Do you think it would be a mistake for MS and/or Sony to launch in 2012?

[RobertR1]

Realistically I don't think I'll have time to even use two consoles next gen, hence why I plan to just pick one this time around. Unless Microsoft pulls a Nintendo I will almost certainly be going with them.

That's where I am.

The 360 is moving to where I wanted the next box to be anyway, being my STB and gaming box. I mentioned this a long time ago in the Predict the Next Generation thread that I was really hoping Live would evolve into a full entertainment hub. I'm happy to see that has been accelerated and coming this gen. Nextgen I completely expect the ability to have it be my DVR/Gaming/DVD/BR/Streaming/Cloud services device. I just built a PC for gaming so between the two and having limited time, I'm set.

I'll keep the PS3 if the 360 replacement doesn't come with BR otherwise, I'll just get rid of it.

At this point, I'm not sure what the Wii or PS4 would need to provide for me to have any interest in them.

 

[NavNucST3]

For me it is simply first-mover advantage though this time I'll be eyeing Nintendo to see how different WiiU will be from the 3DS. If I think that 3DS will (eventually) offer me most of what will come to WiiU then I may forego WiiU and jump on whomever else launches first after that though admittedly I am SERIOUSLY monetarily committed in the MSFT services so if Sony launches first then I'll be purchasing the next Sony and Microsoft but if Microsoft launches first then I may just stick with them.

I would add that I voted that 2012 is in fact a "mistake" though I think a just outside 2012 holiday would be ok. February has the gift card spending so I would say February/March 2013 which should allow for (assuming low inventory tradition) MSFT to build inventory for holiday 2013. Naturally this means that there would need to be multiple 2012 showings, CES in January, maybe GDC, E3 definitely, and bring back an X-event for EU or a serious Gamescom conference/presence with the same for TGS.

 

[joker454]

I still don't get why Microsoft would release a new machine in 2012. They are already selling tons of 360's, it's profitable, they have Kinect going, and they already have a pretty full 2012 with Windows 8, Windows 8 tablets and Windows 8 Phones. I guess I just don't see the point in a 2012 console release. They'd be better off tweaking the 360 to run Windows 8 tablet and phone apps, and spend more time on the software side to unify it all. Seems like that's plenty to keep their 2012 humming.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree there, joker. Tweaking XB360, producing a proper slim like PSTwo, adding Win8 app support, would give it a new lease for easy money and keep the devs happy. First mover advantage is very expensive and doesn't always work. It's more important to get the right product at the right price, and another year in the oven would be very good for the next console.

 

[TheChefO]

I still don't get why Microsoft would release a new machine in 2012. They are already selling tons of 360's, it's profitable, they have Kinect going, and they already have a pretty full 2012 with Windows 8, Windows 8 tablets and Windows 8 Phones. I guess I just don't see the point in a 2012 console release. They'd be better off tweaking the 360 to run Windows 8 tablet and phone apps, and spend more time on the software side to unify it all. Seems like that's plenty to keep their 2012 humming.

Sure, but launching a new xbox will not change that.

The xbox360 is currently in a transition to more kid/family friendly content.

The hardcore gamers that will lead purchase influence nextgen are growing tired of the same old as most developers are regurgitating the same experience and without new hardware, that experience is becoming stale.

The MAJORITY of consumers are fine with xb360/ps3 at this point, but if you wait for the majority to be unhappy with the box you have, you've already lost them!

@Shifty

I still don't see what another year will do for development. Better hardware will not come from waiting another year as the process node will be the same. The popularity (and profitability) of the current consoles will ensure a smooth transition and there will be plenty of overlap. Also, this new model will allow them to focus their advertising/marketing more effectively.

Hardcore = xb720
Famliy = xb360 + kinect

 

[NRP]

Sure, but launching a new xbox will not change that

Perhaps doing all the Win8 stuff and launching a new console at the same time would be spreading themselves too thin?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The hardcore gamers that will lead purchase influence nextgen are growing tired of the same old as most developers are regurgitating the same experience and without new hardware, that experience is becoming stale.

That's mostly because the publishers won't back new experiences, and that's mostly because gamers won't buy into them. We've had the likes of EA and Ubisoft say that they don't like supporting new ideas like Mirror's Edge because they don't prove popular. What's possible this gen in terms of originality is staggering, and I'd even say that as the platform ages, there's more incentive to reinvent gaming for those suffering FPS fatigue. A new platform would mean more of the same just selling on the strength of better graphics.

I still don't see what another year will do for development. Better hardware will not come from waiting another year as the process node will be the same.

But it will improve yields and allow better designs. MS does not want to repeat RROD. Sony do not want to launch with another half-baked network platform. Neither wants to be selling at significant loss because their yields are poor. Both will also be supprting new platforms next year (Vita and Win 8) and they don't want to be juggling to many projects. Win 8 compatibility on a cheap 360 will do wonders.

 

[function]

If you look at hardware, whether CPUs or GPUs, better hardware does most certainly appear on the same node as time progresses. Better designs and faster, more power efficient bins of the same hardware both appear, and as yields and bins improve the cost of providing a given level of performance drops, making it cheaper to provide products of a given level of power.

Look at 32nm. Or 40nm. Or 45nm. Or 90nm. Or ... anything. Ever.

I'm going to go right out on a limb and say that I expect this pattern to continue on 28nm.

And dear god I hope this continues on Global Foundries "AMD impaling" 32nm process.

 

[TheChefO]

A new platform would mean more of the same just selling on the strength of better graphics.

Such is the excitement surrounding BF3 the past few months prior to launch!

But it will improve yields and allow better designs.

Better, sure. But nothing significant (<50%). And better yields (cost savings) will be offset by tougher competition launching at the same time. I'm not convinced it would be worth it as the first mover advantage can carry forward like a snowball and affect significantly more than the initial sell-through.

As for a repeat of RRoD, I'm sure they are doing whatever engineering necessary to ensure they are not backed into a $1B hardware failure issue again.

To Sony needing more time with their online component, they've had 6 years, I'm not sure another 12 months will make or break their platform and if they design it properly from the beginning, they can expand and improve upon it as the generation continues.

 

[Phil]

Sure, but launching a new xbox will not change that.

The xbox360 is currently in a transition to more kid/family friendly content.

The hardcore gamers that will lead purchase influence nextgen are growing tired of the same old as most developers are regurgitating the same experience and without new hardware, that experience is becoming stale.

The MAJORITY of consumers are fine with xb360/ps3 at this point, but if you wait for the majority to be unhappy with the box you have, you've already lost them!

It's not only what consumers want - it's also what developers/publishers want. Usually, towards mid to end of a generation, the industry becomes most profitable because they have huge libraries and knowlege to buildup on. You can only have a successfull launch with software there to meet it. However, as long as the majority prefers to still play the old consoles, investing lots of money into a new product/generation is not something many are very keen on I'd guess. Timing is important.

Launching early without good support is also a bad idea, because you've effectively set your hardware in stone for the next few years as well. Perhaps it's a grey area if late 2012 would be good - and it quite depends on if they have software ready for a such launch or not - and if that software is good enough to warrant hardcore gamers to upgrade. If you don't have this.... I don't see this at a good idea at all.

 

[TheChefO]

Launching early ...

2005-2012 - 7 years

I'd hardly consider that "early".

As for what devs/pubs want, they want to make money. Just as they did when ps2 was selling gangbusters in 2005.

Most of them will continue to dev/pub for the current generation aside from a handful that MS (Or Sony!) commissions for nextgen content. As long as devs are being paid, I don't think they care either way (though it is more "fun" to dev for future hardware by all accounts).

I don't expect this transition to be any different than any before it.

• There will be a limited launch lineup.
  
• The launch lineup will not push the hardware to it's limits.
  
• The vast majority of software (and hardware) sales will be on current gen machines until a couple years out.

 

[Proelite]

Any publisher who gets a hand on the dev-kits will probably spend maximum resources at prototyping a next gen ip right now. Every publisher wants their new franchise to be the next Gears or Modern Warfare. Having a early hit franchise on a next generation system is absolutely crucial to how well the publisher will do for the generation. I am of the opinion that studios will be transitioning the majority of their best talents to next generation development fairly soon, like Square-Enix did.

 

[upnorthsox]

Any publisher who gets a hand on the dev-kits will probably spend maximum resources at prototyping a next gen ip right now. Every publisher wants their new franchise to be the next Gears or Modern Warfare. Having a early hit franchise on a next generation system is absolutely crucial to how well the publisher will do for the generation. I am of the opinion that studios will be transitioning the majority of their best talents to next generation development fairly soon, like Square-Enix did.

This is a good point. There's a (limited) opportunity at the beginning of nextgen to derail the cod freight train which wont happen this gen. If you're a dev and not excited about this then maybe its time to call it quits.

 

[Proelite]

This is a good point. There's a (limited) opportunity at the beginning of nextgen to derail the cod freight train which wont happen this gen. If you're a dev and not excited about this then maybe its time to call it quits.

THQ.

From the way they sound about next generation, me thinks they won't be around to see the end of next generation.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

2005-2012 - 7 years

I'd hardly consider that "early".

Early's relative to the competition and what developers are wanting and what you business will benefit from. Where you cite the early-launcher advantage, history shows it's not great. Most of the first-launching platforms in a generation haven't done well. In fact I think 360 is the only console to benefit. First launch helped them break the PS monopoly, but then Nintendo nicely sidestepped that anyhow. I don't see any huge advantage for next gen. Most gamers who aren't already commited to a platform are happy to wait and see - whatever PS gamers MS stole last gen are likely already MS converts and there's possibly not many existing gamers happy to jump ship just to get a year's head-start.

So all in all I think you rate the early release far too strongly, and underplay the importance of everything else. I think in that you are in the minority (this poll says as much!) including among the console companies' business gurus, and I think they'll be looking at releasing better products with healthier margins to compete, rather than just trying to be first onto market.

 

[upnorthsox]

Early's relative to the competition and what developers are wanting and what you business will benefit from. Where you cite the early-launcher advantage, history shows it's not great. Most of the first-launching platforms in a generation haven't done well. In fact I think 360 is the only console to benefit. First launch helped them break the PS monopoly, but then Nintendo nicely sidestepped that anyhow. I don't see any huge advantage for next gen. Most gamers who aren't already commited to a platform are happy to wait and see - whatever PS gamers MS stole last gen are likely already MS converts and there's possibly not many existing gamers happy to jump ship just to get a year's head-start.

So all in all I think you rate the early release far too strongly, and underplay the importance of everything else. I think in that you are in the minority (this poll says as much!) including among the console companies' business gurus, and I think they'll be looking at releasing better products with healthier margins to compete, rather than just trying to be first onto market.

PS1 certainly was helped, and since the Dreamcast was already done, PS2 also. I don't think it's written in stone that people wont jump, that's certainly a hard lesson Sony learned this gen. But hey if Microsoft or Sony want to try launching last then go for it, I've always had a weird facination with spectacular crash and burns.

 

[TheChefO]

Early's relative to the competition and what developers are wanting and what you business will benefit from. Where you cite the early-launcher advantage, history shows it's not great. Most of the first-launching platforms in a generation haven't done well. In fact I think 360 is the only console to benefit. First launch helped them break the PS monopoly, but then Nintendo nicely sidestepped that anyhow. I don't see any huge advantage for next gen. Most gamers who aren't already commited to a platform are happy to wait and see - whatever PS gamers MS stole last gen are likely already MS converts and there's possibly not many existing gamers happy to jump ship just to get a year's head-start.

So all in all I think you rate the early release far too strongly, and underplay the importance of everything else. I think in that you are in the minority (this poll says as much!) including among the console companies' business gurus, and I think they'll be looking at releasing better products with healthier margins to compete, rather than just trying to be first onto market.

PS2 seemed to do ok launching "early" vs GC and Xbox... (DC had other issues)

PS1 also made out ok launching "early" vs N64 (and equal to Saturn).

As for whether or not I'm correct, this upcoming generation will speak to that.

All things being equal, launching first IS an advantage. It's when the first mover has an underlying disadvantage that nullifies the first mover advantage.

We shall see.

As far as being a minority opinion on these boards ... that wouldn't be the first time eh?

 

[fearsomepirate]

I think it would be a mistake for a few reasons:

1) There is no indication that the market is getting tired of either platform. There's plenty of room to sell lots more games and plenty of growth potential for each platform.

2) Neither platform is losing money anymore (I think)

3) With both platforms being decently strong right now, there's as much to lose from launching too early as there is to gain.

4) Now that they've achieved effectual hardware parity, and since neither Kinect nor Move are moving software, there's no clear advantage for third parties to go exclusive on either one this gen, and that will likely continue next-gen unless someone has a Wii-like game-changer up their sleeve.

That's mostly because the publishers won't back new experiences

Sure they will. It's just that when a new experience succeeds, they keep milking it until it's bone dry and the IP is worthless. And if one fails, they drop it and move on. If you're going to consume $50m of resources to make something, the end result had better darn well be worth $50m to the buying public.

 

[function]

Launching "early" gives you the advantages of attacking the incumbent with a generational gap in capability, and getting noticed before the natural successor establishes itself. This is what the 360 did, what the Megadrive did, and what the Dreamcast almost did.

When you are the incumbent and your new machine will primarily be attacking your old machine and trying to launch before ... well ... your new machine then the idea of "launching early" loses much of its appeal.

Launching "early" also carries a large number of risks:
- Piss of publishers
- Piss of consumers
- Piss off retailers
- Get a catalog of shitty current gen ports
- Permanently sour the image of your new system as an underpowered shitty ports platform
- Slaughter your current cash cow

Historically the "early launch" has been done by companies with less to lose and more to gain than their competitors. There is a reason for this.

PS2 seemed to do ok launching "early" vs GC and Xbox... (DC had other issues)

PS2 came 18 months after the Dreamcast. There was no Xbox in the planning stages of the PS2, so they couldn't have a strategy of launching "early" against it.

PS1 also made out ok launching "early" vs N64 (and equal to Saturn).

PS1 came out just after the Saturn (which had been delayed as it was). N64 was "late".

 

[TheChefO]

3) With both platforms being decently strong right now, there's as much to lose from launching too early as there is to gain.

In what way did Sony lose by launching ps3 while ps2 was still hot?

(Aside from the obvious answer that Sony lost by launching WAY too expensive with nothing to show for the increased cost on the games side.)

PS2 sales still dominated and helped to offset some of the losses of ps3.



Why is it some members of this board find this such a hard concept to grasp?

xb360 and ps3 will continue to sell.
xb360 and ps3 games will continue to sell.

In ADDITION to these current gen sales, the first-mover will ALSO sell.

If they do it right, they may even be selling the same game to BOTH early adopters and the existing base with the online component serving both instead of fracturing the market.

Revolutionary concept, but not impossible ...