NES and the "tech trap" that has come to influence console makers' decisions, but he pretty much handwaves the success of the PS1/PS2 (while ignoring the flaws in NES-era Nintendo) because it doesn't fit his agenda. PS1's third-party approach worked because it was pretty much an open market, with all the diversity that came from that. The PS2, especially, was a pretty successful "big tent" system and had a diversity of software (even including non-gamer draws like Singstar and Guitar Hero) that no system this gen is going to match.

The DS, if things continue on the same path, is the most likely system to really illustrate the benefits of drawing from both approaches: strong 1st party trendsetting applications that target a broad market, combined with low development costs and a hands-off approach that allow third-parties to make their own success on the system.

 

[the thoroughbred]

Considering PS2 sold more units than the NES and SNES combined, I'd say there's two likely scenarioes:

1. A WHOLE lot of ****ing
2. A bunch of people who weren't interested in Nintendo systems bought PlayStations.

Look, I like to bash Sony as much as the next guy, but to discount what they did for the market over the last decade is folly. And to suggest that there is one magic bullet way to design games that guarantees success and total mass market domination is just as ludicrous.

This happens all the time, in every industry. Someone scores an iPod, or a Walkman, or a Google, or a DS, and then everybody trips over themselves trying to extrapolate the magic formula that made the item such a hit. They make charts, they do surveys, they reference data, and the really ambitious write books that explain how you too can enjoy the fantastic success by just following these simple steps!

The TRUTH is that sometimes companies win, and sometimes they lose. Right now Nintendo is winning. If they keep winning Sony, MS and anyone else trying to compete in the video game market will emulate their methods in an attempt to repeat their success. That is until someone else comes along with a video game idea different than what's currently popular, and they find wild success and adulation. Then the process starts all over again.

Beware those who tell you there is any truth to business besides uncertainty. They are probably trying to sell you something.

So you have officially become a legend of mine. You have said so much, with so little.
Great post, great mind.

 

[jimbo]

Wii 93,708
DSL 89,287
PSP 48,804
PS3 25,531
PS2 22,663
Xbox360 9,035
GBM 1,959
GBASP 1,547
GC 611
GBA 79
DS 41

Yikes. I didn't expect the MC PS3 numbers to be that much lower. It seriously needs a price drop and sooner than Sony can afford. I really don't know what to expect out of the PS3 for next week but I expect lower sales for all other consoles. The 360 will probably drop to 5k-6k next week, where I expect it to hold until the nex big game release. As bad as that sounds that would put it on track to beat the original Xbox's LTD by the end of summer as long as it doesn't drop back down to 2k-4k range.

 

[elostyle]

Great examples... both SFII and MK were multi-platform.

Street Fighter on Genesis came out a loooooooong time after. The original on SNES had a huge impact. Mortal Kombat, as stated in lapsed post, established a perception between the 2 camps because of the blood difference. These were important events during the 16bit period.

 

[Parl]

So you have officially become a legend of mine. You have said so much, with so little.
Great post, great mind.

I actually thought it was somewhat shortsighted, if what I picked up on the intended implications correctly. If not, I'm sorry, but that would simply then make that post rather pointless; stating facts that actually don't really hav much bearing on what anybody cares about.

 

[Kilrogg]

How so? With competition, software had to be aimed at all kinds of demographics or else the system would fail. Each new generation introduced a new genre of gaming that continued to sell more and more copies.

I don't think he's denying competition. He says that console wars are over (for now at least). The wars are now to happen between business strategies. That's what I gather from my intense reading of his posts, at any rate.

By stating there's a console war, you're stating that consoles fight for the same "territory" (i.e. the current market) with weapons that are roughly the same. As soon as a console comes out with a different approach which could be really successful (no one would deny the potential of the Wii to reach new markets as the DS does), the "console war" is irrelevant because those who are/were "fighting" see their way of doing things collapse while the market is turned upside down.

I'll stop here since I don't want to risk misinterpreting Lapsed or explaining in an awkward way his thoughts.

Oh and btw, hello GAF, been reading the forum for a while now, but I finally managed to register. I'm sure you're glad to welcome a new French junior member .

 

[jimbo]

Considering PS2 sold more units than the NES and SNES combined, I'd say there's two likely scenarioes:

1. A WHOLE lot of ****ing
2. A bunch of people who weren't interested in Nintendo systems bought PlayStations.

Look, I like to bash Sony as much as the next guy, but to discount what they did for the market over the last decade is folly. And to suggest that there is one magic bullet way to design games that guarantees success and total mass market domination is just as ludicrous.

This happens all the time, in every industry. Someone scores an iPod, or a Walkman, or a Google, or a DS, and then everybody trips over themselves trying to extrapolate the magic formula that made the item such a hit. They make charts, they do surveys, they reference data, and the really ambitious write books that explain how you too can enjoy the fantastic success by just following these simple steps!

The TRUTH is that sometimes companies win, and sometimes they lose. Right now Nintendo is winning. If they keep winning Sony, MS and anyone else trying to compete in the video game market will emulate their methods in an attempt to repeat their success. That is until someone else comes along with a video game idea different than what's currently popular, and they find wild success and adulation. Then the process starts all over again.

Beware those who tell you there is any truth to business besides uncertainty. They are probably trying to sell you something.

I couldn't agree with you more. Things change. Always have and always will.

 

[donny2112]

I don't think he's denying competition. He says that console wars are over (for now at least). The wars are now to happen between business strategies. That's what I gather from my intense reading of his posts, at any rate.

Interpretation #3 on Lapsed's post P):

I believe he's saying that the definition of 'Console Wars,' as defined in the 16-bit era is coming to an end. That definition being that "My specs are better than your specs." He is anticipating the software being the field of battle in the eighth generation ("building hardware to suit the software") instead of the hardware ("building software to suit the hardware").

I agree. It also falls directly in-line with Iwata's statements of "diminishing returns." The software will be what distinguishs systems next-generation instead of the power of the hardware.

Lapsed is like a little Iwata. *so cute*

:lol

 

[nintendorly]

Uh-huh. Between the years of 1990-200, the population of the world increased by ~806.05 million.

Backwards timetravel+population growth FTW!

 

[Fularu]

Considering PS2 sold more units than the NES and SNES combined, I'd say there's two likely scenarioes:

1. A WHOLE lot of ****ing
2. A bunch of people who weren't interested in Nintendo systems bought PlayStations.

Look, I like to bash Sony as much as the next guy, but to discount what they did for the market over the last decade is folly. And to suggest that there is one magic bullet way to design games that guarantees success and total mass market domination is just as ludicrous.

This happens all the time, in every industry. Someone scores an iPod, or a Walkman, or a Google, or a DS, and then everybody trips over themselves trying to extrapolate the magic formula that made the item such a hit. They make charts, they do surveys, they reference data, and the really ambitious write books that explain how you too can enjoy the fantastic success by just following these simple steps!

The TRUTH is that sometimes companies win, and sometimes they lose. Right now Nintendo is winning. If they keep winning Sony, MS and anyone else trying to compete in the video game market will emulate their methods in an attempt to repeat their success. That is until someone else comes along with a video game idea different than what's currently popular, and they find wild success and adulation. Then the process starts all over again.

Beware those who tell you there is any truth to business besides uncertainty. They are probably trying to sell you something.

Well unfortunately, my dear friend, you are dead wrong...

Let me remind people a few things about the whole "Playstation/PS2" market expanding things that are almost never put into light.

If you looks closely, the Playstation and Playstation 2 sold about the same in the US and Japan than the Nes/Famicom did.

You can check the data yourself and you'll see it.

So where does all that increase come from? simply put, Europe.

So we can ask ourselves, has sony expanded the market in europe? since it started buying consoles like it never did before? (Even during the SNES-Megadrive days)

No

During the time the Nes and the Snes were at their prime, Europe was Computer land. Every household was buying a 520ST, an Amiga 500, a C64, a CPC 464 or a ZX spectrum.

Those people who were buying those systems made the switch from computer gaming to console gaming because the kind of games they were playing on those computers simply wasn'T there on the PC plateform and the Playstation was providing it.

If you look closely at consoles+computer sales in the 80ies early 90ies, and look at the playstation in europe after the demise of those systems, they prety much match.

Sony's story of expanding the market is, simply put, not there. Nowadays, people own multiple systems, they even have multiple time the same systems, basing the fact that sony *shipped* 110 million PS2s as fact that they expanded the market is not knowing the market and simply swallowing Sony's mantra whole.

 

[jimbo]

Is there any other possibility now?

Sony dead last US, 2nd in Japan, and will be hard to catch Wii in Europe.

Microsoft dead last in Japan, 2nd in Europe soon.


Is there anything left that could shake these trends? GTA-like game on the horizon somewhere? $200 PS3 price drop to compete with 360?

Sony needs another FFVII or GTA moment, something like what is going on with Wii Sports.

Let's review FACTS:
There is no hardware sales data of how many consoles the 360 has sold in Europe.
There is no hardware sales data of how many consoles the 360 IS selling in Europe.
There is no hardware sales data of how many consoles the Wii sold in Europe.
There is no hardware sales data of how many consoles the Wii IS selling in Europe.

Yet a lot of GAF'ers deduct from these facts, that the 360 is selling poorly in Europe, and that the Wii will outsell it soon. I just want to be able to do that too. How do I think like that? Someone please help me out.

 

[Parl]

Interpretation #3 on Lapsed's post P):

I believe he's saying that the definition of 'Console Wars,' as defined in the 16-bit era is coming to an end. That definition being that "My specs are better than your specs." He is anticipating the software being the field of battle in the eighth generation ("building hardware to suit the software") instead of the hardware ("building software to suit the hardware").

I agree. It also falls directly in-line with Iwata's statements of "diminishing returns." The software will be what distinguishs systems next-generation instead of the power of the hardware.

Lapsed is like a little Iwata. *so cute*

:lol

To consumers, it's typically ALWAYS been the software, and the user's interaction with it. The technicality of the graphics and what this brings has been a niche market to consider all along. There are those that care, the type of people who go on gaming message boards and stuff, but most don't care so much. It's been like this all along, to varying degrees; it's just taken us so long to realise.

Be happy that most of the industry still can't make heads or tales of the reality just yet. They understand videogame entertainment in a shortsighted way and are flabbergasted by huge sales from titles like Nintendogs.