PS2 Reaches 80 Million Mark

[London Geezer]

With a console monopoly, you lose incentive for hardware to advance and for the manufacturer to invest in developers. The only way a single system monopoly can continue to provide cutting edge content is if there is internal competition driving the system development, as there is with the PC, which then neuters one of console developments greatest strengths - the set target platform. You can also forget about the pricedrops that have made the current three systems such a steal right now.

A single console would still have to fight with other enterainment, the moment the console gets old and boring the customer will turn to other kinds of entertainment. And the PC would be a much stronger competition if Microsoft backed it 100%

Yeah i always have had the little thought in my head that MS should have gone crazy on their PC side of things, and not bothered with the Xbox. If they could make the PC a stable and more-interesting entertainment medium, it would mean a lot. I mean, there are already far more PCs than consoles out there.
But it seems they are heading into the direction of unifying their Xbox side and their PC side (not in the next gen, but i see it happening) so i guess that's the same thing.
A monopoly is never good. Although sometimes it is "easier" for consumers to have one single platform. The problem is that once you have a monopoly, the company having the monopoly has no incentive to actually bother providing a good product, unless "they're good people" which, needless to say, is rare. Also, the monopolistic company can adjust prices at their own will and exploit their position to make high profits by keeping the prices high.
Nintendo used to have a near monopoly in the old days, and we have all seen the results of that back then, we all know what the MS situation is now in the PC world, a monopoly is never good.

 

[Fodder]

A single console would still have to fight with other enterainment, the moment the console gets old and boring the customer will turn to other kinds of entertainment.

Sure, but the competition is so much more apparent when you have two consoles side by side and one is running a better looking, more fun game. The PS2 is still going strong and could easily have a few more years life in it if it weren't for XBox2.

 

[rabidrabbit]

I don't think the situation in PC world is that bad at all.
Just look at it, the PC is quite affordable, the Windows operating system is also affordable for most.
microsoft products, even though they can be called a monopoly in home PC's have actually come down in prices in few years, at least I have that feeling (I have no real dat ato back it up).
The PC games are cheapr than console games, even if they share the same production.
The Windows comes bundled with a lot of free software that increase it's value for customers. And most of that software also works well enough to do the job for average user.

Now look at Apple, who is not a "monopoly" in PC world.
Their products are much more expensive, while adding realtively little value compared to Windows PC's. You can't play Half Life 2 on a Mac, they don't even give you a second mouse button to use!

What is there really that the Microsoft "monopoly" has done customers bad?
Limiting the choice? Do we need choices?? We have to make enough choices in personal lives, relationships, work... why should I stress my head with choices in technology... choices than often appear to have little value over the spoon-fed options.
The "free choice" might have given you the illusion that you are unchained, a free mind... but in reality you've just digged yourself a hole from which you'll spend time trying to climb out, while if you'd settled with the spoon-fed option you'd saved that time to do something to yourself.

 

[London Geezer]

A single console would still have to fight with other enterainment, the moment the console gets old and boring the customer will turn to other kinds of entertainment.

Sure, but the competition is so much more apparent when you have two consoles side by side and one is running a better looking, more fun game. The PS2 is still going strong and could easily have a few more years life in it if it weren't for XBox2.

Do you actually believe that the PS2's life would have been longer if it were the only one in the market?
I'm not saying i disagree, in the end a monopolistic situation could have that effect, but i think if PS2 weren't as interesting a product (thanks to its software library), people would have gotten bored with it and left it, monopoly or not.
This is just a theoretical discussions that doens't make much sense. In the end, if Sony were a monopoly, how guarantees us that all the good games on PS2 would have been as good as they actually are? In the end, no one is competing with anyone so why bother?
Why bother making a smaller and prettier and cooler PStwo?
Why bother spending so much damn money on PS3 development, if they can just keep the PS2 afloat for 10 years without worrying about people taking market share.

The truth is, the whole videogame market needed (and still needs) to grow, and complaceancy bothers the consumers. If things were kept interesting, also thanks to competition in the market, people wouldn't bother.

Or, another way to view it is that in a market with only one console, the only competition would be between the software houses. All the game producers would do their best to make the best game, which is possible. It is also possible that the same game developers, at least the top 5, were able to push the Monopolistic hardware company to release new hardware every so often, just to keep things pretty with time. Would it be 5 years? No one knows. Look at the Gameboy, how long did it survive without a successor (i'm ignoring the competition the Gameboy had, cause they're pathetic).

This post proves that "What if" discissions could just generate as many theories as one wants.

 

[London Geezer]

What is there really that the Microsoft "monopoly" has done customers bad?

The crap-fest that is Windows? And the total inability, or lack of incentive, to make it marginally better, less buggy. Also their little "tricks" that temporarily prevented other companies to release decent software for Windows.
Windows DID get better, but still, it could be much better. I'm in no position to bitch about it, since at the end of the day, i coulnd't do it, but i believe that if MS felt threatened by some other huge company in the OS business, they would rush to make Windows a better experience. It just takes a lot of effort, but they ARE one of the richest companies in the world afterall, if they can't do it, who can?

 

[Fodder]

I'm not saying i disagree, in the end a monopolistic situation could have that effect, but i think if PS2 weren't as interesting a product (thanks to its software library), people would have gotten bored with it and left it, monopoly or not.

That's what I mean. The PS2 is interesting, purely because of software at the moment, and could easily continue to be interesting in the future, if it weren't for the looming next-gen competition.

 

[London Geezer]

(I feel very logical and argumentative, i apologise in advance)


So basically, if PS2 had the same exact library of games it does now, but was in a monopoly, do you believe people would be more interested in it, just because the Xbox and GC didn't exist?
Or do you think that today, people who are interested in it, just went out and bought it, whether 2 competitors are around?
And do you think that PS2's life has been shortened by the 2 competitors?

Personally, if anything is shortening PS2's life, it's PS3, or possibly the Xbox2. Cause GC and Xbox were two little flies hovering around going "Hey we're here too!!!" this time around. They might sting here and there, but really...

 

[rabidrabbit]

What is there really that the Microsoft "monopoly" has done customers bad?

The crap-fest that is Windows? And the total inability, or lack of incentive, to make it marginally better, less buggy. Also their little "tricks" that temporarily prevented other companies to release decent software for Windows.
Windows DID get better, but still, it could be much better. I'm in no position to bitch about it, since at the end of the day, i coulnd't do it, but i believe that if MS felt threatened by some other huge company in the OS business, they would rush to make Windows a better experience. It just takes a lot of effort, but they ARE one of the richest companies in the world afterall, if they can't do it, who can?

I work with a PC that has Windows in it, I've had very little problems with it (don't know about the it dept though ).
I have a PC with Windows at home, most problems I've had with it have been because of some obscure, non Microsoft software or some shareware or Half Life 2 and Steam.
I do not count the problems I've had while assembling my PC and installing Windows, or updating the components, as that is not a normal customer procedure with home electronics (when was the last time you bought a diy HiFi set?)

Under normal(ized) conditions, used by average (clueless of tech) customer, I would not call Windows a "crapfest"

 

[Fodder]

So basically, if PS2 had the same exact library of games it does now, but was in a monopoly, do you believe people would be more interested in it,

No, I believe they would continue to be interested in it for the next 2+ years.

Personally, if anything is shortening PS2's life, it's PS3, or possibly the Xbox2.

That's what I've been saying.

In a complete monopoly Sony would have very little incentive to release the PS3 this/next year, they could keep on milking the PS2 for quite a while.

 

[London Geezer]

Under normal(ized) conditions, used by average (clueless of tech) customer, I would not call Windows a "crapfest"

Well that's good. Doesn't make MS's position any more angelic.
The huge law suites and pay-outs MS went through stem from something, obviously, and what they did, they did it because they're in a monopoly. Thank god we have independent courts, mostly.

 

[rabidrabbit]

(I feel very logical and argumentative, i apologise in advance)


So basically, if PS2 had the same exact library of games it does now, but was in a monopoly, do you believe people would be more interested in it, just because the Xbox and GC didn't exist?
Or do you think that today, people who are interested in it, just went out and bought it, whether 2 competitors are around?
And do you think that PS2's life has been shortened by the 2 competitors?

Personally, if anything is shortening PS2's life, it's PS3, or possibly the Xbox2. Cause GC and Xbox were two little flies hovering around going "Hey we're here too!!!" this time around. They might sting here and there, but really...

I take that as a poll for all (though I think you meant it for Fodder)

1. if PS2 had the same exact library of games it does now, but was in a monopoly, do you believe people would be more interested in it, just because the Xbox and GC didn't exist?

YES. Those that are now singularily interested in either xbox or GC, would then instead be interested in PS2 as they would have no other choice.

2. do you think that today, people who are interested in it, just went out and bought it, whether 2 competitors are around?

YES... or NO :? .... I really don't understand what you are asking here.

3. do you think that PS2's life has been shortened by the 2 competitors?

YES. Not by much, but maybe some months. Even if the PS3 would launch same time as with or without competitors, competitors next gen consoles do lessen interest in the then old PS2, thus shortening it's life alongside PS3.... as you seem to have already said in your last sentence.

 

[London Geezer]

Sure, but the competition is so much more apparent when you have two consoles side by side and one is running a better looking, more fun game. The PS2 is still going strong and could easily have a few more years life in it if it weren't for XBox2.

That's what I've been trying to say.

Yeah you did... Maybe i should stop speed-reading through posts. I read Xbox up there.

In a complete monopoly Sony would have very little incentive to release the PS3 this/next year, they could keep on milking the PS2 for quite a while.

As i said, that's one theory. Another theory is that the software giants would have enough power to force Sony to release new hardware. Maybe not every 5 years, but who said it wouldn't be a shorter time anyway, we're in a "what if" universe, remember?

 

[rabidrabbit]

In a complete monopoly Sony would have very little incentive to release the PS3 this/next year, they could keep on milking the PS2 for quite a while.

I don't view that as necessarily bad thing. Then the PS2 would have lived it's aec of life to the full.
Consumer demand would take care that a new console would need to be released eventually, and I don't think it would be much later than with competitors present.

 

[Acert93]

With a console monopoly, you lose incentive for hardware to advance and for the manufacturer to invest in developers. The only way a single system monopoly can continue to provide cutting edge content is if there is internal competition driving the system development, as there is with the PC, which then neuters one of console developments greatest strengths - the set target platform. You can also forget about the pricedrops that have made the current three systems such a steal right now.

A single console would still have to fight with other enterainment, the moment the console gets old and boring the customer will turn to other kinds of entertainment. And the PC would be a much stronger competition if Microsoft backed it 100%

I would disagree on both accounts. Games, movies, TV, and so forth are all entertainment, but different forms of it. When I get tired of a specific game/system--but I want to play a game--I do not go watch a movie. For me they are totally different forms of entertainment and for different times. And thus we have the term "gamers". These people want to play games, not watch movies.

As for the PC, it will never be as big as consoles for a few reasons. First is cost. A $100-$300 console compared to a $1000+ gaming machine--no competition. Then throw in the fact many times, especially early in a consoles life cycle, they look BETTER than a $1000+ gaming machine. Dedicated hardware, and dedicated input devices, are huge pluses for consoles.

And finally, because of the above issues, consoles have a much larger install base. This means more games and more support. This install base means a much wider field of games is released--stuff from pre-K all the way to "mature" and hardcore sims. Most parents would not feel comfortable with their 3 year old on their gaming PC, but how about a $100 GCN?

Personally I think the competition is great for consumers (as long as it is not artificial). Remembering back, there were a lot of developers who HATED the fact Nintendo was dominant back in the day. Remember all the hoopla over the blood in MK? While it may be a pain not having all your favorite games on one console, but that would still happen with a PC vs. Console world. And I think over time, not now but maybe in 5 years and most assuredly in 10, that the boundaries between what a console is and a PC is will blur. Consoles/TVs will become powerful enough to do many of the basic tasks (email, browsing, word processing for homework, movies, music, etc...) we attribute to the PC will be able to be done easily on a $300 device instead of a $1000 computer. And the $300 device will play games just as well, if not better in most cases.

 

[Qroach]

I don't view that as necessarily bad thing. Then the PS2 would have lived it's aec of life to the full.
Consumer demand would take care that a new console would need to be released eventually, and I don't think it would be much later than with competitors present.

I'd veiw that as a bad thing. Mainly because sony has refused to accept new ps2 developers unless you already have a publisher. That's makes it next to impossible for a new self funded start up to enter the market, even if they have the most veteran dev team in the world.

At this stage in the console life cycle:

1. A publisher won't want you unless you are a PS2 approved developer.
2. Sony won't give you PS2 approval unless you have a publisher.

It's a catch 22.[/quote]

 

[cthellis42]

Not really. Call me a <bleep>, but I´m fine with Sony being such a dominant player. Of course, competition will be there and should never dissapear. Still, God knows I´d be better off with a single console that offered almost all of the games I´m interested in, rather than investing in three consoles with equal userbase where I would have less options in each one of them.

Funny thing is, I think if we ever got close to equal competition from all players, things would get much less interesting. 3rd parties wouldn't play off the companies for exclusivity reasons (as it would be less profitable than selling to the other 2/3'rds of the market as well) and would probably--in fact--pressure S/N/M to make their systems closer to each other so they would have an easier time developing games across them.

That is, of course, if 3rd parties remain strong enough to do so. It would put such a heavy emphasis on 1st party offerings at that point, that I imagine each would be spending acquisition capital to whittle away at the 3rd party market and bring anything worthwhile into their fold.

..and then the expenditures will just keep mounting...and the one with the biggest bankroll will eventually spend the others into oblivious...and then that player WILL become the monopoly we fear unless another bankroll steps in or the government interferes/breaks them up...and then...!

Offhand, I think it'd be rather weird. I'd be much happier of PC's got hit with "equal parts" first, as that's where we could most take advantage of better competition and open standards and let each of the players stand on their merits. Since consoles really just represent gaming (for now), it would just have the tendency of pursuing said gaming a lot more expensive.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Competition is good. Ideally the market would split 50/50 between MS/Sony (the two companies pushing technology) with Nintendo as a strong third party.

80M in 16 months less time than PS is very impressive.

So last generation the hardware was roughly 100 PS + 33 N64 + 10 Saturn = 143 million units.

This generation the hardware is 80 PS + 18 Xbox + 17 GCN + 10 DC = 125 million units.

I'm going to assume that the unit base will grow by about 20% = 172 million units at the end of this console cycle.

This leaves 47 million units left to ship.

With current sales trends PS2/Xbox/GCN are selling in a 50/30/20 split right now. So this would be another 24/14/9 million units of the various consoles.

That would put the final numbers something like this:

PS2 - 104 million
Xbox - 32 million
Cube - 26 million

That's provided that MS is willing to drop the Xbox price to $99 at some point and continue software support, which isn't a certainty. If that doesn't happen I would think we would see something more like:

PS2 - 111 million
Xbox - 25 million
Cube - 26 million

Just a fun thought experiment. Don't go all ape-shit on me.

 

[Megadrive1988]

lets assume 50M more consoles can be sold between PS2-GCN-Xbox. thats about 175M consoles.

the nextgen could easily see a base of 200M+ consoles even assuming just 3 consoles make it out, unlike this generation which saw 4.

assuming that the market is still growing. on the other hand, nextgen consoles might stall because alot of people are satisfied with their PS2s.

 

[Kolgar]

Hehehe. There may be a lot of people satisfied with their PS2s, but I don't think that'll last long once they get wind of the next-gen systems.

Or were you being sarcastic?

In any case, I see no reason why next-gen gaming won't continue to expand the market and grow beyond this one in size and popularity.

Games are cool, and it's time everyone realized it. 8)

 

[London Geezer]

Hehehe. There may be a lot of people satisfied with their PS2s, but I don't think that'll last long once they get wind of the next-gen systems.

Or were you being sarcastic?

In any case, I see no reason why next-gen gaming won't continue to expand the market and grow beyond this one in size and popularity.

Games are cool, and it's time everyone realized it. 8)

Obviously PS2 games will look like PS1 games today, when compared to next gen consoles, but remember that Sony know what they're doing, and are releasing some huge bombs right when they need them the most. GT4, FF12, RE4-PS2 and some others.