It's interesting how invested most people are is in in their predictions regardless of what they are, and how condescension and mockery seems to be the main vehicle for addressing disagreements. But hey, that's often Gaf in a nutshell. At least people are more articulate with their disdain than other forums I've frequented.
I've been routinely been treated like a fanboy Pariah by posters incredulous that I would dare to predict the Wii U would meet or exceed Gamecube LTD sales. This was especially true during its prolonged post-launch doldrums. I think it's becoming a slightly less attacked position as the system gains a little traction after a solid E3 showing, but I still get people who think I'm a dyed in the wool Nintendo fanboy just because I think they have top tier software and believe the Wii U won't be their
worst selling console
ever.
The funny thing is that I don't think anyone would deny the Wii U is positioned to perform the worst of the 3 current gen consoles. However, I've observed enough hardware cycles at this point to be wary of anyone who thinks they can extrapolate the trajectory of an entire generation from a system's first year or two of sales, or the current dichotomy between systems. It's the laziest, most boring, and least nuanced way to form an opinion. The idea that as things are is how they'll remain in antithetical to the nature of this fast moving industry, but it seems to be this sacred comfort zone when it comes to sales discussions. This is how people pidgeonholed systems like the DS, Wii, PSP, and PS3 at various points, and the conventional wisdom at the time turned out fairly useless in the final analysis.
Truthfully, systems have long enough lifespans to alter course, but the nature of software development means changing trajectory is like steering a ship, not turning on a dime. Miracle turnarounds are rare, and no company will change the entire direction of their system overnight, but it is possible over time as libraries build, key software releases, and prices shift. There's no silver bullet way to quantify these changes, only informed speculation. Too often the response to anything other than a literal minded projection of the current balance is indignant knee jerk reactions. It's always frustrating when ego becomes a bigger facet of these discussions than the specifics of why someone believes what they do.
That said, I think the generally accepted PS4 > Xbox One > Wii U prediction is a highly likely outcome this generation. Proportion is another can of worms, and I think in this regard people have put too much stock in short term results as a way to understand long term potential. Since my primary interest right now is in the Wii U I tend to approach it from that lens. Unlike Gamecube, which has become a sort of measuring stick for people, I think Wii U is likely to improve in sales. Gamecube had a respectable start, but declined heavily after a few years. I see the Wii U as more of a slow burn, and I think the overall potential market following last gen is much larger, which is why I don't see
Gamecube+ level sales as an insane prediction in spite of the system stumbling out of the gate.
I also think that people are more comfortable with multiconsole ownership than ever before, but also willing to hold out for longer as the price of entry has risen and generations have become more drawn out. This means that while looking at past trends can be useful in some regards, extrapolating too literally becomes inadequate. It's a dynamic picture, and the industry has a history of unexpected surprises and momentum shifts, In regards to the Wii U I expect more secondary console ownership over the next 2-3 years. People may not be willing to shell out a premium price for a handful of games, but if the pricing and accumulated software becomes more enticing I think there's plenty of rooms for a higher overall baseline than what the system has enjoyed thus far.
And although I personally have doubts that 3rd parties will ever engage in meaningful support, I think there is growing evidence of Nintendo thinking laterally to address the sorts of lulls that plagued the Gamecube and Wii- in particular increased manpower, reliance on digital sales, and partnerships with outside companies. Not that it will ever probably light the charts on fire, but the constant drum beat of Nintendo is doomed is as ridiculous and short sighted as it's ever been.
Similarly, I think people have gotten a little too comfortable with the Xbox One narrative which supposes Sony will enjoy continuous momentum while MS scrambles. We're in the midst of seeing the results of overconfidence, lack of consideration for consumer needs, and bad messaging with the Xbox One. I think MS has realized that they don't exist in a vacuum, and that Sony will gladly eat their piece of the pie if they're complacent, which is forcing their hand in a good way. Just like Nintendo had to eat some crow with their initial 3DS strategy, I think MS is being forced to react to the realities of the market, and those efforts will bear fruit even if they never manage to catch up with Sony entirely. I also don't underestimate the amount of money MS is willing and able to throw at a problem, and inevitably I think they will have exclusives that will draw a larger swath of the western market.
Sony's biggest concern should be guarding against complacency. They really don't need a repeat of flying high following the PS1 and PS2's successes, which made them overly confident in the PS brand and opened the door for Microsoft to soak up disaffected gamers who balked at a $599 system which didn't initially show a distinct software advantage in spite of the hefty price tag. All in all their messaging seems pretty on point at the moment, but it can be a fine line between swag and sheer arrogance. Here's hoping they don't get too comfortable with success, because lord knows its happened before.
Ultimately I think all three companies will manage to carve out a profitable niche this generation. Like the previous generation I think we can expect a relatively long lifespan. It's getting impractical to invest in bleeding edge software every 4 years when the level of fidelity already affords developers to make extremely vivid detailed worlds, and although there will always be a thirst for more grandiose games with higher visual fidelity I think the medium is gradually reaching a point where even graphic whores can recognize the trade off between constantly shifting hardware for increasingly nitpicky gains or seeing what developers are capable of pulling from their hats as they get better at leveraging existing hardware. I also think this is why last gen sales are remaining fairly high, and publishers are only gradually shifting their full attention to the newer systems. The current gen hasn't even gotten into full swing yet,
This slowed cycle doesn't preclude the need for advancement, but I feel there's a marked shift in the necessity for longer generations, especially after several generations of loss leading hardware that eats into profits for years on end. It's also impractical for developers and publishers to continue pouring exponentially more resources into software without any guarantee of higher returns. It's not a tenable solution forever, and given the level of graphical fidelity of even the weakest systems these days it doesn't especially make sense to cater to a small group of elitist videophiles who can always build their own rigs. Thankfully the industry seems mostly over the hump with the increased burden of HD development, and things seem to be leveling out a bit, or a least costs aren't skyrocketing at such an alarming rate.
