Next-gen launch strategising *Spawn
- Thread starter Liandry
- Start date
, it's not to say I'm in firm belief of my own opinion on the matter.
Random thought... In an upper management meeting, when told that the competition didn't make the same choices your team did, the correct reaction is always "We did consider this, we're confident they chose wrong." If you didn't you'll be fired anyway, might as well keep your job another year or so, then cash in your golden parachute.
I fee like this is the last thought on Don Mattrick's mind right before the Bone launches.
what dividend? I just don't see a secondary Elite version of the console with 50% more raw power at launch (even ignoring the fact I don't really consider that technologically possible) will result in much more sales. What it certainly would do is drastically increase the cost of their R&D, game production and testing, manufacturing, logistics, marketing. Those dividend better be HUGE to offset all that risk.
I think the reason we saw upgrades this generation is due to the adoption if 4k television. I'm skeptical we'll see anything next generation especially at launch.
I believe in long term it would pay off, you lose some in the launch period by building up your user base, attract positive publicity and gaining all that market share. Once you taken control of the market at every segment (both base and premium) you then worry about the rest. Imagine letting your competition taken control of the PR narrative, sure you might not lose as much in the R&D and all that logistics costs at launch but you lose the steering wheel and may hurt you more in the long run.
"Most powerful console ever" is only one option for PR. Your rival having that option doesn't mean you are completely without PR.
I agree with this. And there's the lack of correlation between most console power and most console sales over the years as well.
However, for a segment of the console buying public this is a strong selling point and that segment is probably one that, per individual, spends a lot of money on games.
Also, there's the auxiliary marketing benefit of multi-platform publishers wanting to show off the best version of their game (save cases where there are co-marketing deals) and showing assets from their game running on the more powerful SKU bringing with it the implication that that is the best place to play that game.
So, if it can be pulled off without having to make too many sacrifices in other areas, it's worth chasing.
If not the last thought, it was certainly a thought that was had at some point. They made a choice to make a product targeting a market that, it turns out, didn't exist instead of one primarily focused on appealing to the traditional console market. They knew Sony was taking a different approach, but they believed their plan was the best one for them. So, the issue wasn't that they didn't react to what Sony was doing, it's that they didn't already come up with a plan similar to Sony to begin with.
Are they worth hundreds of millions though?
Most powerful is also open to interpretation, depending on the use case one console will be more powerful and weaker in others. XB1 was probably most powerful in terms of particle effects due to the architecture for example.
Over the course of a generation? Sure. Especially if they buy digital.
I am pretty sure that if we do a statistical analysis that takes into consideration performance at time of release in relation to competition and price, with everything else equal, it will actually show strong correlation.
PS1 was observed as the most powerful console ever when it was released at a super good price. Released simultaneously with the Sega Saturn which was more expensive and lacked in performance
PS2 was the most advanced console ever when released at a super good price. It was building hype about its capabilities prior to that and people were nuts to experience the REAL next gen graphics. Competition came a year later. The Dreamcast which was released earlier was considered outdated (despite each console having overlapping strengths). before the PS2 was released due to it's super hype. Sony released footage and specs around when the DC launched. People werent expecting anything less.
PS4 was the most powerful console when released at a great price. Released simultaneously with a more expensive less capable competitor. The XBOX One dropped the camera, reached pricing parity but it was outperformed.
Sega Mega Drive was the most powerful console when released at a great price. SNES was more capable but came later. PC Engine failed to impress as it was an advanced 8bit console.
NES was revolutionary in capabilities after the video game crash and console released that barely demonstrated improved performance over the previous offerings.
The Wii and Switch are special cases as they are not like for like competitors. The Wii U failed because it was essentially a delayed PS3/360 with barely any special differentiating features.
Consoles like the PS and XBOX unless they come with some superb new and unique feature, customers give a lot of attention to performance. At the time of release it should be observed as the most powerful for it's value to reach critical mass. Considering that PS and XBOX see less third party exclusives they are much more like for like and performance becomes an even stronger factor.
the biggest take away from this gen about power is that PS4 launched $100 cheaper and had more power. Don't expect that to happen next generation. Power will/should be priced properly. As long as the products are in their correct price point relative to other boxes, it should be okay.
Sigfried1977
Legend
I think the fact that Sega started to burn bridges when the Genesis got a bit long in the tooth (Mega CD was a PoS from a consumer's PoV and so was the 32X) probably played a more prominent role in their failure than the "power of the Playstation". The odd design of the Saturn (which was also more expensive than the Playstation iirc) hardware didn't help either and by the time the DC became a reality it was simply too late for them. I think what really made the PSone the juggerdaut it would later become was a radically different approach to marketing which massively widened their audience. Sony made gaming mainstream and cool because it had Wipeout and Tekken instead of a cuddly platforming maskot. The company rode that wave of success all the way through the PS2 generation up until the last bit of consumer goodwill had been spent thanks to the many PS3 blunders. Thanks to a lot of muscle, determination and cash they've managed to regain consumer trust during the very same hardware generation that almost doomed them, though. Then MS basically shat the bed by pulling a PS3 with the Xbox One and the PS4 was free to barrell out of the gate from day1.
I believe the PC engine was never more than an afterthought in Western territories anyways. Never came out in Europe at least.
Similar threads
