What constitutes a successful console? (other than profit!) *spawn

[goonergaz]

You think Nintendo only slightly improved their games? Really? Sorry, but Wii to Wii U is a bigger jump than PS3/360 to PS4/X1. The Wii U console may be the weakest by far, but its still a large jump from the Wii. Nintendo certainly doesn't reinvent the wheel with their iconic IP's, but at least they don't milk the consumer dry with yearly releases of the same games. The biggest games so far on PS4 and X1 are prettier versions of their last gen predecessor. Assassins Creed, COD, Battlefield, Killzone Shadowfall, The Last of Us and so on are little more than prettier versions of games they have been making last gen. The gaming market as a whole hasn't exactly strayed to far from the tried and true product. I would venture to say that the only real selling point for X1 and PS4 is the better graphics, the games arent revolutionary in any sense.

Wait what? Here's Nintys list...essentially Mario, Mario, Luigi, Smash Bros and Zelda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_U_video_games

And on PS4/XBO we have Destiny, Watch Dogs, Dying Light and Titanfall thank you very much.

 

[goonergaz]

Bringing in supply constraint is a bit disingenuous. Yes, the X360 was supply constrained in it's first 3 months. It was, however, oversupplied quite often after that, expecially for the following holiday season.

Yet despite ample supply of the X360 after the first few launch months, the XBO is still quite handily outselling it. More supply in those first 3 months would have only shifted sales to those first 3 months from the following months. It wasn't like the X360 had a competitor at the time to which it would lose sales. Anyone waiting for a PS3 after those initial 3 months was likely going to be waiting for a PS3 during those initial 3 months.

X360 launched with a fanbase of 25M XBox owners, XBO launched with a fanbase of 85M owners...in a vacum I think it's fair to say XBO sales should be significantly higher than X360.

Look at PS3, many consider it a failure yet it consistant outsold X360 even tho it launched with a massive price alongside the estabilished X360 and 'best ever selling console' Wii.

 

[Globalisateur]

One way to determine a successful console (in the eyes of loyal customers) is to analyse how well the next generation of the same brand of console sell during the first year or so. So by that metric:

X360 and PS3 were both very successful consoles
Wii wasn't successful.

For PS4 and XB1 we'll have to see how well the next consoles do their first year...

 

[BoardBonobo]

IMHO, asking what makes a console successful (and excluding the financial aspect) is akin to asking what makes a chair successful. If someone uses it and enjoys it, then it's a success. But I guess a true measure will be how much influence that console and its ecosystem have on future generations. It's all about the console DNA.

 

[goonergaz]

I just noticed the graph shows the XBO tracking the PS2 up to month 14, so if we had this conversation 14 months after launch do those now saying how it's tracking above X360 = doing better - would they have said it's tracking inline with PS2 so would likely sell as well?

It's like the PS4 tracking the Wii, I don't think it can sustain that level of sales - it may have better sales later in it's life (compared to Wii) but I can see it dropping below Wii short term.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

IMHO, asking what makes a console successful (and excluding the financial aspect)

As a business, the financial aspect is clearly the only true measure. These console exist to make money, directly or indirectly. However, users of said consoles like to consider them from different perspectives.

Obviously there'll be personal measures like 'it's great fun', but specifically this thread about considering market measures, objective measures, that can be used to determine if a product is a success or not. Spawned from the sales thread where sales of XB1 were being compared to other platforms to determine if it's a success or not.

So, is a console a success if it sells more/faster than its successful predecessor? Or if it gains market share? Does it need both? Does it need an industry controlling presence?

Wii makes an interesting test case. I'd say ultimately, other than financially, it wasn't that successful. It was an evolutionary dead-end that didn't impact the industry much at all. It lead to Kinect, and Kinect 2, and that in turn was pretty much a dead weight around XB1's neck. It had no evolutionary decendants to perpetuate its impact.

But then if success is measured in terms of mind share, I'm sure the world will remember Wii for a good long time, longer than many other generic consoles.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'm sure companies have goals and turning a profit may not always be a goal in the short term. They might have sales targets, market share goals etc.

 

[Goodtwin]

Wait what? Here's Nintys list...essentially Mario, Mario, Luigi, Smash Bros and Zelda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_U_video_games

And on PS4/XBO we have Destiny, Watch Dogs, Dying Light and Titanfall thank you very much.

Nintendo consoles always have other games than Mario you know. My point was that Nintendo using its IP's over and over again is no different than Activision making COD over and over again, and Ubisoft making Assassins Creed over and over again, EA releasing Battlefield over and over again, not mention the yearly releases of Madden and Fifa every year, when they are often simply roster updates, and that could just as easily be a $10 DLC pack. Publishers like it when they create a successful IP, and can reuse it over and over again with success, and this applies to all the publishers, although some seem to like to single out Nintendo as if they are the only ones.

Also, your comparing one publishers offerings, Nintendo, to all the publishers on Xbox and Playstation? Interesting......Foolish, but interesting.

 

[Arwin]

You don't have to innovate that much or change ip if the circle of life brings you a new audience. That circle moves faster if you are targeting a narrower age bracket.

 

[goonergaz]

When you said "The biggest games so far on PS4 and X1 are prettier versions of their last gen predecessor. Assassins Creed, COD, Battlefield, Killzone Shadowfall, The Last of Us and so on are little more than prettier versions of games they have been making last gen."

My reply was to list the new IPs that sold really well - I don't see what's 'foolish' about that.

The retort regarding Ninty is just showing that the only games it sells well are the same IPs released over and over, again, not so sure what's foolish about that either.

When you look at the top selling PS4 games there are new IP at 4 & 5;
http://www.vgchartz.com/platform/69/playstation-4/

Same for XBO;
http://www.vgchartz.com/platform/68/xbox-one/

Where are Nintendos?
http://www.vgchartz.com/platform/47/wii-u/

And so what anyway, people spend hundreds on PC upgrades to play prettier versions of the exact same game!

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Answering the title: what constitutes a successful console, other than profit?

I'd say mindshare, boost in brand value/recognition and the customer satisfaction that derives from these points.

 

[goonergaz]

You don't have to innovate that much or change ip if the circle of life brings you a new audience. That circle moves faster if you are targeting a narrower age bracket.

I don't see what's wrong with releasing the same IP over tweaking a successful formula maybe bi-yearly (I think Uncharted is a good example) but I don't like the yearly AC/FIFA/CoD type scenario - I now refuse to buy those games at launch, however clearly the mass market are happy to spend £50 on essentially the same product with minimal updates every year!?

 

[Goodtwin]

I don't see what's wrong with releasing the same IP over tweaking a successful formula maybe bi-yearly (I think Uncharted is a good example) but I don't like the yearly AC/FIFA/CoD type scenario - I now refuse to buy those games at launch, however clearly the mass market are happy to spend £50 on essentially the same product with minimal updates every year!?

I don't personally have a problem with it either, but in the context of someone insinuating that a Nintendo is any more guilty of it than the next publisher is pretty fictitious. The market ultimately speaks, and although there may be a few new IP's that find mass market success, they are typically in the minority. Even with Destiny, it didn't sell great based solely on it being a great game, most reviewers didn't see it that way, but because Activision spent boatloads of money advertising it, building hype, it was destined to sell great early on despite its quality.

@goonergaz

Yea, there are a few new IP's that have done pretty well on PS4 and X1, but with every passing year they are likely to fall further down the list thanks to the yearly COD and Assassins Creeds outselling them. When I said its foolish, I am saying its foolish to compare what a single publisher offers, compared to that of the entire PS4/X1 developer/publisher list. Nintendo did invest in some IP's that aren't theirs this gen, and deserve some credit. Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, and Devils Third are all niche games that other publishers wont bother with, because they wont ever be mass market games, but Nintendo forked over the cash in order to have some games that they would never develop themselves.

 

[MrFox]

Third parties don't care about broadening the offering on consoles, or taking risks to reach a different public, they will make whatever sells to the existing base. It's the console manufacturers' job to grow the gamers base. They need to make the console attractive to the widest audience with a variety of game genres.

The Wii was brilliantly executed to broaden the base, with outstanding support at launch with fun party games. The balance board was also great and tapped the fitness crowd. But WiiU has ridiculous underpowered hardware, no motion controller bundled, no NORMAL controller bundled, and the wiiblet should have been canned by a focus group. It's pure hubris to think the platform could thrive with mostly remakes of old nintendo games, and that putting a screen on this awkward controller was some sort of gaming innovation.

Wii was putting all their eggs in one basket and the risk paid off, WiiU was smashing the basket with an anvil.

 

[London Geezer]

Surely it depends on what each of us defines 'success'. Especially once you take out the financial aspect of it all.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't personally have a problem with it either, but in the context of someone insinuating that a Nintendo is any more guilty of it than the next publisher is pretty fictitious.

There are few publishers still actively using IP (Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda) from the the 1980s.

 

[goonergaz]

Third parties don't care about broadening the offering on consoles, or taking risks to reach a different public, they will make whatever sells to the existing base. It's the console manufacturers' job to grow the gamers base. They need to make the console attractive to the widest audience with a variety of game genres.

The Wii was brilliantly executed to broaden the base, with outstanding support at launch with fun party games. The balance board was also great and tapped the fitness crowd. But WiiU has ridiculous underpowered hardware, no motion controller bundled, no NORMAL controller bundled, and the wiiblet should have been canned by a focus group. It's pure hubris to think the platform could thrive with mostly remakes of old nintendo games, and that putting a screen on this awkward controller was some sort of gaming innovation.

Wii was putting all their eggs in one basket and the risk paid off, WiiU was smashing the basket with an anvil.

Don't forget price being a factor - both the Wii was cheap and the WiiU expensive (relatively)

 

[Goodtwin]

There are few publishers still actively using IP (Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda) from the the 1980s.

That's staying power.

 

[goonergaz]

There are few publishers still actively using IP (Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda) from the the 1980s.

In Nintys defence they have been going since the 80s and the IPs are popular, so there is the demand (it's not like they are pushing something no-one wants). I guess in a way it's like me saying about the yearly releases - the market is clearly there - it's a shame really, I much prefer new IPs alongside the 'much loved' games.

 

[dobwal]

I have to point out that I don't claim that past success/brand recognition is the only thing that matters or that it can enable the manufacturer to do anything, but it is very important. It is a very good foundation. If other things are close to equal, it grows in importance. If you flip the previous old gen launch by PS3 launching first by a year, much cheaper and generally with better versions of the multiplayer games. Essentially just switching the brands around, do you reckon the 360 would have managed to claw its way back to a WW tie? I'm claiming the sales numbers would have been far from a tie.

If you knew Xbox, you probably knew Halo, but PS2 was in about 120-150 million homes and the original Xbox sold about 25M, most of that only in NA. There is a gap there on how well those two machines and console brands were known. MS had to have many advantages, do a ton of things right and heavy marketing to get the sales going.

A newcomer has to have something extra or a special capability to make majority of people switch from the existing well known brands. It's hard to beat the champ, if the champ makes no errors.

Under normal circumstances I would completely agree with you. But thats why I say its the "console market". Its not a normal market.

Sony's PS4 is seemingly on its way to surplant Nintendo's Wii as the dominant console. While the Wii surplanted the PS2, the PS1 surplanted the Super NES and the NES surplanted Atari. There has only been two times in the over last 30 years where market leader from the previous gain dominant position in the succeeding gen.

There are always a factor or series of factors unique to a gen that seems to ultimately dictate console sales and who ends up the market leader. Brand recognition or being market leader of the preceding gen has literally no predictive value on sales when it comes to consoles. More times than not, somehow and someway manufacturers find it easy to destroy the momemtum built by past performance.