Merrill Lynch's Next-Gen console prediction

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony has only one way to go, and that's down. What needs to be monitored on their side is how far down they go.

Well they could go up. If they manage to turn PS3 into the next mobile-phone phenomenum somehow so everyone wants one, there's like 10x as many people out there to sell to as theyve already sold to. eg. I've thought of a couple of uses for PSP that greatly extend it's potentia in general use ways (of which I wil be submitting to Sony in their Yaroze thingum )
Let's say they get an advanced make-up simulator going a la Toshiba's demo, and that attracts all the girlies. And then a super networked genealogy system to attract everyone digging up their roots (which seems to be ever increasingly popular). If Sony aren't content to limit themselves to games there's actually plenty of scope to reach new audiences and expand their customer base, so I don't think down is the only option (even though I think elsewhere I've said myself this is the case... )

 

[London Geezer]

Well they could go up. If they manage to turn PS3 into the next mobile-phone phenomenum somehow so everyone wants one, there's like 10x as many people out there to sell to as theyve already sold to. eg. I've thought of a couple of uses for PSP that greatly extend it's potentia in general use ways (of which I wil be submitting to Sony in their Yaroze thingum )
Let's say they get an advanced make-up simulator going a la Toshiba's demo, and that attracts all the girlies. And then a super networked genealogy system to attract everyone digging up their roots (which seems to be ever increasingly popular). If Sony aren't content to limit themselves to games there's actually plenty of scope to reach new audiences and expand their customer base, so I don't think down is the only option (even though I think elsewhere I've said myself this is the case... )

I did say "they COULD go up" but unless they do something very right, it's very unlikely.
Many things could happen. Both MS and Sony could go up for example, if the market expands, which could very well happen seen how so many things are now included in these machines, to attract even more people who aren't usually drawn to videogames...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes. Just saying that there's plenty of scope for up as well as down and maybe it isn't overwhelmingly proably they'll go down just yet? I expect they'll lose market share, but I'd maybe only weight my expectations 60:20:20 down/stay/up. Actually, no. Revised figures are 58.3:19.6:22.1. Carefully considered based on really indepth market research. Honest guv'.

 

[Phil]

aye hopefully they start to slide down .

Just look at the pc 3d card add in . Its just boring as hell with 2 players and really we don't make out in the end as consumers because instead of the high end lowering in price its raising . 3 and a half years ago the high end with the 9700pro was 400$ , now with the x1800xt its 600$ . Thats a 200$ increase .

I really want both ms and nintendo to take alot of market share away from sony so we can have 3 semi equal players in the market all making money and lasting a long time . something like ms 30% , sony 50% and nitnendo 20% wouldn't be bad .

But the way it is now with sony having what 90% is not good news for us

Huh, what has the console industry got to with the GPU market that is driven by two key players? Despite the fact that Sony has dominated the two last generations, I still see them investing in cutting-edge hardware. Why is their 90% marketshare a problem? It's not as if Software could have been better... or do you disagree?

 

[jvd]

Huh, what has the console industry got to with the GPU market that is driven by two key players? Despite the fact that Sony has dominated the two last generations, I still see them investing in cutting-edge hardware. Why is their 90% marketshare a problem? It's not as if Software could have been better... or do you disagree?

software and hardware can be better and cheaper .

There is only one reason why we are seeing a ps3 in 2006 and that is microsoft. If microsoft wasn't in the console business sony would still be sitting on the ps2 . Its still selling well for them and at a 150$ price point

The closer the market shares the sooner we would see prices of the hardware drop too. If ms and sony are neck and neck this gen we will see the 100$ price point from the market leader much sooner than we did last gen (which is almost 6 years and hasn't been seen)

 

[London Geezer]

There is only one reason why we are seeing a ps3 in 2006 and that is microsoft. If microsoft wasn't in the console business sony would still be sitting on the ps2 .

How would you know?? These arguments based on "if xxx did "this", "that" would have happened to yyy" are so out of the blue, unprovable and subjective, it's hardly worth discussing them.

Sony were selling PS1's like crazy, more than DC, and still came out with PS2. They could have sat on PS1 for another year or so without bothering, but they didn't. And it certainly wasn't because they saw MS coming, not entirely anyway.

If MS weren't here with X360, someone else would. Thinking a company would just sit and slow technology just for their personal interest (much like MS did many times with their PC business) is quite a bold statement isn't it...

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

How would you know?? These arguments based on "if xxx did "this", "that" would have happened to yyy" are so out of the blue, unprovable and subjective, it's hardly worth discussing them.

Sony were selling PS1's like crazy, more than DC, and still came out with PS2. They could have sat on PS1 for another year or so without bothering, but they didn't. And it certainly wasn't because they saw MS coming, not entirely anyway.

If MS weren't here with X360, someone else would. Thinking a company would just sit and slow technology just for their personal interest (much like MS did many times with their PC business) is quite a bold statement isn't it...

Actually he/she may be right. without competition from other companies, why would a company be in a hurry to make a new product when they can milk the current one for all it is worth?

 

[jvd]

The dreamcast wasn't the factor that pushed the ps2 onto the market as it came out over a year later , it was the gamecube and ms that did that .


This time around its ms pushing it We can see from last gen when nintendo was selling decently that sony was droping the playstation price down faster . That is why it hit 100$ earlier in its life than the ps2 (which once again still hasn't hit it )

As for another company being there if ms wasn't there i think your underestimating the amount of money it would take to enter into the console busniess. Just take a look at ms . They spent tons of money to get in , frankly i don't think anyone else can get in and live with a small userbase .

I think the 3 players we have now are the 3 players we are stuck with , if either exits we'd be done to 2 .

 

[London Geezer]

Actually he/she may be right. without competition from other companies, why would a company be in a hurry to make a new product when they can milk the current one for all it is worth?

That's the point!!

He MAY or MAY NOT be right. No one will ever know because competition IS there and things happened in a certain way already!!

What's the point of basing a serious argument on what could have happened if reality worked differently? No one can prove him wrong, and he can't prove he's right.

What if MS hadn't entered the market?

What if Sony hadn't entered the market?

What if Nintendo went bankrupt before the NES and never released it?

We're not in a "What if speculation" thread.

 

[Phil]

software and hardware can be better and cheaper .

That's your opinion - yet, I still have to ask again - what has Sony got to do, with the software quality of various 3rd party studios? It's not as if Sony or any hardware vendor can dictate the quality of the game in perspective of what the individual jvd may like or not. In short: Nothing. Software quality is dictated by the competition from other software on the market and consumer demands. Sony or any other vendor only has an indirect control of software qualtiy - and that is in relation to errors/bugs and other criteria.

There is only one reason why we are seeing a ps3 in 2006 and that is microsoft. If microsoft wasn't in the console business sony would still be sitting on the ps2 . Its still selling well for them and at a 150$ price point

Of course - and how is this a bad thing? Personally, I would have rather waited until 2007 for the new consoles and enjoyed this generation a little while longer. What you fail to see is that publishers too would rather have longer console cycles: Software costs decrease as libraries and assets are available and at the same time means they can push out software faster and concentrate more on gameplay rather than game-engines etc. Each new console cycle means high costs for each and everyone. This generation still hasn't maxed out any of the consoles yet - there's still potential there. Potential that is ultimately lost because Microsoft is forcing an early shift onto newer hardware. Hey, it's your money on the console too that is wasted on the lost potential.

The closer the market shares the sooner we would see prices of the hardware drop too. If ms and sony are neck and neck this gen we will see the 100$ price point from the market leader much sooner than we did last gen (which is almost 6 years and hasn't been seen)

Each hardware vendor is here to make money. If they are already taking higher risks to bring out more sophisticated hardware for the same price and need to drop the price quicker at the same time, it'll make them loose money (since consoles are sold at a loss, at least initially). What good to the market is a hardware vendor that can't make money in order to invest again into newer and better hardware? It's simple economics - companies are here to make money, money that they can invest again in newer and better products that will in turn make them money and so the cycle continues. If you force vendors to cut prices too early, at some point, they can't afford to bring out hardware at a loss anymore - and thus hardware will become either more expensive or weaker relative to what could be possible. What you are suggesting isn't really helping your software-quality theory in the least bit.

 

[jvd]

That's the point!!

He MAY or MAY NOT be right. No one will ever know because competition IS there and things happened in a certain way already!!

What's the point of basing a serious argument on what could have happened if reality worked differently? No one can prove him wrong, and he can't prove he's right.

What if MS hadn't entered the market?

What if Sony hadn't entered the market?

What if Nintendo went bankrupt before the NES and never released it?

We're not in a "What if speculation" thread.

Its very simple .

The ps2 had very little competition compared to the psone. Thus we see the ps2 in its 5th year at the 150$ price range instead of the 100$ price range. We already see sony keeping the price of the hardware higher longer with less competition .

 

[jvd]

That's your opinion - yet, I still have to ask again - what has Sony got to do, with the software quality of various 3rd party studios? It's not as if Sony or any hardware vendor can dictate the quality of the game in perspective of what the individual jvd may like or not. In short: Nothing. Software quality is dictated by the competition from other software on the market and consumer demands. Sony or any other vendor only has an indirect control of software qualtiy - and that is in relation to errors/bugs and other criteria.

Sony approves each game that is put on thier system , they have everything to do with the quality of the software on the playsation. If a game is substandard they can stop it from coming out .

Of course - and how is this a bad thing? Personally, I would have rather waited until 2007 for the new consoles and enjoyed this generation a little while longer. What you fail to see is that publishers too would rather have longer console cycles: Software costs decrease as libraries and assets are available and at the same time means they can push out software faster and concentrate more on gameplay rather than game-engines etc. Each new console cycle means high costs for each and everyone. This generation still hasn't maxed out any of the consoles yet - there's still potential there. Potential that is ultimately lost because Microsoft is forcing an early shift onto newer hardware. Hey, it's your money on the console too that is wasted on the lost potential.

I disagree .

Its a bad thing all around for consumers if the cycles were pushed out or sony had less competiton (or any market leader for that matter )

I'm sorry but i was tired of xbox graphics 2 years ago , its time it was replaced and the ps2 should have been replaced along time ago. Letting sony go into 7 or 8 year long generations just hurts us .

Not to mention with no competition sony wouldn't have to push the power of the systems or take the losses they are taking on the hardware which is once again bad for us .

As for developers proper managment and reusing engines in a generation would be a smart way to lower the cost of production budgets .

Movies can be made in a wide spectrum of investment . You have 500k movies and you have 200 million movies. I see no reason why you can't have a spectrum as wide and still retain good quality games .

Not only that but once again with more systems on the market aimed at diffrent price brackets and feature sets a dev can port the game to more platforms and recoup the money .

Each hardware vendor is here to make money. If they are already taking higher risks to bring out more sophisticated hardware for the same price and need to drop the price quicker at the same time, it'll make them loose money (since consoles are sold at a loss, at least initially). What good to the market is a hardware vendor that can't make money in order to invest again into newer and better hardware? It's simple economics - companies are here to make money, money that they can invest again in newer and better products that will in turn make them money and so the cycle continues. If you force vendors to cut prices too early, at some point, they can't afford to bring out hardware at a loss anymore - and thus hardware will become either more expensive or weaker relative to what could be possible. What you are suggesting isn't really helping your software-quality theory in the least bi

companys can still make money . Yes they will loose money in a price war but of course you hit mass market apeal much quicker in the life of the unit at the same time . Of course when you hae hardware makers that rather sell u a swiss army knife of electronics instead of a gaming system it may hurt thier wallet alot , but that is thier choice .

I personaly want lower hardware costs as it means i can own more systems sooner and i'm not tied down to one system . Each company evolves gaming in some shape of form. If nintendo wasn't around and it was just sony chances are we wouldn't see the analog stick or we wouldn't see the new rev controler . These are all things born out of competition .

Competition is what makes advancements happen .

I'm sure with sony they would still put out a new system when they had a new format they wanted to shove at us (and the same goes with ms ) but it would be on thier time schedual and with them most likely breaking even or making money on the console . Thus we might see a console 7 or 8 years after the last one with tech that was cutting edge 5 years after the last console . Not only that but we would see inovation go out the window . We'd also see the price of hardware drop slower than it is now . I'd be surprised if the xbox didn't exist if sony would have hit the 200$ mark at this point . This is something i don' want .

What i do want is

More inovation , More powerfull hardware at a cheaper price quicker

because thats what happens when there is healthy competition . With out it the market stagnets

 

[Phil]

Sony approves each game that is put on thier system , they have everything to do with the quality of the software on the playsation. If a game is substandard they can stop it from coming out .

Well, then I'll just end this silly argument here and now: Since the tie-in ratios from each console vendor are on the good side, I suspect consumers don't see software quality as a problem as you do. Neither do I. Games that I don't like, are not bought. Thus the market dictates what they want, like and what they don't.

The problem you're refering to has been existent thoughout all industries: there are good products and there are worse ones. Buy the ones you like and quit whining.

I disagree .

Its a bad thing all around for consumers if the cycles were pushed out or sony had less competiton (or any market leader for that matter )

I'm sorry but i was tired of xbox graphics 2 years ago , its time it was replaced and the ps2 should have been replaced along time ago. Letting sony go into 7 or 8 year long generations just hurts us .

Again, that is your opinion. Besides, I thought we were talking about software quality - now you're talking about graphics? If you're such a graphics whore, go and buy a PC. I think we've established that the market (which you are arguing for) demands innovative and intuitive gameplay as graphics as well. The current consoles aren't maxed out and have a lot to improve on. Even if the game-engines are reaching a phase in which they can't be really improved on, there's still a lot left you can achieve with better art-direction and better gameplay / new ideas. This has been no different from the last few generations: the best software has always launched late within the consoles cycle - then when developers have more time to deal with what enhanced the gameplay experience since graphics have already hit the hardware's limit.

Not to mention with no competition sony wouldn't have to push the power of the systems or take the losses they are taking on the hardware which is once again bad for us .

Of course they would, or else you have a company like Microsoft or Nintendo start a new console and grab the share as Sony once did when Nintendo was on top. Besides, what are we arguing now? About a non-existance monopoly or that, that Sony has a stake around 75% in the industry as it is now? These are two different things, one of which is from within your fantasies and not existant in the current industry.

As for developers proper managment and reusing engines in a generation would be a smart way to lower the cost of production budgets .

They can only do that once engines are available and the money and time budget is there. This is usually towards the end of the console's cycle since plenty of art assets can be reused and code recycled in order to enhance the gameplay experience for the player. As I said, since Microsoft is forcing an early shift into the new generation, Sony is following suit and thus shortening the cycle and ultimately the potential that this generation still has left.

Not only that but once again with more systems on the market aimed at diffrent price brackets and feature sets a dev can port the game to more platforms and recoup the money .

Porting isn't cheap, especially when the hardware of each vendor is quite different. I'd rather have one console and all the games maximized for the platforms strength than a watered down multi platform planned game that is aimed to be ported evenly among all consoles. I thought further up you were critizing the game quality and graphics? Now you even want to have them all port games and do multi platform games and make the quality and graphics even worse because they have to make all games portable?

Seems to me you don't quite know what you want to argue. In anycase, it's not making any sense, neither from an economical point of view nor for the consumer.

companys can still make money . Yes they will loose money in a price war but of course you hit mass market apeal much quicker in the life of the unit at the same time . Of course when you hae hardware makers that rather sell u a swiss army knife of electronics instead of a gaming system it may hurt thier wallet alot , but that is thier choice .

I personaly want lower hardware costs as it means i can own more systems sooner and i'm not tied down to one system . Each company evolves gaming in some shape of form. If nintendo wasn't around and it was just sony chances are we wouldn't see the analog stick or we wouldn't see the new rev controler . These are all things born out of competition .

Wait a minute: Further up you're arguing that software isn't good enough and that you are already tired of graphics... so now, you want console vendors to take less risks by making their hardware cheaper (and thus inherently cheaper and less cutting-edge)... which in turn favours the consumer how? I thought you wanted better graphics? Or do you want shortened life-cycles too (which is a direct result of weaker less sophisticated hardware)? Yep.. lets shorten the console-life-cycle to 2 years so JVD can enjoy buying 3 equal consoles for less money but every 2 years! Even better, imagine all software developers that now have to take losses on 1st generation hardware (new libraries, new assets, the whole lot) but also jump onto next generation development already right after they launch their first game!

I'm sure with sony they would still put out a new system when they had a new format they wanted to shove at us (and the same goes with ms ) but it would be on thier time schedual and with them most likely breaking even or making money on the console . Thus we might see a console 7 or 8 years after the last one with tech that was cutting edge 5 years after the last console . Not only that but we would see inovation go out the window . We'd also see the price of hardware drop slower than it is now . I'd be surprised if the xbox didn't exist if sony would have hit the 200$ mark at this point . This is something i don' want .

As soon as consumer demand goes back, prices drop. This has been in every industry. Or have you ever sat there and wondered why Microsofts OS software prices come down in prices as well? They might be still too high, but they too have reduced their prices of their software as consumer demand scales back.

What i do want is

More inovation , More powerfull hardware at a cheaper price quicker

because thats what happens when there is healthy competition . With out it the market stagnets

And as I've already told you further above, you can't simply ask for more for less as somewhere, the money has to come from and end in profits so that vendor x can invest again into newer console cycles. What you are suggesting would merely break the industry as we know it today.