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

[Shifty Geezer]

All things being equal,...

Exactly. But by spending your money on launching with a better patform rather than sooner, they never will be equal. And your history ignores a lots of other first-release consoles like the Jaguar and PC-Engine. Fact is no console that launched first won the most sales in a generation. The only console I can see that did well from being first was XB360 as I outlined in my previous post - I think the benefit has been cashed in there and there's nothing else to gain. Assuming XB3 launches a year ahead, it'll gain a...10 million unit headstart say, similar to this gen, but that won't be enough to swing it. The rest of the generation will come down to All other things that aren't equal. It makes more sense to invest in those other things, no? The caveat to that would be if MS got massively behind XB3 and injected so many resources that a year later launch wouldn't net them anything, but it's highly improbable they'd back such a move. And they're leaving it late if that is their plan!

 

[hoho]

The only console I can see that did well from being first was XB360

As long as you ignore Wii, sure
Then again it can be argued that in terms of software sales wii kind of failed, it just sold a TON of hardware and a mountain of plastic appendages.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As long as you ignore Wii, sure

Wii wasn't first. XB360 was, and Wii came a year later. Wii proves that first-launch doesn't win the generation (once again), but XB360 shows launching first can help grow your market, as 360 is much bigger than XB was. If the rest of the platform is strong and your competitor is goofing about. Would 360 be where it is now if Sony launched with a better overall system (no last-minute GPU) and no BRD at $400? We'll never know, but no-one will convince me it was. In fact, if we look at last gen as PS2 selling most and XB+GC being about equal, MS are kinda in the same position this gen - equal bottom with PS3 - the different being this gen has a much bigger market in the other end because of HD gaming. Maybe launching first hasn't gained MS anything at all other than a massive repair bill?

 

[hoho]

Wii wasn't first. XB360 was, and Wii came a year later. Wii proves that first-launch doesn't win the generation (once again), but XB360 shows launching first can help grow your market, as 360 is much bigger than XB was

I might have misunderstood you there. I thought you tried to show that XB getting launched first "won" the battle. I said that it depends what parameters you choose to compare, in some areas Wii won and was launched later.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I might have misunderstood you there. I thought you tried to show that XB getting launched first "won" the battle. I said that it depends what parameters you choose to compare, in some areas Wii won and was launched later.

Did you miss this sentence "but then Nintendo nicely sidestepped that anyhow." by Shifty? He didn't ignore the Wii.

 

[function]

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

The concept is not hard to grasp.

Your persistence in pushing a grossly over simplified scenario is, I'll admit, becoming difficult to understand!

 

[upnorthsox]

I don't understand why this converstion has gone to a launch first, we already know who's launching first, Nintendo is launching first. So unless the poll question is changed to will/why the WiiU fail, I don't see the topic as pertinent.

And if we are going to bring Dreamcast into the conversation as an example, then another poll question should be will Nintendo be out of the console business in 2014?

And this is ignoring the PC which is on its late gen rise, another poll question is how many bought BF3, Skyrim, or MW3 on PC this yr who normally would have gotten it on console? Other consoles aren't the only competition out there, how many will switch over in the next yr (2012)? How many in the next 2 (2013) or 3 (2014)?

This isn't about launching first, it about how long you can let the competition go unanswered. Can Sony let Nintendo have free reign in Japan for 1 or 2 yrs? In other words, can they cede Japan to Nintendo and still survive next gen? And if the answer is no, then Sony will be launch soon after. Then the question is, can MS survive with all the competition going before them? Have they ever let that happen?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Except it's pretty inevitable that Wuu won't be competing on specs with PS4/XB3. It'll fit into next-gen something like Jaguar versus Saturn and PS1, being a notable step down (although nothing like as bad as Jag vs. PS, obviously) and so unlikely to appeal to the same audience who are currently buying PS360s. Hence for that market, TheChefO sees whoever's first as being the 'first' to release.

Plus a 2012 launch would be alongside Wuu anyway! There wouldn't be a first-player advantage then - only a last player disadvantage (or advantage if that time is used to crate the Next Big Thing similar to Nintendo's extra year over XB360 allowing them to launch with waggle).

 

[Prophecy2k]

I might have misunderstood you there. I thought you tried to show that XB getting launched first "won" the battle. I said that it depends what parameters you choose to compare, in some areas Wii won and was launched later.

I don't think there's any metric you can use to try to make out that Wii didn't win vs. the PS3 & Xbox360. From the perspective of the first party platform owners, Nintendo made a crook tonne of money this gen with Wii. No two ways about that. Both Sony and MS lost alot before starting to make money more recently, one considerably moreso than the other. But i'm sure if you managed to find the data and plotted a graph of cumulative total platform revenue from the start of this gen to date, Wii was the defacto winner. No contest.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I might have misunderstood you there. I thought you tried to show that XB getting launched first "won" the battle.

No, I never said XB won. In fact long term it's even possible 360 may come third this gen. Launching early did appear to help the XB brand. It meant a focus from devs which was essential. It also had Gears and Epic focussing on UE3 for the platform, which proved very valuable with the change this gen to thrid-party engines. It's even debateable if launching first actually won MS anything tangible, especially when taken with the RROD losses. How much of MS's share now is due to launching first, and how much is Sony being way more expensive and messing up in other areas? If PS3 had launched a year later than XB360 at $400, would the market still look the same?

 

[dobwal]

Exactly. But by spending your money on launching with a better patform rather than sooner, they never will be equal. And your history ignores a lots of other first-release consoles like the Jaguar and PC-Engine. Fact is no console that launched first won the most sales in a generation. The only console I can see that did well from being first was XB360 as I outlined in my previous post - I think the benefit has been cashed in there and there's nothing else to gain. Assuming XB3 launches a year ahead, it'll gain a...10 million unit headstart say, similar to this gen, but that won't be enough to swing it. The rest of the generation will come down to All other things that aren't equal. It makes more sense to invest in those other things, no? The caveat to that would be if MS got massively behind XB3 and injected so many resources that a year later launch wouldn't net them anything, but it's highly improbable they'd back such a move. And they're leaving it late if that is their plan!

If that fact is true then its very misleading.

The PS1, PS2 and the NES were all dominant consoles of their generation who came out before their serious rivals. Xbox 360 and the Sega Genesis were also helped by coming out early and allowing them to establish themselves before their respective competiton showed up.

Throwing a bunch of early launching non successful consoles into the mix doesn't change the fact that launching early can be an important advantage. Its just shows that launching early can't be the only thing going for a console in an effort to find success.

Of all the early launching consoles that failed to garner any real support, please name one that you can logically conclude would have done better launching a year or two later.

Imagine if the Dreamcast had launched along with the PS2 or the Xbox and GC. Do you honestly think it would have encoached its current LTD under those scenarios? Launching early helped the Dreamcast, it was just not enough to help Sega overcome its lack of cash.

 

[function]

You'll notice that none of the successful / almost successful "early launches" were by companies with a healthy current generation market to nurture and some of them (like the Xbox and Saturn) were from companies that as a matter of urgency had to kill their current systems to stem ongoing losses.

MS aren't in that situation now, and even Sony appears to have turned things around. Both stand to lose out by attempting to accelerate a platform transition. Nintendo on the other hand have declining sales and profits from ancient hardware that is now holding them back, and there is shareholder pressure for the next big hit. They have increasingly little to lose by transitioning, and potentially much to gain. Therefore, Nintendo have to jump next year. MS and Sony don't.

It's all about money, innit.

 

[TheChefO]

Exactly. But by spending your money on launching with a better patform rather than sooner, they never will be equal...

The responses here act as if doing one takes away from the other. If they launch now and spend all their resources there, how can they make it better?

To launch a new console costs money.

No matter when it is done.

The investment in new launch software costs money and time, no matter when it is done (or started!)

And as we saw with PS3, just because you wait a year, doesn't mean the hardware will see ANY significant advantage.

The only advantage they brought to the table from a games perspective is their name and all that comes with it.

Now launching against a competitor with a stronger brand, one has to do something to negate that advantage.

xb360 launching early (along with other factors) proved to be enough to bring about marketshare parity with a competitor that absolutely dominated the two prior generations.

PS3 had it's own issues which helped to bring about the demise of its once sure dominance, but negatives on ps3 weren't enough to account for the rise in overall sales for xb360.


I've never once indicated that ALL Microsoft has to do is launch early and they "win".

But it is an integral part of their strategy.

They would need to ensure that hardware-wise they are in the same ballpark. Make sure key franchises are on-board. Make sure the pricepoint is acceptable. Make sure it is marketed well. And make sure it is available.

That is why I emphasized the "all things being equal".

The rest of these components do not in any way need to be sacrificed to launch in 2012.


The only way for launching in 2012 to be a failure due specifically to their timeframe in relation to the competition is if someone were to one-up the Wii and come out with full body 3D motion control ...

Seriously, I don't see one or the other saying "oh all I need is this 1 year advantage and now surprise surprise we own the market due to this fabulous winkidink!".

Unless Sony plan on bundling glasses free 3D tv's with their consoles for free!

 

[TheChefO]

You'll notice that none of the successful / almost successful "early launches" were by companies with a healthy current generation...


It's all about money, innit.

"None of them were by healthy companies that could secure the consoles ecosystem", would be a more accurate statement.

Indeed it is all about the money.

Long term money.

 

[TheChefO]

If that fact is true then its very misleading.

The PS1, PS2 and the NES were all dominant consoles of their generation who came out before their serious rivals. Xbox 360 and the Sega Genesis were also helped by coming out early and allowing them to establish themselves before their respective competiton showed up.

Throwing a bunch of early launching non successful consoles into the mix doesn't change the fact that launching early can be an important advantage. Its just shows that launching early can't be the only thing going for a console in an effort to find success.

Of all the early launching consoles that failed to garner any real support, please name one that you can logically conclude would have done better launching a year or two later.

Imagine if the Dreamcast had launched along with the PS2 or the Xbox and GC. Do you honestly think it would have encoached its current LTD under those scenarios? Launching early helped the Dreamcast, it was just not enough to help Sega overcome its lack of cash.

This.

Early launches previously were trying to get an edge.

Where other consoles failed which launched "first", there were other more pressing reasons for their failure rather than: "haha! You were first, you lose!"


NES - revitalized industry
Master System - too little in comparison to competition

TG16 - decent hardware, not enough dev support by key franchises at the time.
Genesis - great hardware in comparison to competition, key arcade franchises, good dev support
SNES - great hardware in comp, key classic franchises, great dev support

Phillips CDi - weak hardware, muddled marketing message, weak dev support
Pioneer Laserdisc system - interesting/limited hardware, no dev support
3DO - too expensive, ok dev support
Jaguar - not enough marketing & dev support
Saturn - weak hardware, not enough marketing & dev support
PS1 - strong hardware, great dev support, key franchises (FF7 anyone?)
N64 - ok hardware (no CD though which leads to), weak dev support, too little too late

Dreamcast - great hardware, not enough dev & marketing support (EA - not one game)
PS2 - ok hardware, GREAT marketing & dev support
GC - strong hardware, weak dev support
xbox - strong hardware, ok dev support

xb360 - strong hardware, good dev & marketing support
ps3 - strong hardware, GREAT dev & marketing support, too expensive, STRONG brand
Wii - revolutionary interface, weak hardware, weak dev support


Other factors for sure, but these are the main.

 

[TheChefO]

There wouldn't be a first-player advantage then - only a last player disadvantage (or advantage if that time is used to crate the Next Big Thing similar to Nintendo's extra year over XB360 allowing them to launch with waggle).

Indeed.

How likely do you think it is for either Sony or MS to use that one year to create a revolutionary product?

"Slim to none", would be my response as looking at the history of gaming, Nintendo was the only one to do so, and they've only done it once.

They've also already shown their hand this gen with Wuu and it is hardly revolutionary and hardly building on their social/party brand they built with Wii. (I'm of the opinion it will fail)


I think MS and Sony will be competing head to head on similar hardware (aside from motion controls) with similar dev support at similar price points. Thus, I expect most things to be roughly equal. Sony still has a premium brand giving them an edge. MS could negate some of that advantage by getting hardware on the shelf first.

 

[AlphaWolf]

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

Kinect sports (3million) and Dance Central (2.5 million) say hi.

 

[dobwal]

You'll notice that none of the successful / almost successful "early launches" were by companies with a healthy current generation market to nurture and some of them (like the Xbox and Saturn) were from companies that as a matter of urgency had to kill their current systems to stem ongoing losses.

MS aren't in that situation now, and even Sony appears to have turned things around. Both stand to lose out by attempting to accelerate a platform transition. Nintendo on the other hand have declining sales and profits from ancient hardware that is now holding them back, and there is shareholder pressure for the next big hit. They have increasingly little to lose by transitioning, and potentially much to gain. Therefore, Nintendo have to jump next year. MS and Sony don't.

It's all about money, innit.

Yep, its all about the money. But these companies have to have a long term outlook and neither MS nor Sony can be confident that the next gen will produce comparable or better results of this gen off late starts.

The PS3 isn't the PS2 so the PS4 won't benefit from having a dominant predcessor. If the 360 and the Wii can pull Sony from a 70% marketshare to less than 30%, there is no telling how much MS and Nintendo can strip from Sony in the next generation.

While the 360 of late has given the type of performance MS has been wanting from its console endeavor, there is no guarantee that MS can afford to launch later than Nintendo and simultaneously with the PS4 and still have comparable or better sales than the current generation. Nevermind last out the gate. Whats the point of driving an extra billion or two in 360 platform sales if MS ends with a Xbox720/Loop with losses similar to Xbox1 because they rest on their laurels and accepted a late launch.

Its not a good ideal to kill the potential of future generations in an attempt wring out every last drop of profit from the current gen. Neither, MS nor Sony are going to be first out the gate. Its easy to dismiss the Wii-U 2012 launch as something that won't bother Sony or MS in the long run. But the same could of been said of the 360 early launch and people were pretty dismissive of Nintendo's chances last gen.

Furthermore, your assertion that only companies in bad positions do early launches or maintain short generation cycles is false. The Sega Genesis launched into markets just 3 years after Sega launched the Master System into those markets. The Sega Genesis ended up being Sega best selling system while the Master System wasn't discontinued for another 3 years in the US and another 6 in Europe and sold into Brazil until 1998.

If MS launches in late 2013 it will be the longest time (8 years) between console (of note) launches ever, if I am not mistaken. Nintendo waited 7 years between the NES and SNES launches in Japan but for the US and EU that period was shorter.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Throwing a bunch of early launching non successful consoles into the mix doesn't change the fact that launching early can be an important advantage.

I never said it's not an advantage, but the facts show launching first doesn't equate in itself to success. Hence the pursuit of being first isn't in itself an important one.

Of all the early launching consoles that failed to garner any real support, please name one that you can logically conclude would have done better launching a year or two later.

Every single one of them if they used that time to design and build better systems.

Imagine if the Dreamcast had launched along with the PS2 or the Xbox and GC. Do you honestly think it would have encoached its current LTD under those scenarios?

Except a DC designed to be launched later would have been a better system and more competitive...

And as we saw with PS3, just because you wait a year, doesn't mean the hardware will see ANY significant advantage.

Bad example. PS3 was delayed due to BluRay. Sony gambled on a tech's availability. They also expected 60nm to be available at launch. If XB360 had launched a year later, MS could have produced the components cheaper and put in extra RAM say for the same launch price, or launched much cheaper (although launching cheaper would probably backfire and give an impression of cheapness and inferiority). XB360 with 1GB RAM would have nailed PS3 in a way Joe Gamer would notice. They would have also been able to design a better cooling solution.

Now launching against a competitor with a stronger brand, one has to do something to negate that advantage. xb360 launching early (along with other factors) proved to be enough to bring about marketshare parity with a competitor that absolutely dominated the two prior generations.

Yep. I've already said as much.

I've never once indicated that ALL Microsoft has to do is launch early and they "win".

No, but every time a contrary argument is raised, you go back to first-launch advantage.

But it is an integral part of their strategy.

Why does it have to be? That's what you haven't answered. What will launching a year ahead of Sony actually get MS? There rest of us are saying there are several options open to MS. You are saying they have to launch first. Although I accept launching first can bring advatanges, they can be offset by spending more time, so I don't see this requirement to launch first that you do. It's just an option, for a company juggling several different products and services that they need to also invest in.

You know, I can present this a different way. Launching 2012 gets MS an advantage, right? So the answer to this poll from every logical person should be 'yes' - there's no reason not to do the thing that gets the advantage. So we all accept we need a 2012 launch, and the poll vindicates that. Now, what about RAM? Create a poll "should the next XBox launch with 4 or 8 GBs?" 8 GBs would give them an advantage, so logically everyone should say 'yes'. Another poll - "should MS console be cheaper than PS4?" Definitely, as that'll give a sales advantage, so we vote 'yes' on the one too. "Should MS launch with a more powerful GPU?" 'Yes'. And you'll find that the answer in isolation to every advantage-giving option is 'yes', but clearly that's not possible! So instead of taking one aspect in isolation and trying to make an argument for it, instead look at the big picture and choose where MS should prioritise:

Launch a year earlier
With improved Kinect as standard
With unified online platform across all devices
More power
More RAM
SSD instead of HDD
Cooler and quieter
Portable
Cheaper

Where does your early launch fit in with all the other options (plus whatever more people can add) and why? What sort of dollar-figure advantage could one attribute to launching early and how is that better economy than investing elsewhere?

 

[TheChefO]

Where does your early launch fit in with all the other options (plus whatever more people can add) and why? What sort of dollar-figure advantage could one attribute to launching early and how is that better economy than investing elsewhere?

I suppose it all boils down to this.

If you believe that 2013 will net a notable hardware advantage over 2012, you would obviously want to wait one year.

I don't foresee 2013 to have this advantage available to either Sony or MS.

I believe 2012 will have the same process nodes available as 2013 (28nm shipping early 2012).

Thus, there is no significant reason to wait.

Will the software look better if devs have another year?

Absolutely.

In comparison to what though?

I expect both Sony and MS started nextgen software dev at the same time. Thus, in 2013 when software starts to really take advantage and Sony ships ps4 with said advantageous software, the same advantageous software will be showing up on xb720.

Difference?

10million units sold and mind-share.



Granted, if launching in 2012 means that MS has RRoD v2.0, then it is a mistake.

If it means they don't utilize the latest process node for manufacturing and roughly match ps4 "power" then it's a mistake.

If it means that the machine (for whatever reason) will forever be more expensive than ps4, then it's a mistake.

I don't foresee any one of those as a necessary sacrifice for launching in 2012 though.

Will yields be as good on 28nm in 2012 as they will be in 2013? Absolutely not. But there are methods to counter this as I've illustrated.


Bottom line, I don't see any technology that is right around the corner in 2013 that would drastically change the game that isn't available in 2012.

That's why it would not be a mistake.


Some others have brought up the notion that existing xb360 sales will be hurt by launching xb720.

This is likely true to some extent (though xb360 sales will likely dwarf xb720 sales for the first year). But every xb720 customer is one that is less likely to be a ps4 customer ...

And every xb720 customer has a chance to be a xb1480 customer ... and so on.


Long term, 2012 is not a mistake.