MS's "rush to next-gen could see the Xbox take a tumble

[Pepto-Bismol]

Okay, but how would going in at the same time or after Sony make the situation any better? I don't think it would, hence my statement.

The console industry is not a very competitive place; it is a monopolistic one. A company or group has exclusive control over a commercial activity.*

By launching a preemptive strike, all Microsoft will be doing is strapping Sony into the driver's seat. As an outsider to the monopoly, they do not have enough influence to affect change.

Launching alongside or after Sony, Microsoft can try to steal some of their thunder, confuse their demographic and, quite possibly, mirror their strategy for success.


* Hence, the reason why PlayStation is the most prolific brand, despite being the least durable (and the most expensive) units on the market.

 

[Jov]

The console industry is not a very competitive place; it is a monopolistic one. A company or group has exclusive control over a commercial activity.*

By launching a preemptive strike, all Microsoft will be doing is strapping Sony into the driver's seat. As an outsider to the monopoly, they do not have enough influence to affect change.

Launching alongside or after Sony, Microsoft can try to steal some of their thunder, confuse their demographic and, quite possibly, mirror their strategy for success.


* Hence, the reason why PlayStation is the most prolific brand, despite being the least durable (and the most expensive) units on the market.

I tend to agree with most of the above. Launching first is like putting yourseld on the Sony chopping board.

Before the PS2 was launched Sony spent a lot of resources securing 3rd party support even though devs were probably already targetting the PS2 for their future titles.

For MS to get this level of support they will require to put in a lot more resources now (if the launch is less than 18 months). That or give aways 5+ mil consoles before the PS3 is out to have the install base for devs to target the NeXtBox as primary.

 

[function]

Okay, but how would going in at the same time or after Sony make the situation any better? I don't think it would, hence my statement.

The console industry is not a very competitive place; it is a monopolistic one. A company or group has exclusive control over a commercial activity.*

By launching a preemptive strike, all Microsoft will be doing is strapping Sony into the driver's seat. As an outsider to the monopoly, they do not have enough influence to affect change.

Launching alongside or after Sony, Microsoft can try to steal some of their thunder, confuse their demographic and, quite possibly, mirror their strategy for success.


* Hence, the reason why PlayStation is the most prolific brand, despite being the least durable (and the most expensive) units on the market.

Okay, I get where you're coming from now, but I still don't see that Microsoft would stand as good a chance of being successful this way ...

Launching along side Sony, Microsoft would need to convince a significant proportion of the development community to go in and support the Xbox 2 on the back of nothing but the Xbox 1's relative failure. Consumer confusion and spoiler tactics won't count for much if the PS3 has the lions share of development and much better multiplatform games (with it almost certain to be the lead platform). With no technological advantage, I don't see how MS could dig themselves out of that situation.

Microsoft would have to hope to get lucky with a killer app in the early days, as I don't see how they could mirror any stratagy Sony used without the games to make their console attractive.

By launching a preemptive strike, all Microsoft will be doing is strapping Sony into the driver's seat. As an outsider to the monopoly, they do not have enough influence to affect change.

Sony are automatically in the drivers seat next generation, untill someone does something to take the power away from them (IMO). Once they become settled into that seat (awful abuse of analogy coming up) and start driving off it will become increasingly difficult for someone to rip the door open and drag them out!

With the NES, Nintendo had greater control over the market than Sony do now, but Sega was able to move in and smash the monopoly wide open. They did this by meeting a growing demand for a next generation product (that Nintendo wasn't ready to provide) that delivered killer apps (like Sonic and Madden) before the SNES was able to settle in and dominate (or before it was even released, over here in Europe). Could Xenon manage something similar?

 

[Magnum PI]

IMHO sony's position in console bizness is not to be compared with a monopoly (like MS position in computing).

at present there is no monopoly in console: you really have a choice, each console has a good library.. it is just that sony has won the gamers mindshare.

and nintendo didn't have any sort of monopoly, it's juste that there were no opponents. when the NES came, the market was in a very poor situation, mainly due to the other players.

and later the opponents like sega came, and they were able to coexist with nintendo. even the playstation came and sony grabbed most of the market. but nintendo still make console, and money.. and even there is a new player.

sony will still be the leader for the near future but things can change.
that said, i do not believe MS will succeed by lauching first.

 

[Jov]

With the NES, Nintendo had greater control over the market than Sony do now, but Sega was able to move in and smash the monopoly wide open. They did this by meeting a growing demand for a next generation product (that Nintendo wasn't ready to provide) that delivered killer apps (like Sonic and Madden) before the SNES was able to settle in and dominate (or before it was even released, over here in Europe). Could Xenon manage something similar?

Three points:
1 - That gen the industry was much smaller
2 - Games was dev much quicker and less expensive.
3 - Nintendo stumbled

Reflecting these points for today:
1 - Is up there with Music industry, we talking a lot of $$$, hence greater risk and limited support of platforms.
2 - Relates to 1, more difficult, longer and expense to produce Killer App (personally, don't favour this happening from MS).
3 - Is PS3 launching in late 2006 be a stumble (ala Nintendo with SNES)? It would be, as many will want next-gen console and content, but if Sony (and its 3rd party) can still wow gamers with PS2 content, then no.

 

[London Geezer]

How am i contraddicting myself? The 2 sentences don't contraddict each other.

Well you did tell the guy, in a very matter of fact way, that the gap will be at least 1 year wether he likes it or not. Then you said its all just speculation anyway, which does seem to be just a little bit contradictory

Not really. It is a fact that the gap will be at least 8-12 months. Anything more is all speculation at this point...

 

[Jov]

Not really. It is a fact that the gap will be at least 8-12 months. Anything more is all speculation at this point...

fact == speculation?? But you're trying to qualify your message.

 

[London Geezer]

Not really. It is a fact that the gap will be at least 8-12 months. Anything more is all speculation at this point...

fact == speculation?? But you're trying to qualify your message.

Ermmmmm.... Maybe i should draw a picture.

FACT: Xbox will launch in 2005 and PS3 in 2006. Hence, it is a FACT that the gap is at least 8 months.

SPECULATION: Sony will wait till they have a decent product and will delay PS3 until 2007. Hence, it is SPECUALTION that the gap could be a lot more than 8 months.

 

[Jov]

Ermmmmm.... Maybe i should draw a picture.

FACT: Xbox will launch in 2005 and PS3 in 2006. Hence, it is a FACT that the gap is at least 8 months.

SPECULATION: Sony will wait till they have a decent product and will delay PS3 until 2007. Hence, it is SPECUALTION that the gap could be a lot more than 8 months.

How is it fact that Sony will release at least 8 months later, What happens if MS is late and release in 2006 as well? Fact is concrete reality, no buts or bending (unlike truth, but lets not go there ), thus given NeXtBox is not out yet, hence has not happened, the word "fact" does not apply.

But relax... we get your point.

 

[London Geezer]

"If something goes wrong" is speculation in itself. "If" is speculation in itself. So that makes it all foggy don't you think...

I'm merely going by what MS, Sony and many people around have said. MS intend to launch first, and possibly a long-ish time ahead of Sony. Sony said they will get PS3 when it's ready. The gap WILL be big. It's "specualtion" in that ther is no official confirmation, but if MS are convinced they will release early and if Sony aren't rushing, who needs a confirmation...

 

[wazoo]

It seems Nintendo is a much better shape by releasing N5 in 2006 if MS launch in 2005. If sony launch in 2006, Ms could be considered as a DC, and N5 and PS3 as the real next gen. If Sony launch in 2007, consumers could decide to get into Xbox2/N5 and not wait for ps3 (then ps3 would like N64, the most awaited console successor of the highly succesful market leader that was too late). In both scenarios, Nintendo could be among the winners.

speculation.

 

[Jov]

Back on topic... Can anyone so kindly list some expected NeXtBox titles that might help MS not stumble (Killer Apps)?? And please no Halo 3 as we know PS3 *should* be out by then if its going to be an AAA title.

 

[GwymWeepa]

It seems Nintendo is a much better shape by releasing N5 in 2006 if MS launch in 2005. If sony launch in 2006, Ms could be considered as a DC, and N5 and PS3 as the real next gen. If Sony launch in 2007, consumers could decide to get into Xbox2/N5 and not wait for ps3 (then ps3 would like N64, the most awaited console successor of the highly succesful market leader that was too late). In both scenarios, Nintendo could be among the winners.

speculation.

The only way Nintendo is in a good spot by releasing in '06 is if Sony comes out in '07, otherwise if Sony launches in '06, they are between a rock and a hardplace (with one major competitor getting the advantage of having months to a year by themselves to get a decent install base, and another competitor who had crushed the competition in the last gen), and I would be surprised if they survive the generation intact.

 

[Jov]

The only way Nintendo is in a good spot by releasing in '06 is if Sony comes out in '07, otherwise if Sony launches in '06, they are between a rock and a hardplace (with one major competitor getting the advantage of having months to a year by themselves to get a decent install base, and another competitor who had crushed the competition in the last gen), and I would be surprised if they survive the generation intact.

Not unless Nintendo up the ante and pump out some (lots) new and innovative contents. It might even match the PS3 if Nintendo execute it right, but they (stress) need 3rd party support. Same boat as MS, but slightly better due to 1st party games.

 

[GwymWeepa]

The only way Nintendo is in a good spot by releasing in '06 is if Sony comes out in '07, otherwise if Sony launches in '06, they are between a rock and a hardplace (with one major competitor getting the advantage of having months to a year by themselves to get a decent install base, and another competitor who had crushed the competition in the last gen), and I would be surprised if they survive the generation intact.

Not unless Nintendo up the ante and pump out some (lots) new and innovative contents. It might even match the PS3 if Nintendo execute it right, but they (stress) need 3rd party support. Same boat as MS, but slightly better due to 1st party games.

Nintendo would have to make up way too much mindshare to have any chance of matching Sony unless Sony made some massive blunder. All my casual gamer friends pretty much see Nintendo as a kids only system, they have to work against that just to make up mindshare, let alone gain enough to outpace a ps3, there's just no way.

 

[London Geezer]

. All my casual gamer friends pretty much see Nintendo as a kids only system, they have to work against that just to make up mindshare, let alone gain enough to outpace a ps3, there's just no way.

*runs before the flames hit him*

 

[GwymWeepa]

. All my casual gamer friends pretty much see Nintendo as a kids only system, they have to work against that just to make up mindshare, let alone gain enough to outpace a ps3, there's just no way.

*runs before the flames hit him*

Hey, I love Nintendo, really do, there's nothing I'd like to see more than for them to have a huge success with the revolution, but they'll have to be working against one major competitor coming out early and stealing up potential buyers and then the monster that is Sony, how the flipping heck are they going to even match one of its competitors? I just hope whatever gimmick they are working on that they feel justifies code-naming the machine revolution isn't something horrible and that they flood us with excellent next-gen content (of all the licenses in the world I want to see with new shiny graphics, its Metroid)

 

[Jov]

Nintendo would have to make up way too much mindshare to have any chance of matching Sony unless Sony made some massive blunder. All my casual gamer friends pretty much see Nintendo as a kids only system, they have to work against that just to make up mindshare, let alone gain enough to outpace a ps3, there's just no way.

General consumers have very short memory (in relative terms). I wonder how many that disliked MS as a company ended up with the Xbox (i am 2 - given 2x Xboxes, made back $200 )?? Same applies to Nintendo, a few killer apps aimed at the mature audience and that kiddy view/mindshare will dissipate.

Most ppl agreed its the content which put the PS2 where it is today (hype factor or not), thus its will be the content (better console, potentially better content) which will determine the top possie next-gen.

 

[London Geezer]

. All my casual gamer friends pretty much see Nintendo as a kids only system, they have to work against that just to make up mindshare, let alone gain enough to outpace a ps3, there's just no way.

*runs before the flames hit him*

Hey, I love Nintendo, really do, there's nothing I'd like to see more than for them to have a huge success with the revolution, but they'll have to be working against one major competitor coming out early and stealing up potential buyers and then the monster that is Sony, how the flipping heck are they going to even match one of its competitors? I just hope whatever gimmick they are working on that they feel justifies code-naming the machine revolution isn't something horrible and that they flood us with excellent next-gen content (of all the licenses in the world I want to see with new shiny graphics, its Metroid)

Oh i trust you that you weren't trolling, but you used the forbidden words. "Nintendo" and the "k" word in the same sentence. I'm worried about what other members will retaliate with...

*runs*

 

[thop]

Woohoo we didn't have the Nintendo kiddy debate in a while

Anyway, i'm pretty sure Nintendo themselves see their main focus on kids. Fair enough i must say, i was a little boy as well when i first played Mario, Zelda etc. and so were most here i assume. Not to think if Nintendo had focused on the 18-34 year old casual gamers back then I think it was pretty clear from their E3 conference that they don't plan to abandon kids.