japanase videogame market sales is not equal to 1/3rd of the worlwide sales though (it's roughly 1/5th irrc)
If Microsoft fails this time around nobody will dare to enter the console market...
- Thread starter Cheezdoodles
- Start date
- Status
Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't really agree that if MS would fail no one would dare to enter the console market however.
IMO the cost of entry is too large for home consoles these days for anyone else to get in without a key partnership (e.g. EA, Ubi, SE, etc with a hardware maker). The cost to enter has raised every generation and requires fighting 2 or 3 well entrenched companies with too much experience, mindshare, and publisher contacts. But what sort of company could get into the market? Software or Hardware companies?
Hardware companies... like Samsung? Look at Sony when they entered the market. They already had a publishing presence as well as a hand in home media. Samsung is not as strong as Sony in regards to home CE brand and completely lack the gaming connections Sony had. Sony also was going up against Sega's horrible market planning and Nintendo burning bridges and taking a more closed approach (Dream Team, carts). Intel? Is Intel willing to lose money on hardware to make money on software? And where will either of these two get enough software?
Software companies... MS is the biggest software company in the world and they have had all sorts of pains getting into the market. Since profits come from game software it narrows the task down mainly to publishers. EA is huge, but do they have the quality to drive a platform? Or the compelling exclusive franchises? Maybe Madden... and? EA as a closed platform would violate their history in many, many ways and would have to be a last resort. Maybe a conglomeration of companies like EA, Namco, Konami, Capcom, SE, Ubisoft, Activision, TH*Q, etc could be a model that could provide enough unique and compelling content to make serious inroads and be competitive while keeping the companies profitable. None could do it alone because as publishers they live and die based on game sales and being exclusive to a small platform could kill them. Also, none of them have 40B like MS or the resources of a Sony.
How about Apple? They do hardware and software, but I don't see them entering the home console market in that they are incapable of getting quality games on their own platform, so what makes one think they could design a compelling console to compete with MS, Sony, and Nintendo and provide enough compelling content to not only drive sales but also to get them out of the red quickly?
The only real chances IMO of getting into the console market would be to NOT compete with Sony/MS/Nintendo with a niche device that garners good 3rd party support and use that as a springboard or to first enter the handheld space with a product that is super compelling (features and price) and has a slew of software support or goes the route of the iPod-for-gaming with a niche focus that branches out slowly to complete more head to head.
But overall the cost of entry alone, plus the resources to make a viable product, seem to be outside the realm of any company on the market, although a union of publishers could solve some problems.
That said, having MS (software), Sony (CE), Nintendo (old timer) in the market gives a fairly good representation of consumers and market conditions and offers real choice. This time around all 3 consoles are quite different in many ways.
So the question is: What would a 4th console maker offer to the market these 3 do not or cannot?
Hardware companies... like Samsung? Look at Sony when they entered the market. They already had a publishing presence as well as a hand in home media. Samsung is not as strong as Sony in regards to home CE brand and completely lack the gaming connections Sony had. Sony also was going up against Sega's horrible market planning and Nintendo burning bridges and taking a more closed approach (Dream Team, carts). Intel? Is Intel willing to lose money on hardware to make money on software? And where will either of these two get enough software?
Software companies... MS is the biggest software company in the world and they have had all sorts of pains getting into the market. Since profits come from game software it narrows the task down mainly to publishers. EA is huge, but do they have the quality to drive a platform? Or the compelling exclusive franchises? Maybe Madden... and? EA as a closed platform would violate their history in many, many ways and would have to be a last resort. Maybe a conglomeration of companies like EA, Namco, Konami, Capcom, SE, Ubisoft, Activision, TH*Q, etc could be a model that could provide enough unique and compelling content to make serious inroads and be competitive while keeping the companies profitable. None could do it alone because as publishers they live and die based on game sales and being exclusive to a small platform could kill them. Also, none of them have 40B like MS or the resources of a Sony.
How about Apple? They do hardware and software, but I don't see them entering the home console market in that they are incapable of getting quality games on their own platform, so what makes one think they could design a compelling console to compete with MS, Sony, and Nintendo and provide enough compelling content to not only drive sales but also to get them out of the red quickly?
The only real chances IMO of getting into the console market would be to NOT compete with Sony/MS/Nintendo with a niche device that garners good 3rd party support and use that as a springboard or to first enter the handheld space with a product that is super compelling (features and price) and has a slew of software support or goes the route of the iPod-for-gaming with a niche focus that branches out slowly to complete more head to head.
But overall the cost of entry alone, plus the resources to make a viable product, seem to be outside the realm of any company on the market, although a union of publishers could solve some problems.
That said, having MS (software), Sony (CE), Nintendo (old timer) in the market gives a fairly good representation of consumers and market conditions and offers real choice. This time around all 3 consoles are quite different in many ways.
So the question is: What would a 4th console maker offer to the market these 3 do not or cannot?
MS has made quite a few mistakes. Production in 2005/early 2006, faulty units, poor warranty, over priced perephrials, delays (Oblivion, GRAW), more delays (Forza Motorsport 2, Mass Effect, Too Human, Halo 3 if you believed Gates), delays in updates (Live fall update was too late for games to take advantage of many new Live features like standard clan support and so forth; ditto API resolutions and basic things like draw call overhead, tiling support, etc), significant slow spots in the release schedule (late Spring through Summer), lack of 2005 launch killer app, very little 1st party 2006 variety (GOW, Viva, and...), platform still too expensive for many casuals at this point, while a good launch a lot of titles either had technical issues or were rushed upgrades or poor ports, their controller lacks any new key gaming functionality to be in a compelling discussion with SixAxis and Wiimote, MS was too short sighted to run the 1080p update sooner, dev beta kits were really really late, and so on and so forth.
Of course they have done a lot right as well. I think looking back the big wins will be being out early (and all those sideeffects) with a competitive product and the ability to get software to the market faster as well as making inroads on titles like GTA.
I really do hope Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony stay around. All offer a great gaming experience and they keep each other in check. Microsoft has really helped the industry grow leaps and bounds. They forced Sony to take online gaming serious with Xbox Live. They have set the standard for having great solid software behind all that hardware. There development tools are supposedly very powerful and smooth to use at the same time. They did this because they were competing against two giants like Sony and Nintendo. Sony decided to step things up as well with the PS3. In the short term things aren't looking amazing for Sony like many of us were hoping due to the hype, but in the long term this competition is really going to produce a healthier gaming industry for all of us. It benefits Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo fans alike.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
MS has already won. Most people don't realize it yet. 
I think you could have said this at almost any time. "If the Colecovision fails, no one will dare compete with Atari and Mattel." "If the TurboGrafx 16 fails, no one will dare compete with Sega and Nintendo." "If the Saturn fails, no one will dare compete with Nintendo and Sony."
So how did the competitors enter and survive? Nintendo, Sega, and Sony didn't work any amazing now-unavailable or out-of-price magic to enter the console arena and succeed (Microsoft is still unproven, sorry). What happened was that the major player(s) from the previous generation made a huge misstep and utterly failed to understand how the video game market is changing.
If Microsoft succeeds, it won't be because of the particular greatness of Unified Shaders, Halo, or even Live. It will be because Sony and/or Nintendo screwed up in a major way.
The time needs to be right. There has to be some fundamental problem with what the current big players are doing for people to gravitate toward your new system. If the big players at the end of this gen are preparing to release crap no one wants next gen, then if Samsung or NEC have ideas that will fly, they'll be the ones that succeed.
So how did the competitors enter and survive? Nintendo, Sega, and Sony didn't work any amazing now-unavailable or out-of-price magic to enter the console arena and succeed (Microsoft is still unproven, sorry). What happened was that the major player(s) from the previous generation made a huge misstep and utterly failed to understand how the video game market is changing.
If Microsoft succeeds, it won't be because of the particular greatness of Unified Shaders, Halo, or even Live. It will be because Sony and/or Nintendo screwed up in a major way.
The time needs to be right. There has to be some fundamental problem with what the current big players are doing for people to gravitate toward your new system. If the big players at the end of this gen are preparing to release crap no one wants next gen, then if Samsung or NEC have ideas that will fly, they'll be the ones that succeed.
Fortunately, for Nintendo, Sony and MS, fundamental problems happen all the time.
Actually this is different. Very different. None of the companies you mentioned has virtually unlimited founds. MS has. They bought a 60 billion worth of gold as a cash reserve found for christ sake. If you cant win with such huge resources, then it changes everything. Unless you know exactly where MS did wrong.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Thought MS won already. TheInq had a story that said the PS3 would be Sony's last console ... so I guess that's why I say MS has already won.
US
US
Microsoft is far from winning this gen, as they mostly sell the 360 to former xbox1 owners - something like an upgrade. They have sold quite a few for the first year, but there is no market share gain actually.
In order for MS to win market share, they have to convince the 90+ mil PS2 owners (that never touched an xbox1) to upgrade to a 360 instead of a PS3, over the the next 4 years.
I think it's going to be very difficult, given the fact that most PS2 owners were actually upgraders from PS1. I really dont see the route PS1 -> PS2 -> 360 as very realistical expectation.
In order for MS to win market share, they have to convince the 90+ mil PS2 owners (that never touched an xbox1) to upgrade to a 360 instead of a PS3, over the the next 4 years.
I think it's going to be very difficult, given the fact that most PS2 owners were actually upgraders from PS1. I really dont see the route PS1 -> PS2 -> 360 as very realistical expectation.
sorry but the first thing that has to happen is convince the 70 million or so from your scenario who bought the PS2 at $199 or less to spend $400- $600 on ANY game console.
and guess which company is going to get down to $199 first.
(not including Wii)
sorry but the first thing that has to happen is convince the 70 million or so from your scenario who bought the PS2 at $199 or less to spend $400- $600 on ANY game console.
and guess which company is going to get down to $199 first.
(not including Wii)
I really wouldn't like us to go to the "price comparison" and "price for feature" route... Why do you think the 360 will get down at 199$ very soon and the PS3 will remain 600$ for the next 4-5 years?
I assume when 360 will be 199$ the PS3 will be 299$.
I'm not trying to flame a "console war". I was just pointing to "what MS has to do in order to gain market share" - ie to switch former PS1->PS2 owners to the 360 side. Price alone will never make that switch.
i never said that
oh and do the math
$299 core
$499 PS3 base
price reduction $100
$199 Core
$399 PS3 base
Sony being able to drop $200 for each of MS's $100 is not likely based on what we know about how each company is postured in the manufacturing of the systems.
the 70 million people who only buy at $199 won't compare feature for feature if the overall experience is what they want (Next Gen games, online etc). All they care about after that is the price.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, as I said, I am not going to argue about prices. It's not the price that's going to sell 100 mil consoles for MS.
Last generation MS had the same price for a better featured and more powerfull console. At the same price, those 90-100 mil PS1 users chosed to upgrade to PS2 (they still do, as PS2 is still selling quite well for a 6 year old machine). Only few switched to xbox1. I have the feeling that this trend will continue with PS2->PS3.
In sales, there is this reasoning - "features - advantges - benefits". Salespeople seldom talk about prices, because the price itself doesnt sell any product. It's also usually usless to talk about features and advantages - what you have to insist upon is the "benefit" for the customer that result from those features and advantages.
MS doesnt seem to be able to really point towards the "benefits" of switching from PS2 to 360 insead of PS3 (that was valid also for PS1->xbox insead of PS2). If one thinks 100-200 USD is a "benefit" - I'm sure he's wrong.
As for another player on this market - I really think it will be very hard. This generation is anyway too late. In 2010-2012 maybe, but this presumed player would have to bring something new to the game, something that Sony, MS or Nintendo doesnt have nor plan to have.
I cannot think of anything right now, but ...
If you dont see the difference between launching a brand new console with no brand name thats priced the same as something like Playstation, and now, when they allready got a semi established brand name AND the main competitor is priced at 50% more, i dont know how to respond to that.
You know when people bought all thouse PS2? It wasnt when it was priced at $400. The majority bought it at prices close to $200. The price may very well be why the X360 will win this time around, because its going to take a long time before the playstation may be sold at a price that most casuals can justify.
- Status
Similar threads
